The Epistle of Jude and 1 Enoch

[Leslie]

The Epistle of Saint Jude gives the following mention of a prophecy that the patriarch Enoch gave in ages long past concerning the return of the Lord. Here it is for your view.

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." - The Epistle of Jude 14-15.

Now this is a very interesting passage because it does not occure in the Book of Genesis where the story of Enoch is found, rather it seems to be a direct quotation from an apocryphal book known as 1 Enoch. Here is the supposed passage from that tome for your consideration.

"And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." - 1 Enoch 1:9


Now, the thing is this, why would the Holy Spirit move Jude to quote a passage from an apocryphal book such as 1 Enoch?

[Trinity]

Hello Leslie,

Now, the thing is this, why would the Holy Spirit move Jude to quote a passage from an apocryphal book such as 1 Enoch?

There is around 30 extra books quoted in the bible. The book of Enoch is only one of the thirty. Why? The concept of Sola scriptura was an invention of Martin Luther. And not something endorsed by the authors of the bible.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Hello Leslie,



There is around 30 extra books quoted in the bible. The book of Enoch is only one of the thirty. Why? The concept of Sola scriptura was an invention of Martin Luther. And not something endorsed by the authors of the bible.

Trinity

So do you believe the Book of Enoch should become part of the canon because Jude quotes it? And if not, why? And please don't say "Because the Catholic Church says so" because that's such a lame answer :P

By the way, would you happen to know which 30 extra books are these and where they are quoted? I'de love to look into it myself.

[Trinity]

So do you believe the Book of Enoch should become part of the canon because Jude quotes it? And if not, why? And please don't say "Because the Catholic Church says so" because that's such a lame answer :P

I cannot say otherwise because that is a historical fact. Unless you want me to tell a lie for comforting you.

By the way, would you happen to know which 30 extra books are these and where they are quoted? I'de love to look into it myself.

No problem. Here is some and there is some more.

Book of Jasher
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes
1 Samuel 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.

Book of Samuel the Seer
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

Nathan the Prophet
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

The Book of the Acts of Solomon
1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

Shemaiah the Prophet
2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

Prophecy of Abijah
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Story of Prophet Iddo
2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.

Visions of Iddo the Seer
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Iddo Genealogies
2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

Book of Jehu
2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.

Sayings of the Seers
2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.

Book of the Covenant
Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text.

Book of the Wars of the Lord
Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,
Certain sources believe that this is to be found by drawing text from several Old Testament books. There are no authoritative sources for this text.

Book of Gad the Seer
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

Acts of Uziah
2 Chronicles 26:22 Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write.

The Annals of King David
1 Chronicles 27:24 Joab son of Zeruiah began to count the men but did not finish. Wrath came on Israel on account of this numbering, and the number was not entered in the book of the annals of King David.

Chronicles of King Ahasuerus
Esther 2:23 And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king.
Esther 6:1 On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king.

Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia
Esther 10:2 And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

Trinity

[Leslie]

I didn't want you to lie, I just wanted you to give me a real reason instead of Sola Ecclesia. I mean the Catholic Church includes books like Tobit and Judith which the New Testament do not quote at all, and yet it does quote Enoch but it's not in there. So why are Tobit and Judith in but not Enoch? Is it because they are in the Septuagint?

[Trinity]

Hi Leslie,

I didn't want you to lie, I just wanted you to give me a real reason instead of Sola Ecclesia. I mean the Catholic Church includes books like Tobit and Judith which the New Testament do not quote at all, and yet it does quote Enoch but it's not in there. So why are Tobit and Judith in but not Enoch? Is it because they are in the Septuagint?

I was just sarcastic. I do not want to lie to you or anybody.

There is books in the Old Testament that are not quoted in the New Testament. This is not a criteria to establish a canonical book. And the Septuagint version was the authoritative version of the Old Testament employed by the authors of the New Testament. In brief, the authors of the New Testament had rejected the Hebraic version for their works. 97% of the quotations in the New Testament had come from the Septuagint version.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have also contained around thirteen sets of the Deuterocanonical books. This is the books you call the apocryphal books. However, this is not the good ***le for this collection of books.

Trinity

[Leslie]

So why don't you consider I Esdras, Prayer of Manasses, and Pslam 151 as Cannonical, because they were in the Septuagint too?

[Columcille]

Now, the thing is this, why would the Holy Spirit move Jude to quote a passage from an apocryphal book such as 1 Enoch?

Personally, I think it is a frame of reference. Many Christians nowdays might quote CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity." It is not scripture, but in the reading it does portray points of interest. Perhaps in the literary circles of whom Jude is addressing are familiar with the assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch. What seems to get confusing is how we reference or place books in certain groups.


Apocrypha (OED):
[neut. pl. (sc. scripta) of late L. adj. apocryphus, a. Gr. 2p¾jqtuo| hidden, hence, of unknown authorship, spurious, f. 2pojqÊps-eim to hide away. Formerly used (in pl. apocrypha, sing. apocryphum) as adj. As n., still properly treated as a plural, with singular of Gr. form apocryphon; but in common usage apocrypha is sing. with pl. apocryphas. In this sense apocryphy was also formerly in use. Cf. prec.]
†A. adj. Of unknown authorship; not authentic, spurious; uncanonical (see B); false. Obs.

B. n.

1. A writing or statement of doubtful authorship or authenticity; spec. those books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, which were not originally written in Hebrew and not counted genuine by the Jews, and which, at the Reformation, were excluded from the Sacred Canon by the Protestant party, as having no well-grounded claim to inspired authorship.

b. attrib.

2. [As in Gr.] Hidden things; secrets. rare.

Pseudograph (OED):
[ad. late L. pseudograph-us (Cassiod.), a. Gr. wetdocq0u-o| drawing or writing falsely, a writer of falsehoods: see pseudo- and -graph.]
†1. ‘A counterfeit writer’ (Cockeram, 1623). Obs. rare—0.

2. A spurious writing; a literary work purporting to be by another than the real author. (Cf. pseudepigrapha.)
1828–32 Webster, Pseudograph, Pseudography, false writing. 1864 Athenæum 27 Aug. 274/3 The+cleverest+people are+deceived by pseudographs. 1866 Reader 31 Mar. 317/2 A pseudograph of the thirteenth century. 1905 J. Orr Probl. O.T. viii. 249 Views differ as to how the book is to be regarded—whether as a pseudograph (forgery) or as a free composition in the name and spirit of Moses.


I like the 1905 quote. Personally, I think there are many books not inspired back in the days of Jesus, but must we call all of them apocryphal if they have any religious overtones? If a majority of Christians knew of CS Lewis's book "Mere Christianity", say as a contemporary writing in the days of the writing of Scripture, must it be considered apocryphal? When we talk of a New Testament apocryha, we are pointed to epistles by St. Ignatius, St. Clement, and other works. But are they really apocryphal? I do not think they were hidden, and most are considered authentic writings by these individuals. I think there is a misapplication of how the term "apocrypha" has been applied when it was first used to what what we think now. Apparently, Jerome used the term simply because he did not have a Hebrew text to translate with, and so he considered them inferior. But he translated them, and as such not on his own authority, since the Church recognized these books as Scripture. Jerome is no Bishop, but is most well known by his scholarly translation of the Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate. His personal area of expertise does not place him in the position to determine for the whole Catholic/Orthodox Churches what is or is not Scripture. Although, he may have helped the Catholic Church recognize the book of Hebrews at the council of Rome per the request of Pope Damasus. But I digress.

[Leslie]

No, my point was why would Jude under the inspiration of the Spirit quote a Book that was not writen by Enoch as if Enoch did indeed say those things and those things were true.

Did Jude really believe that Enoch said those things? Or should I say, did the Holy Spirit attest that Enoch DID say those things, or at least that part of that work.

I don't think Jude would have used it in the way that he did unless Enoch truly did say those things and it were true.

[Trinity]

So why don't you consider I Esdras, Prayer of Manasses, and Pslam 151 as Cannonical, because they were in the Septuagint too?

Yes you are correct. Those writings are canonical only for the Eastern church (Orthodox church) but not for the Catholics, the protestants and the Jews.

The canon is a collection of books regrouped by human beings and not by God himself. According to some criteria the canon is fixed by the authority of the ecclesiastics.

Canon (def.): the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired. Any officially recognized set of sacred books. Greek 'kanon' measuring rod, rule, akin to kánna cane. A canon is fixed by ecclesiastic councils.

Jews had rejected the New Testament and the Deuterocanonical books. Catholics had rejected the three small writings mentioned above. And protestants (Luther) had rejected the Deuterocanonical books. The Orthodox church added the three small writings mentioned above, but like easterners, they have not rejected the Deuterocanonical books.

Jews did not even have a fixed canon during Jesus life. They started their discussions about a possible canon in the year 98 (first century). The Jewish canon was fixed in the fourth century.

I see no problem for you to accept the protestant canon. However keep in mind that this canon was fixed on the authority of a sole man (Luther) and it was the latest canon in the history of the Christendom (in the Middle Ages).

Trinity

[Trinity]

No, my point was why would Jude under the inspiration of the Spirit quote a Book that was not writen by Enoch as if Enoch did indeed say those things and those things were true.

Because the book was a popular book and have contained traditions that was accepted as truth by many. Two days ago I quoted Gandhi in this Forum for enlightening my proposition.

Did Jude really believe that Enoch said those things?

Yes.

Or should I say, did the Holy Spirit attest that Enoch DID say those things, or at least that part of that work.

No.

I don't think Jude would have used it in the way that he did unless Enoch truly did say those things and it were true.

The author of Jude did not know that his tiny letter would become a small part of a book called the bible. That was the Church who gave this letter an authority and a great value. The author of Jude never saw his letter as inspired. This letter was written for other considerations.

Trinity

[Leslie]

So you're saying then, that that prophecy was not infact given by Enoch, so is it a lie then?

Oh, and Jerome didn't accept the deuterocannonicals as inspired either, though he thought them good for edification. So Luther wasn't the first person to reject them.

[Trinity]

So you're saying then, that that prophecy was not infact given by Enoch, so is it a lie then?

I prefer to say that Enoch is probably not the real author. In the time of Jesus, 97% of the people did not know how to write. They were illiterates. The 3% who were literate were nobles.

Also, have you ever heard about the Apocalypse of Peter, or the gospel of James, or the gospel of Thomas, or the Acts of John. None of them had written those books.

Oh, and Jerome didn't accept the deuterocannonicals as inspired either, though he thought them good for edification. So Luther wasn't the first person to reject them.

No.

That was not Jerome job to decide on the canon. This canon was done by the Church into councils. You know what is a council? The job of Jerome was to translate sacred texts in the vernacular language (Latin). Nothing more and nothing less. He translated all the books including also the Deuterocanonical books.

Not only Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical books but he also had some critical views about canonical books as Esther, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Epistle of James, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the book of Revelation, and others.

“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.” ( Luther’s Works 36:118)

“Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.” ( Luther’s Works 35:397)

“Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book. It is almost like an Argumentum Fabulae…[Job] speaks and disputes with another as he feels and as he thinks…The Hebrew poet and master of this book, whoever he may be [it was not Job who wrote it], himself experiences such temptations and tribulation….”
O’Hare, The Facts About Luther, 202 .Hoge’s quotation of O’Hare at this point could have included the entirety of the sentence for a firmer meaning of what O’Hare was implying.
Martin Luther as cited in Ida Walz Blayney, The Age Of Luther (New York: Vantage Press, 1957)299. Blayney cites Luther from Dr. Martin Luther, Sammtliche Werke, Deutsche Schriften, Band 1-67; Frankfurt am Main u. Erlangen; Erste Auflage, 1826-1857. (Erl. I: 62, 133f).

“I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.”
Table-Talk Of Martin Luther Translated By William Hazlitt, Esq. Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society

“That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.” ( Luther's works 34:317)

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces." (Luther works 35:362)

Trinity

[Leslie]

Right, so we've established that in this regarde, Luther was an *****. This doesn't effect my views as I'm only restatting what the Jewish belief was, and what some of the early fathers like Jerome believed. I sighted Jerome, not because he made the canon or whatever you said, but to show that someone prior to the Protestant Reformation did not take them as Inspired. That's all my point was. Anyway, this isn't about the deuterocanonicals, it's about Enoch and Jude so let's continue.

My question was do you think that Enoch really said those words, or was Jude just mistaken and we shouldn't take that as Inspired Scripture?

One possibility is that parts of 1 Enoch are based on true events that perhaps were handed down as oral tradition by the Jews and under the unction of the Holy Spirit, Jude wrote those words down for us to read, thus what was once mere Tradition has now become "God-Breathed".

I believe that Enoch truly said those words, otherwise Jude would be lying, and the Holy Spirit would not have allowed that to happen.

[Columcille]

Right, so we've established that in this regarde, Luther was an *****. This doesn't effect my views as I'm only restatting what the Jewish belief was, and what some of the early fathers like Jerome believed. I sighted Jerome, not because he made the canon or whatever you said, but to show that someone prior to the Protestant Reformation did not take them as Inspired. That's all my point was. Anyway, this isn't about the deuterocanonicals, it's about Enoch and Jude so let's continue.

My question was do you think that Enoch really said those words, or was Jude just mistaken and we shouldn't take that as Inspired Scripture?

One possibility is that parts of 1 Enoch are based on true events that perhaps were handed down as oral tradition by the Jews and under the unction of the Holy Spirit, Jude wrote those words down for us to read, thus what was once mere Tradition has now become "God-Breathed".

I believe that Enoch truly said those words, otherwise Jude would be lying, and the Holy Spirit would not have allowed that to happen.

In regards to Jerome and the Jews, you have three centuries pass from when the Jews started to reject what was considered a sacred collection in Greek by way of the Septuagint (LXX). You are going to take a reprobate religion that rejected its messiah and a sole Hebrew/Greek scholar who did not have the Hebrew texts available to him of much of the deuterocanonicals... as we have evidence now with the Dead Sea Scrolls over the entire community of the Christian Church which ratified the canons of the Council of Carthage that listed the very list that the Council of Trent lays out? It is not on the basis on one Christian that the Scripture is established, but the Holy Spirit as he inspired and is recognized by the whole Christian Church. The Holy Spirit works in both the transmission of Scripture and its reception of it. As such, any one list you may reference to suggest the Protestant canon of Scripture of 66 books is going to be contradicted by the ECF and the entire Christian Church until the Reformation. I have already shown how you reject Baruch and it is listed in St. Athanasius's Easter letter.

Your rubric for Jude does not fit. It has already been established that the quote is from an pseudograph and that this is borrowed by Jude and not vice versa. So it matters little or not whether Enoch is a part of an oral tradition handed down or not, if it is... then you must accept Enoch as Scripture. Which you do not and rightly so. Jude is making a point, not stating the event as fact. This is similiar in many ways to Paul taking about baptism for the dead in 1 Cor. 15 saying it would be vain for them to give baptism for the dead if there is no resurrection. He was not endorsing such a practice, but merely making a point of a completely absurd act if there was no resurrection.
It is also like Acts 17 where pagan poet's words are now a part of Scripture... "in him we live and breathe and have our being." The point is truthful, the origin of the quote is unimportant. So Jude is not lying, the story only reinforces the truthfulness of verse 16. He is using a popular story, just as much as perhaps in telling bedtime stories to our children helps reinforce their values, regardless of whether or not a Hans Christian Anderson or Grimm's tale actually happened or not. The Church has established Jude as Scripture, in some ways, we may not know the full minutes of each council's discussion over this book. But I think the Holy Spirit operated through the Church to bypass some simplistic rubric that cannot universally be applied to each and every book of Scripture. Until you can address (1) a complete canon list that corresponds to the 66 books of the Protestants prior to the reformation and (2) establish how the Holy Spirit in these individual Christians only revealed partial lists until the Reformers corrected it... you have an incomplete Scripture until the Reformation (and in fact you still do have an incomplete Scripture when you reject the Council of Carthage's ratification at Nice II).

[Leslie]

So Christ is not coming with his saints to execute judgement etc, I get what you're saying. I still believe Enoch said that, that's me of course.

Take a look at these articles and tell me what you think.

http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html

http://www.christiantruth.com/apocry...roduction.html

[Trinity]

Right, so we've established that in this regarde, Luther was an *****.

Martin Luther was a man of his epoch. An other time other manners.

This doesn't effect my views as I'm only restatting what the Jewish belief was, and what some of the early fathers like Jerome believed. I sighted Jerome, not because he made the canon or whatever you said, but to show that someone prior to the Protestant Reformation did not take them as Inspired. That's all my point was.

The collegiality and the plurality of many godly men had determined the canon. Jerome was only a discordant voice. Again, he translated those deuterocanonical texts in latin and everybody was happy.

The Jews had rejected the book of Baruch because they thought that it contained some eschatological elements in favor of the christianity.

Anyway, this isn't about the deuterocanonicals, it's about Enoch and Jude so let's continue.

Sorry, but this issue was introduced by you with your questions in the post #5.

My question was do you think that Enoch really said those words, or was Jude just mistaken and we shouldn't take that as Inspired Scripture?

My answer is the same than before. No.

The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. Only the Ethiopian Greek Orthodox Church receives this book as canonical.

One possibility is that parts of 1 Enoch are based on true events that perhaps were handed down as oral tradition by the Jews and under the unction of the Holy Spirit, Jude wrote those words down for us to read, thus what was once mere Tradition has now become "God-Breathed".

As mentioned by Columcille the book of Enoch is a pseudepigraphic writing.

"For instance, no Hebrew scholars would ascribe the Book of Enoch to Enoch, a character mentioned in Genesis 5."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraphic

This is true for the christian scholars also (Catholic, Orthodox and protestant).

However, I see no problem with the hypothesis of archaic traditions.

I believe that Enoch truly said those words, otherwise Jude would be lying, and the Holy Spirit would not have allowed that to happen.

Jude quoted this apocryphal Jewish book because he had seen elements inside the book to support his thesis. Nothing more and nothing less.

Trinity

[Leslie]

So Jude was lying when he said that Enoch said those words? This is kind of odd because Scripture is supposed to be God-Breathed, and if that's the case one would think God would not have had Jude write that prophecy unless it was true. As to supporting his arguement, there were plenty of other Scriptures he could have used instead, but he chose that particular one. He also references another part of Enoch when he talks about the angels who are chained in darkness.

[Trinity]

So Jude was lying when he said that Enoch said those words?

He was probably innocent. Remember that in the time of Judes there was no canon. Many books were popular and were available (for the literate). Even Paul was interested by the pagan poetic literature as mentioned by Columcille. Paul even quoted two of those poetic pagan inside his writings.

This is kind of odd because Scripture is supposed to be God-Breathed, and if that's the case one would think God would not have had Jude write that prophecy unless it was true.

All the Christian eschatological doctrine had not reposed on a tiny passage from a tiny book. This is more complicated than this. I presume that it is likely possible that some truths can be found in other books. If you read the Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James, not everything is false.

Trinity

[Leslie]

My point is, Jude specifically says that Enoch said this. If Enoch did not say this than Jude is a liar and the Holy Spirit would not have moved him to say a lie. Thus, you have to believe that Enoch really did say that if you believe Jude is God-Breathed.

If Jude had just quoted it without specifically telling us that Enoch said this it wouldn't be as big of a problem. The fact is he did, and you've got to deal with it some way.

[Trinity]

My point is, Jude specifically says that Enoch said this. If Enoch did not say this than Jude is a liar...

We can say that he was honestly duped like other people of his time. Again, that does not mean his quote was untrue.

This bestseller below was seen as a truthful story. However they found later that it was a hoax.

A Million Little Pieces
http://www.amazon.com/Million-Little...8934532&sr=1-1

Anyway, there are some parts of the book who was true. The biography became a novel in reality.

...and the Holy Spirit would not have moved him to say a lie. Thus, you have to believe that Enoch really did say that if you believe Jude is God-Breathed.

Explain how you understand the inspiration of scriptures.

If Jude had just quoted it without specifically telling us that Enoch said this it wouldn't be as big of a problem. The fact is he did, and you've got to deal with it some way.

Not for me. I accept the convention of the Church and the reality that there is some truth outside the bible.

I have a very good question for you. Can you prove me by the bible that Matthew is the author of the Gospel of Matthew?

Trinity

[Leslie]

I don't have to prove that Matthew is the author of his Gospel for it to be Scripture. I believe that he was because that's what the earliest records say. I have no reason to doubt them.

My arguement is that the Holy Spirit through Jude SAID that Enoch said those words. Now was the Spirit duped too? Did the Spirit know wither or not Enoch said those words?

[Trinity]

I don't have to prove that Matthew is the author of his Gospel for it to be Scripture. I believe that he was because that's what the earliest records say. I have no reason to doubt them.

It seems you cannot prove it by the bible only. I made my point with this question.

My arguement is that the Holy Spirit through Jude SAID that Enoch said those words. Now was the Spirit duped too? Did the Spirit know wither or not Enoch said those words?

Again, can you explain what is your comprehension about the way Jude was inspired. Tell me, how it worked. Did he have known that he was writing an inspired letter? How do you know that Jude is inspired and on which criteria.

Do you believe that the bible came together in a monolithic block fallen from the sky? Without any human involvement?

Trinity

[Leslie]

That has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura means simply that Scripture alone is what defines doctrine, not the Traditions of men. Tradition is fine as long as it is in submission to that which is God-Breathed. I don't think your point was proven.

I believe that the Holy Ghost spoke through Jude when he wrote his Epistle. I believe that the Spirit did this in the same way with every bit of Scripture. It's literall God-Breathed in the Greek so says Saint Paul. It's not the opinions of men, but it's literally from God.

I believe the Church played a part in recognizing what was truly of God sure. I don't believe that they gave it it's authority but merely recognized what went together and what did not contradict the other. I'm not saying that the Church didn't play a role in the canon, but I don't think that they gave it it's authority, it has that by virtue of the fact that the Spirit brought it about. As for you asking me to prove this is inspired or that is inspired, I don't see how that's relevent because you and I both believe that it is inspired. That's not the issue at hand.

My point has been that Jude who was being used by the Holy Spirit said that Enoch gave that prophesy because obviously he must have, or the Spirit would have never ever moved Jude to write that down as he did.

[Trinity]

That has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura means simply that Scripture alone is what defines doctrine, not the Traditions of men. Tradition is fine as long as it is in submission to that which is God-Breathed. I don't think your point was proven.

I think otherwise because it was godly men who selected the 27 books of the New Testament according to the historical tradition of the Church (and with the help of the tradition). Twenty-seven, not twenty-six or twenty-eight books. And many books were disputed and finally rejected. A couple were accepted by many and rejected later. This is why they are not in the New Testament. Even some of the books in our New Testament were disputed among the early christians.

Leslie: "One possibility is that parts of 1 Enoch are based on true events that perhaps were handed down as oral tradition by the Jews and under the unction of the Holy Spirit, Jude wrote those words down for us to read, thus what was once mere Tradition has now become "God-Breathed"." (post #14)

Well, you will have to decide, you accept tradition or not?

I believe that the Holy Ghost spoke through Jude when he wrote his Epistle. I believe that the Spirit did this in the same way with every bit of Scripture. It's literall God-Breathed in the Greek so says Saint Paul. It's not the opinions of men, but it's literally from God.

In which criteria?

By the way Jude did not quote the book of Enoch only but also a second book that was named "the Testament of Moses".

I believe the Church played a part in recognizing what was truly of God sure.

How?

I don't believe that they gave it it's authority but merely recognized what went together and what did not contradict the other.

How can you be certain that we the catholics, we never altered the texts or fixed the texts for our advantages? For a period of 1000 years we were the sole guardians of the copies. There is no original anymore for comparing the texts.

I'm not saying that the Church didn't play a role in the canon, but I don't think that they gave it it's authority, it has that by virtue of the fact that the Spirit brought it about. As for you asking me to prove this is inspired or that is inspired, I don't see how that's relevent because you and I both believe that it is inspired. That's not the issue at hand.

The bible cannot exist without the Church. And the Church is composed of human beings. Much more, the Church has always preceded the bible. The Church was created before the existence of a New Testament. The hebraic people existed before the creation of an Old Testament.

My point has been that Jude who was being used by the Holy Spirit said that Enoch gave that prophesy because obviously he must have, or the Spirit would have never ever moved Jude to write that down as he did.

The fact is that the book of Enoch or the Testament of Moses were pseudepigraphic writings, and they were not the only one. Anonymous authors in the antiquity borrowed well known names to give authority and credibility to their books. That does not mean that everything was false inside their books. There is no mystery there.

More questions. How people could have been saved before the invention of the press and the paper? Until the eighteenth century 97% of the population was illiterate. Without public schools, and books. How they could read a bible? Much more, how a englishman or a frenchman could read a bible written in the latin or the greek languages. Today people believe that all believers had a bible under their arm from the beginning of the Christendom. This is totally false.

Trinity