Interesting video about The Book of Enoch

[jude1:3]

It ****s my mind that the writings of The Church Fathers hold no weight with you. The Book of Enoch refers to "The Son of Man" and it was written before The Lord Jesus Christ was born on earth (Enoch 69:29 and Enoch 71:14, Matthew 19:28, Matthew 25:31-32, John 5:27 and John 3:14)

Especially in • John 3:14:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,


Please research this. I'm truly asking.

[alanmolstad]

research eh?

Let me tell you about that....










One of the topics I had to study back in Bible School, was the fact that there are many, many pagan sources quoted within the text of the Bible.

It does not mean for one moment that the Bible writer is saying that the entire pagan source he is quoting a small part of should be ***umed to be equal to the bible, but rather what we see is that the Bible writers felt free enough that they took a sentence here or there from many many different places known to their time period in order to prove a point they were making.

So it's not a big deal that we read within the Bible or within the writings of the early church Fathers about different stories that are actually taken from non-Bible books, (like Enoch) it's to be expected because we do the same thing today!
When I write about a topic like "The Right To Life" I may pull quotes from many different sources, this does not mean Im endorsing every work of the creator of that source as being on par with Scripture......Im just quoting them because what I quote helps me make a point Im making.
If I am quoting CNN Im not saying that everything seen on CNN is to always be believed..
If Im quoting President Clinton or President Trump Im not saying that every word the guys said is to be believed.

In the same way just because some writer in church history may have quoted the Book Of Enoch it does not mean that we today should jump to the conclusion that the whole book of Enoch stands on equal footing with the Bible.


We also have to always keep in mind that no single church leader living now or in the past should be allowed to have the authority over us to decide for us what is or is not in our Bible.
That's what CULTS do,
The CULTS use the supposed authority of their current or past leaders over members of the CULT to decide for them what they are to believe.




Now if a person wants to know why the books of the Bible we have now got into the Bible?...then there are many good books and websites that will help you learn why we have ended up with the Bible in it's form, why some books were always accepted, and why some other books were always suspected and finally rejected.

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

, many pagan sources quoted within the text of the Bible.

So it's not a big deal that we read within the Bible or within the writings of the early church Fathers about different stories that are actually taken from non-Bible books, (like Enoch)

That's the thing though, It's Not Pagan. It's Pre Antediluvian and Jewish Scripture. The Text existed Before The Lord Jesus Christ was born on earth.

[alanmolstad]

what I had to study in Bible School was the future issue we see here, that I would one day run into people that would hold up the fact that many types of non-canonical sources are quoted in the Bible.

We were made aware of just how many different places in the Holy Text we will find quotes from all kinds of historical works that are not held by the church as being`inspired.

Thats the thing.....many people that grasp onto the Book of Enoch just because it gets quoted a bunch of times in church history and suggest it should be included in the Bible have mixed up the concepts of a work being "useful" with being "Inspired"...

There is no doubt to me that many sources were used by the different writers of the Bible and in church history when they made their points.
There is no problem to me with the use of quotes from books like Enoch as well as many other books that the church has rejected.
Thats not an issue because just because a book might not be inspired by the Holy Spirit does not mean it cant be yet useful to the church in some manner.

So if this or that Christian wants to study the many books that the church has in it's long history that have been always rejected as not inspired?...thats fine.

But as my Bible School teachers predicted, I do have to point out a few times though the years to people that have jumped to a wrong conclusion based only on the fact that a church father quoted something from a non-Bible source, and so they decided that anything so quoted must mean it's also as equally inspired at any other book in the Bible....


I tell them that "That dont mean that at all, friend"

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

what I had to study in Bible School was the future issue we see here, that I would one day run into people that would hold up the fact that many types of non-canonical sources are quoted in the Bible.

We were made aware of just how many different places in the Holy Text we will find quotes from all kinds of historical works that are not held by the church as being`inspired.

Thats the thing.....many people that grasp onto the Book of Enoch just because it gets quoted a bunch of times in church history and suggest it should be included in the Bible have mixed up the concepts of a work being "useful" with being "Inspired"...

There is no doubt to me that many sources were used by the different writers of the Bible and in church history when they made their points.
There is no problem to me with the use of quotes from books like Enoch as well as many other books that the church has rejected.
Thats not an issue because just because a book might not be inspired by the Holy Spirit does not mean it cant be yet useful to the church in some manner.

So if this or that Christian wants to study the many books that the church has in it's long history that have been always rejected as not inspired?...thats fine.

But as my Bible School teachers predicted, I do have to point out a few times though the years to people that have jumped to a wrong conclusion based only on the fact that a church father quoted something from a non-Bible source, and so they decided that anything so quoted must mean it's also as equally inspired at any other book in the Bible....


I tell them that "That dont mean that at all, friend"

.................

[alanmolstad]

for a help to anyone interested, I have found a very short recording of the current Bible Answer Man dealing with the question of how we are to view the Book Of Enoch?


http://www.equip.org/audio/whats-you...n-his-epistle/

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by jude1:3

That's the thing though, It's Not Pagan. It's Pre Antediluvian and Jewish Scripture. The Text existed Before The Lord Jesus Christ was born on earth.

There were many books written in the BC, it doesn't make them the word of God. Besides, the Book of Enoch is not antediluvian, it is post-exilic, and it's not Jewish scripture. The statement quoted by Jude is probably the only antediluvian part of it. Anyone could write a novel in which the setting of the story is antediluvian.
TD

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

The statement quoted by Jude is probably the only antediluvian part of it. TD

This is Not True.


• John 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

• Enoch 69:29
And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible;
For that Son of Man has appeared,
And has seated himself on the throne of his glory,
And all evil shall p*** away before his face,
And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth
And be strong before the Lord of Spirits.

[jude1:3]

Keep in mind this was written Before Christianity even existed.


And there I saw the One to Whom belongs the time before time, and His head was white like wool. With Him was another being, whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. I asked the angel who went with me concerning that son of and who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the One to Whom belongs the time before time.

He answered and said to me: 'This is the son of man who has righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and whose lot has the pre-eminence before the Lord of the spirits in uprightness for ever. This son of man whom you have seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats and the strong from their thrones, and shall loosen the reins of the strong and break the teeth of the sinners.'

• 1 Enoch.46.1-4




And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.

Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.

All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.

And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.

And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.

• 1 Enoch.48.2-6

[jude1:3]

And there was great joy among them, and they blessed and honored and exalted, because the name of the Son of Man had been revealed unto them.
• 1 Enoch 69:26


And from that time on there will be nothing that will be destroyed, for he, the Son of Man, has appeared, and sits on the throne of his glory, and all wickedness will disappear before his face and depart; but the word of that Son of Man will be strong before the Lord of the spirits. This is the third Parable of Enoch.
•1 Enoch 69:29



And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
• John 3:14

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou,The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
• John 12:34

[alanmolstad]

I refer you to my answer above

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by jude1:3

And there was great joy among them, and they blessed and honored and exalted, because the name of the Son of Man had been revealed unto them.
• 1 Enoch 69:26


And from that time on there will be nothing that will be destroyed, for he, the Son of Man, has appeared, and sits on the throne of his glory, and all wickedness will disappear before his face and depart; but the word of that Son of Man will be strong before the Lord of the spirits. This is the third Parable of Enoch.
•1 Enoch 69:29



And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
• John 3:14

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou,The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
• John 12:34

You should really listen to Hank's answer in the link that Alan provided (I'll copy it here for your convenience - http://www.equip.org/audio/whats-you...n-his-epistle/)

Like I showed before, Enoch was written AFTER the Exile, and it is apocalyptic literature, therefore it stands to reason that it would contain phrases already written in existing scripture in eschatological p***ages of Daniel and Isaiah. But it is fiction, even though it contains truth. Anyone today can write a fiction that contains universal truth, and it happens all the time. That doesn't make it inspired scripture. People were writing fiction since centuries BC that we know of, and we acknowledge it is fiction even though many supers***ious people took them as gospel truth, like the writings of Homer, the Vedic texts, and so on. We know that the writings of philosophers like Aristotle and Socrates contain universal truth, but we do not believe those writings to be inspired of God. The Gnostics wrote many things that they thought were inspired of God, (example, the Gospel According to Thomas), and we deny that it is inspired scripture, even though Gnostics accept it as scripture even today. Some people in the R.C.C. are also supers***ious enough to accept many unbiblical things because they think apocryphal and pseudoepigraphal writings are equal with scripture, enough to formulate dogmas about it. Many of such people and those in cults will be lost because of dogmas they believe that are unbiblical based on writings and sermons of false ideas, because they are a distraction from the true gospel of Christ. Just because the book of Enoch contains quotes from earlier scripture and from oral tradition, acts like prophecy, and is translated in bonified King James English, doesn't make it inspired of God. Paul quoted from secular philosophy in 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Acts 17:28, and there are other quotes even by Jesus (e.g. Mat. 16:2-3) in which they acknowledge the truthfulness of the statement, but do not acknowledge any inspiration of the source of the statement. It is not any particular statement or phrase that is usable/truthful in the writing that makes a writing inspired, but it is the whole of the writing that makes it a consideration for scripture or not. The Book of Enoch does not meet scrutiny because of the things I mentioned before:

1. Enoch is clearly post-exilic in text style; my sources put the writing at about 150 BC. Wikipedia states "although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC."

2. Enoch is called pseudoepigrapha because the writer is not Enoch, but claims to be.

3. Gen. 6:4 says "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." which clearly indicates that since the giants (nephilim) were there before the event, they could not have been the offspring of that union. Therefore, the basis of the nephilim origin in Enoch is not Biblical.

4. There are indications within Enoch that imply its fictional nature, such as: (1) Giants 3000 els in height, which would put them 4500 ft. tall. (2) he saw a vision in the land of Dan, which didn't exist until about 1500 years after Enoch.

5. The idea of a union between angels and women is problematic in scriptures such as Mat. 22:30 and Heb. 1:5.

Another pseudoepigraphal writing is the Epistle of Barnabas, in which it actually appears like it could be on the same level of scripture. But because it was not accepted in the early Church, not widely used, etc. it was not accepted in the canon. One can also discern its lack of inspiration compared with the canon of scripture. I recommend reading the 66 books of scripture canon many times to get familiar with real inspiration, and be skeptical of anything that has claims, but lacks the overall inspiration of the whole text.
TD

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

4. There are indications within Enoch that imply its fictional nature, such as: (1) Giants 3000 els in height, which would put them 4500 ft. tall. (2) he saw a vision in the land of Dan, which didn't exist until about 1500 years after Enoch.
TD

I think you guys are wrong.

Really ask your self how such huge structures and huge stones could have been moved before the use of hydraulic machines. Seriously Though:

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by jude1:3

I think you guys are wrong.

Really ask your self how such huge structures and huge stones could have been moved before the use of hydraulic machines. Seriously Though:

It's your prerogative to disagree. But what does this brick have to do with the price of tea in China? Either come up with a valid explanation against my internal evidence, or just keep silent.
TD

[alanmolstad]

the answer to "How did they do it?" is that they worked at it.

They had the man power, they had the desire, and that gave them the means.

Sometimes the effort failed as in the photo posted above where the Romans were unable to get the block free.

Now take a look at the Roman block seen in the photo above, its not sitting flat.
The fact that its not sitting flat is not an accident.
The blocks were carved this way so that they were all set to help slide down hill to the site where they would be used.
This is why the place where the stone is carved out of the earth is always up hill from where it is later taken and placed.


So its just a case of men with the desire and lots and lots of manpower doing things that were hard but do-able.

No need for UFOs to help lift the stones.

No need for giants to help move the stones.

No need to invent all kinds of answers .

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

It's your prerogative to disagree. But what does this brick have to do with the price of tea in China? Either come up with a valid explanation against my internal evidence, or just keep silent.
TD

I've already given you evidence.

You have begun to have a pompous tone. Why is that ?

[jude1:3]

Another verse to consider:

And he took up his parable and said--Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.

• 1 Enoch 1:2



• Maybe this is why The Book of Enoch was lost for so long.

[jude1:3]

Video about The Essenes:

[jude1:3]

Another video about The Essenes:

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by jude1:3

I've already given you evidence.

You have begun to have a pompous tone. Why is that ?

If this is all you've got, then I'm done here.
TD

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

If this is all you've got, then I'm done here.
TD

More At***ude.

I didn't respond negatively to you. I just said I thought you guys were wrong.

[alanmolstad]

Like I said.....

Being older does not make a written work inspired.

Being quoted does not mean something is inspired.



What we find true is the early church writers felt free to use whatever source they wanted as long as it supported whatever point they wanted to make.
So this is why we find many pagan sources as well as non-Bible sources quoted in the Bible as well as by early church leaders.






What I learned in Bible School is that we Christians have to be always ready to one day deal with people that latch-on to something weird and it will cause them to think that "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"......
An example of this is when we deal with people that claim that some book was taken out of the Bible, or that it is really the "source" for many Christian teachings, etc.


Over my time on this website I have seen them come and go...

Like the people that are stuck on the Book of Enoch,
or the King James Only guys,
or the people that push the Essenes
or the "hidden books of the Bible"
Or the UFO guys,
or the "Giants did it" guys...etc,etc,etc,


I have seen first hand that there just are some type of people that latch on to these sideline issues and cant free themselves from being totally consumed with them.

They tend to ignore reason, facts and logic, but yet seem ever so ready to believe any crazy idea as long as it offered to them the chance to feel like "They know a secret"
People love to believe that they know a secret.

CULTS are started by the idea that there is some type of secret out there that only a few people are able to see.

That is why the use of well-reasoned, logical arguments dont work with such people.

For they are not driven by logic and reason, but by the feelings they get when they think they know something that no one else does....

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Like I said.....
CULTS are started by the idea that there is some type of secret out there that only a few people are able to see.

• The Essenes were Not a cult

• The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is Not a cult.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by jude1:3

• The Essenes were Not a cult

.

I kinda think they were....

[jude1:3]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I kinda think they were....

Well, you're wrong then.