Replies

I Said: All the Gospels, Jesus, and Paul refer to Jesus as "The Son of Man" the usage obviously denotes a title, and one that people were expected to know. Where is the reference?

I Said: The reference is found in the Book of Daniel.

Actually, Daniel is obviously quoting form somewhere, here are the links from the Book of Daniel (which you didn't give, I wonder why?)

Daniel 7:13

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

So, "One like unto the Son of Man" is a the definition that was quoted by all the Gospels? BWhahaha!

This is quotation of a prophecy expected to already be known, this is not a definition of the term. This does prove however that the Book of Enoch, and this prophecy was known unto he Israelite when Daniel was written... Daniel 8:16-18

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Again, this is not the Definition of the Term, Readers click the link to make sure I am not taking this out of Context...

This is not the Definition of the Term "Son of Man".

I Said: Since the Book of Enoch can be proved to predate Jesus' ministry, indeed it is often said to predate the books of Moses (Enoch being spoken of historically by Moses in his five books.)

U Said: You are a poor student of these ancient books - and this one in particular (Note DU's argument beginning to come unraveled). I'd be interested in which scholar in a peer-reviewed journal would actually hone up to such a statement. Even the most liberal textural scholars that I am aware of would not make such a ridiculous claim. You assume that since it says Enoch it means he actually wrote it, well he didn't.

I would rather be a good student of God than a Good student of Ancient texts. That said I do not claim to be an expert on ancient texts, do you? I believe the Gospel should be understandable by everyone, not just some class of Clerics.

To me that smacks of Moslems and the ancient church were all the masses were in Latin and the people couldn't read the scriptures...

As for "Peer reviewed" Consensus does not make truth, I thought we had established that.

U Said: This book is termed 'Pseudepigraphy'. Most of these books (in the pre through post-NT timeframe) are actually anonymous (making no explicit claim to authorship), but were either (a) later attributed to someone other than the actual author; or (b) seem to imply--in the text-- an author other than the actual one.

Scholars have evaluated the various Enoch MS and conclude that multiple authors contributed to the work until the parts were pulled together under at least one redactor. That is also why portions are dated around 200 BC, a far cry from the time of Moses.

Dated around 200 BC, by some people, others think it's earlier, so? You can find people who will argue your side, I can find people who will argue mine. Finding a person to quote in making your point in this day and age is pretty easy.

The very scriptures in Daniel refute your statement. They are obviously quoting some thing, or someone using the very quote you want to insist came after Jesus. Why are you going down this road? Readers, it is bedcase if Scotswife admits that there were scriptures used and quoted by Jesus and all the apostles, then the Bible is not complete and the Book of Mormon's claim that the Bible is incomplete is obvious, thus scottswife and the other detractors of Mormonism will make any leap of logic quote any source to refute the obvious conclusion that the Book of Enoch was known to the Christians in Jesus' day and used in the first century and was excluded from the Bible specifically because it taught things the church did not want to teach. Specifically, it refutes the Trinity! Which is what this Brouhaha is all about! I Said: There are five books of Enoch, there are five books of Moses, coincidence?

U Said: If the final redactor some time in the late 1st century AD was Jewish, then there would be no suprise. But then this point is founded on your unsubstantialble assumption that this book predates Moses writings.

I said "It is often said", I did not say it was my assumption. I assume it predates the first time it was quoted which as you so ably point out is the Book of Daniel!

I Said: So these unknown people who added this piece to the Book of Enoch, added something in the middle and nobody noticed?

U Said: You should really study more on old documents and transmittals. I said above that scholars have been able to identify the fact that it is a composite work, so it didn't go unnoticed. For example "The chapters [1 Enoch 1-36] are a collection of traditions that have accreted over a period of time...Our earliest Aramaic manuscript evidence indicates that chaps. 1-11 were already a literary unit in the first half of the second century bce. As we shall see, chaps. 1-5 are the introduction to a longer number of chapters--either 6-19 or 6-36. Evidence in 1 Enoch 85-90 indicates that 1 Enoch 1-36 was known before the death of Judas Maccabeus in 160 bce. Hence we are justified in treating these chapters as a product of the period before 175 bce." Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, George W.E. Nickelsburg, Fortress:1981

The Bible is a composite. The books of Moses were written by Moses because the israelites had lost their records, or scriptures. Moses was specifically teaching them of their past, and of the promises of God to their fathers.

I assume the Book of Enoch is a composite,bedcase it has clear parts, I also assume that it predated Jesus bedcase HE QUOTED IT!

Sorry to shout, but do you hear what you area saying? Jesus, and all the apostles and Paul all quoted a scripture not in the Bible. You get that, it's not in the Bible. but they quoted it, so we are missing something from the Bible (poof goes the inerrant claim) Lets just say for argument's sake that you are right and the Book of Enoch was compiled at 200 AD from earlier texts, and lets assume the section was added to give a "source" to these quotations, Lets just assume that for a moment. it still means the quotations are from a book we don't have in the Bible, it still means the Bible is not inerrant. The entire rest of the Bible still testifies of the God and Jesus as separate beings with a oneness of heart might mind and strength which was the contention of the Linguist in his paper published in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. Link here (Thanks Dan(9698))

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

U Said: Martin McNamara writes: "No fragment of any part of Parables has been found in Qumran. For this, and for other reasons besides, some scholars doubt its pre-Christian and Jewish character. J. T. Milik maintains that it was composed in the second or third century of our era. However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 71) Remember Similitudes are chapters 37-71.

Secondly pseudepigraphic were a common literary type and it was understood the authors were someone other than attributed in the writing itself. The fact that the final redaction has the sections you listed is no big deal - that is how it was finally put together sometime after the first century AD. Secondly, IIRC, among the DSS, the various sections of 1 Enoch were found as separate stand alone documents. Are you aware that the full 1 Enoch is from the Ethoiapian finding, 14th century AD?

Yet it's quoted in Daniel...

I Said: Even if the Second Section of the Book of Enoch was added in the first century (while the Gospels were being written) they were so innocuous that nobody noticed this change in doctrine, nobody in the Catholic or Ethiopic churches complained about this addition?

U Said: Another flawed assumption. Enoch was not a part of either the Greek or Hebrew canon of scriptures (OT). Since it wasn't scripture, it couldn't be considered doctrine. Again, the Ethoiapian MS is 14th century, a little far removed for your analysis.

Again with the ignoring Counter evidence? Daniel anyone? Jesus and the Apostles were quoting a prophecy form somewhere, and we don't have it. I'd think you'd be interested in where that Scripture went. Why wasn't Enoch part of the Cannon? that is precisely the question. Your logic for "this was added later just does not add up. Again, who was Daniel quoting? If this was added later, why can't we find complete texts with it Gone? We have several incomplete texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so what? That does not prove a negative, nor does it prove a positive. you are leaping to conclusions, then complaining when I point to the fallacies in your argument.

Let's agree on a few points.

Jesus and the apostles appear to be quoting a passage we don't have in our Bible.
Daniel is quoting the same passage.
The Book of Enoch in some form existed before the time of Christ. (it's in the Dead sea scrolls, but not all of it has been found)
The Book of Enoch as currently constituted from Ethiopic writings has a passage that has a prophecy that could have been the one quoted if it was old enough.
Scholars currently disagree on exactly when that passage was penned, and by who.

From this set of Facts, you conclude that it's not what Jesus was quoting bedcase it was added later.

I conclude that it was what Jesus was quoting.

I Said: This theory on the Date may be overturned any day by the identification of a scroll containing the Second section of the book of Enoch...

U Said: Could well be, however the bottom line is that this book, in what ever form, was not considered scripture by the Jews nor later by Christians.

The Jews before the Time of Christ did, and the Christians before Constantine Did.

U Said: Secondly, if the book in its entirety (highly unlikely given DSS evaluations) was 300BC (I'm being generous), it is still too YOUNG to support your other claims.

I do not claim the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch, it does.

If, If, If pigs could fly they'd be more popular to ride than horses.

If it's not that young, then my "Claims" are accurate.

I Said: So you have two theories:

U Said: No, you have two theories. Not that Occam's razor will work only if you have the correct data set upon which to build an argument. In this case, your 'theories' were invalidated right off the bat because of your lack of knowledge regarding the archaeological and textural history of the document, lack of knowledge on how the canon of the NT developed - especially in the first century. So if you want to wear tinfoil hats, be my guest. Both of your options do not stand the scrutiny of modern scholarship.

Occam's razor works with Theories and postulates and even if there are multiples, and will also work when the data is not completely sure.

IT's interesting that you state with surety your postulates and question mine and somehow you assume that since I admit to the places I have had to bridge Gaps in knowledge that it makes my theory weaker than yours where you don't admit that you are bridging Gaps (even thought you are). As a student of human behavior, your actions are interesting, and telling. As for "Modern Scholarship" if your posts are what passes for Modern Scholarship, then we are in trouble indeed.

I never claimed to be an expert, I am however a man of faith. IMHO, Your posts say the same about you, If not, well state your case for being an intellectual.

It boils down to this, you can find people willing to say that the piece in question is too new to be the phrase Quoted in the Bible. I can show evidence from the Bible that says there was a phrase, that was quoted, and that fits the bill, it's from a document old enough, we just don't have undeniable proof that this particular piece was part of th document back then.

You assume it was not, but either way my point is made, either the piece was a part of it before Christ, or that piece being added in the first century was so in tune with the scriptures and teachings of the Prophets that nobody noticed, either way, the apostles were teaching and thinking exactly what I and the Scholar in the Catholic encyclopedia are saying.

The early Church believed in a Physically separate God and Jesus and the oneness spoken of by Jesus was the same oneness God said Adam and Eve were to have, Which is the same oneness Jesus gave many parables about him and the Church as bride and groom, which was the same oneness Jesus spoke of in: John 17:22 when he said:

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I am really sorry you guys have fallen for a trick of Satan, but it was prophesied to be so in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

I am truly sorry, but I testify to you that there is hope, God's hand is stretched out to you still, if you will have Faith in his word and According tot he Bible, Try the Spirits as it says to do in the Bible, and read the Book of Mormon and PRay to God for knowledge, and it shall be given you. Once you have done these things and received your answer as I have you will know that God lives and that his son Jesus Christ lives and that They are one God, moreover the petty argument we are having now will seem a small matter, one easily dealt with by the spirit. Last of all, I testify that Jesus Christ came down in the flesh to save both of us from our sins, if we will let him.

Ah another love letter, I thought you forgot about me.:)

Because your post was so large I'm spliting it into two posts, just to keep you happy (isn't that nice of me)>

To greatly abbreviate and eliminate the redundancy of DU's posts I will summarize them below because my answers were presented in greater detail in my previous post and there is no real need to repeat them again.

1. Asserts 1 Enoch was a complete book at the time of Christ and is the source of the 'Son of Man' references in the Gospels
I reminded him that it not been proven by archaeology or bibligraphic scholarship to be that way, but the components of the book were in stand alone configuration at DSS. DSS had no evidence of the Similitudes, which do not show up until the 14th century in Ethiopia.

2. Asserts 1 Enoch predates the Book of Daniel and that Daniel relies upon Enoch for its son of man references.
I pointed out that current scholarship does not date any portion of Enoch before Daniel. Furthermore, internal evaluation of Enoch indicates it drew upon Daniel and Isaiah instead of the reverse.

3. Asserts that Enoch was actually written by Enoch of Genesis, in spite of the fact he agrees that the writing was a compilation.
In my previous post I made clear that pseudepigrapha were written by someone who assumed the name of a famous biblical figure. There are a number of writings that fall into that category that were written between 200 BC and 200 AD. Such an assertion by Du is laughable and poor scholarship.

4. Repeatedly du claims that the complete book of Enoch was present during the time of Christ.
Du fails to realize that the 'son of man' references are found in the portion of 1 Enoch known as the "Similitudes". There is no evidence that the Similitudes were present at the time of Christ. The earliest copy of the Similitudes are associated with the 14th century Ethiopian MS

5. du falls back into a fallacious argument that 1Enoch is one of the scriptures left out of the bible.
That claim is not supported by your general authorities who have yet to canonize it - simple solution. Second fallacy is that all non- canonical documents cited in the scriptures are in fact scripture. Incorrect once again, they cited other documents and writings when making their points. Has mormonism canonized Phaenomena by the poet Aratus? How about Cretan poet Epimenides? Did not think so. That means that everything that may have been quoted is not necessarily scripture.

6. Instead of Jesus relying upon Daniel for the 'son of man' quotes, du continues to insist an Enochical source.
I remind du that it is more likely that Similitudes (which du has significant trouble keeping separate in this post) was influenced by Christian teaching as well as Daniel.

7. Finally, du tries to raise Occam's razor argument to support his theory - namely that Enoch predates Daniel, Jesus cites Enoch (Similitudes), Enoch is scripture that was denied from the canon.
I pose a better theory that actually fits the facts - Daniel predates Enoch, the form of Enoch during the time of Christ was similar to what was found with the DSS - separate stories/books, Similitudes was not written at the time of Christ but was written late 1st century at earliest and that Jesus cites Daniel (and to an extent Isaiah) in regards to the 'son of man' usage and not a non-existent Similitudes.

Du's post is full of hypothetical, logic defying conclusions that are falsified by current biblographic study and archaeological evidence of the Book of Enoch (aka 1 Enoch - Ethiopian version). The first thing you should do when digging yourself into a hole is stop digging DU.

Here is part two

The early Church believed in a Physically separate God and Jesus and the oneness spoken of by Jesus was the same oneness God said Adam and Eve were to have, Which is the same oneness Jesus gave many parables about him and the Church as bride and groom,

Here du ignores the 90% of the encyclopedic reference on the Trinity.

which was the same oneness Jesus spoke of in: John 17:22 when he said:

Contexturally, Jesus is calling for a different kind of unity here. Again the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest or fall on this verse when it is taken outside its context. In John 1:1 Â“1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV).
en archi hn o logov prov ton yeon kai yeov hn o logov

Clear statement of the divine nature of Christ held in common with the triune God.

and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

And who is this person? Oh, right your anti-Catholic bigotry.

According tot he Bible, Try the Spirits as it says to do in the Bible, and read the Book of Mormon and PRay to God for knowledge, and it shall be given you.

The Bible also warns us to be on guard for false prophets and false teachers. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, Â“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Â” He also said in Matthew 24:11 Â“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.Â” He went to say, Â“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very electÂ” (Matthew 24:24.) How then, are we to recognize false prophets? Deuteronomy 18:22 says, Â“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.Â” We are instructed to be diligent about searching out false teachings.

Nowhere does the Bible ever direct the believing Christian to take any religious book and pray about the truthfulness of its contents. The standard to test anyoneÂ’s religious claims, even of the apostles, was always the Bible. God commends them! Paul COMMENDED the Bereans in Acts 17:11-12 when they questioned what he was teaching. Why? Because they went to the Bible that claims to be the word of truth to find whether what Paul spoke was true.

The final question is whether we can believe the bom and the only way to evaluate that is to look at the individual that created it. We have looked at the First Vision and whether or not that was a satanic impersonation, but that invokes an assumption that the vision ACTUALLY HAPPENED. As mormon leaders have repeatedly said mormonism hinges on this. So before one can evaluate the bom, this first question must be answered Â– did Smith even have a vision?

There are 3 primary first vision stories.
1. The published official 1842 version occurring in the woods in 1820 during a revival and encountering Jesus and God.
2. Another published account by Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3. This account has the vision occurring in 1823, in his bedroom, with an angel visiting him. A revival stirred in him a desire to Â“know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion.Â” Desired to know if a Supreme being did exist, and wanted manifestation that his sins were forgiven. Age 17 (1823) He was in his bedroom Vision of an angel Told sins were forgiven and Lord would do a work through him Told about gold plates and their location
3. Earliest known attempt at an Â‘officialÂ’ recounting of the Â‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith (See An American ProphetÂ’s Record, edited by Scott Faulring, Signature Books, 1989, p.5; The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Dean Jessee, Deseret Book, 1984, pp. 5-6; Early Mormon Documents, vol.1, compiled by Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1996, pp. 26-31)
Smith started serious study of the scriptures at age 12. Felt convicted of sins. Determined all churches were wrong. No mention of a revival. Omits money-digging context. Age 15 (in his 16th year). Location not clear. Vision of the Savior Â– Jesus Christ (has a Â“Christian experienceÂ”). Told his sins were forgiven. Fell back into transgression. At age 17 he again prayed and an angel appeared telling him about the plates and announced again he was forgiven of his sins.

The presence of such wide ranging accounts of this life shaking experience raises a lot of questions because they are so dramatically different. And this doe not even include later presidents who taught about the first vision. Key questions to be answered are:

1. Why didn't Joseph Smith write the "official" version of the First Vision?  In fact, the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price was written by a scribe, James Mulholland, and went unpublished for years.
2. If the official First Vision story was so important, why did it go unpublished until 1842?  Smith supposedly had his vision in 1820. Yet it took over seven private revisions and another 22 years to have it first published.
3. If Joseph Smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?"
4. Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote a church history in 1835?
5. If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?

Furthermore, what kind of character did Smith have. It is documented that he was a swindler, treasure hunting with a peep stone. He practiced polygamy (and polyandry) all the while preaching against it and violating the bom commandments.

The man claimed to be a prophet of the lord, yet his prophecies continually failed as evidenced by the following :

Prophecy # 1 Â— The Coming of the Lord
(History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 182). This prophecy was spoken by Joseph Smith in 1835, and recorded by Oliver Cowdery. The fifty-six years were passed by 1891.

Prophecy # 2 Â— David W. Patten to go on a mission
(Doctrine & Covenants 114:1) This prophecy was made on April 17, 1838. David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and thus never went on a mission the following spring.

Prophecy # 3 Â— The United States Government  to be overthrown in a few years
(History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 394). Joseph Smith made this prophecy in May 6, 1843. However, the United States Government did not redress any of the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri, and now over 150 years later, the U.S. Government still stands.

Prophecy # 4 Â— Congress to be broken up as a government
(Millennial Star, Vol. 22, p. 455. See also History of the Church (HC), vol. 6, p. 116,) The petition was not heard nor was protection granted (Deseret News, Vol. 1, p. 59).

Prophecy #5 Â—Finding Treasure in Salem, Massachusetts
This prophecy is recorded in Doctrine & Covenants Section 111. The introduction to this prophecy, found at the beginning of Section 111. No treasure was ever discovered, nor did Salem ever fell into the hands of the Mormons. Prophecy #6 Â— Pestilence, Hail, Famine & Earthquake  to Destroy the Wicked
(History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 315-316). Such a widespread destruction of the wicked of that generation never occurred.

Prophecy # 7 Â— Temple to be Built in Zion, Missouri This prophecy comes directly from Doctrine & Covenants Section 84, the introduction of which states: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1:286-295. The Mormons were forced to flee Missouri due to persecution and a temple was never built on the "temple lot" in the lifetime of Joseph Smith or within the generation of his contemporaries.

So, we are to trust a non-Biblical document as an equal to the Bible who came from an individual that most likely came up with the vision story as an additional conn job. This matches his documented character as a swindler and a liar (polygamy). With this short list of failed prophecies, Joseph Smith is branded as a false prophet too.

Do you want a false Jesus or do you want the real thing? Do you want to trust such an individual as Smith and the writing he claimed to be inspiried by god, or the Bible and the testimony of Christians throughout the ages who stood for Christ in the face of prosecution and death. Â“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6), not Joe Smith.
http://followchrist.ag.org/decision.cfm