Replies

Solution - Cage match Charlesworth v Milik Live PPV

LOLOL! Still, I’d take Charlesworth by 3 touchdowns because his is a consensus. That part about Milik ignoring ‘wings’ being added after the fourteenth century was rather telling.

On Isaac, his comment was that he consulted the Aramaic DSS but that it did not influence his work. I read that to mean what was found in the Aramaic fragments was consistent with the fourteenth century manuscript he was using for the base line. His footnotes are exhaustive and do include references to DSS fragments as well as references to the other originals and sources.

The only reason I included the footnote out of chapter 62 was to sate your interest in the two Ethiopian terms, why the Isaac translation is different from the old translations.

In chapter 62, the phrase “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones” sounds descriptive of Jesus Christ per se - as compared to how He will appear in the end times. IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16

Concerning your earlier post, and the value of Enoch to us – and what happened to it over the years, here are a few points:

The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:

More important, however, is the light it throws upon early Essene theology and upon earliest Christianity. It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted with the work, and were influenced by it, including Jude, who quotes it explicitly (1:14f) At any rate, it is clear that Enochic concepts are found in various New Testament books, including the Gospels and Revelation.

I Enoch played a significant role in the early Church; it was used by the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and a number of apologetic works. Many Church Fathers, including Justing Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and Clement of Alexandria either knew I Enoch or were inspired by it. Among those who were familiar with I Enoch, Tertullian had an exceptionally high regard for it. But, beginning in the fourth century, the book came to be regarded with disfavor and received negative reviews from Augustine, Hilary, and Jerome. Thereafter, with the exception of a few extracts made by Georgius Syncellus, a learned monk of the eighth century, and the Greek fragments found in a Christian grave in Egypt (c. AD 800), I Enoch ceased to be appreciated except in Ethiopia. The relegation of I Enoch to virtual oblivion by medieval minds should not diminish its significance for Christian origins; few other apocryphal books so indelibly marked the religious history and thought of the time of Jesus.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church did in fact go through a “book burning” phase – probably starting with Philastrius (who hated Enoch) in the late 300’s.

The document The “Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis” is helpful in identifying which books were considered apocryphal and subject to elimination, like Enoch. The document itself is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE and contains parts which are traced back to Damasus. The document evidently was put together sometime in the 6th century.

”These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistu, Donatus, Eustatius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom the one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema for ever.”

It is tragic that the Catholic Church did not preserve Enoch like it did other apocryphal books. And it raises the question, what else was "burned?" Book burning leaves the argument “the Church always everywhere believed thus and so” empty.

“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

That is an excellent post and I am glad that you brought in
1 Cor 2:7, because the Greek is literally an expounding on Enoch’s revelation of the Holy One in the heavens, whom He saw as God hidden, who was with God and who was God, from the beginning, and who was to come and be revealed to the elect [Revelation is when He will come to be revealed to the world, and much in Rev is understood only by having a knowledge of Enoch 1.

1 Cor 2:7 [literally, word for word]: But [we] tell/speak Wisdom, God in mystery hidden, which God ordained before the world for our Glory”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=2&verse=7&version=KJV#7

We tell/speak Wisdom, God in mystery hidden, which God ordained before the world for our Glory”

That is profound and revealing, showing Paul was a student of Enoch [as he was of all the ancient writings].

” It is tragic that the Catholic Church did not preserve Enoch like it did other apocryphal books. And it raises the question, what else was “burned?” Book burning leaves the argument “the Church always everywhere believed thus and so” empty.”

I also agree with the above sentiment.
I have researched the history of canon and have found it to be a big conspiracy of lies about the Holy Spirit and what He inspired and that the Christian Church worldwide has never been in agreement about what “canon” should be, from the beginning.(http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/BIBLE/canon2.stm “canon, whose canon?”) -and Martin Luther had the freedom to challenge “canon” lists, himself, being in disagreement with what was in his time so called.

It is unfortunate that Enoch had been hidden in the western Church, and also the Book of Jasher, by his day; both of which make a foundation to understand what the Genesis through Revelation message of Jesus Christ [one message] is about, in His Person and work. And that understanding dispels all false doctrines about the Person and work of YHWH come in flesh as Redeemer/Kinsman.

I do believe that Jesus Christ is the “last Word” from the Father, and that His Revelation given to John, of His coming and exhortation to the churches is the end of any inspired Word from God to man. Even the contents of the book of Revelation is not new information, but clarifies and reveals what Enoch first was shown “in mystery” about the end of days.

As to other books, and what was accepted: in Rev Jesus Christ states specifically that He is the AMEN, the Faithful and True Witness, and AMEN means “truth”, at it’s root, and “faithful” is from that.

In a foot note that Ronald Brown has on page 44 in my copy of his edited Enoch, he quotes from a translation from the Egyptian book of the dead, and it is very telling in that it shows that the ancient Egyptians knew the same one true God “seen” by Enoch in visions “in mystery”, “hidden”, and who was “truth”, and whom the Ancient Egyptians called “Amen”. They eventually corrupted His image, as all nations did who once knew God [and the vowels in the ancient literature were interchangable, as they were not written: now they write that name as “Amon”, and the image is corrupted indeed].

All nations knew the truth about God and His future coming to restore all things and to judge the world as the Son of Man, since their fathers all were sons of Noah and came off that boat and had Enoch -and Noah’s- writings.

Paul notes this in Romans 1:21-23:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

Even the ancient Chinese worshipped Him and had the complete Gospel in the beginning of their establishment as a people [after Babel], for the ancient Chinese oracle bone writing was invented by someone who knew the entire Gospel story from creation to the fall, and redemption by the Lamb who was God. The characters used for that writing told the story in themselves. There is a story that the inventor of that language was “Noah”, among the ancient Chinese.
I have the book detailing the Gospel in that character writing of the ancient Chinese [which my Taiwanese son-in-law has not returned to me], but a link to the message is on this page -with detailed pictures of the characters;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/china.asp

LOLOL! Still, I’d take Charlesworth by 3 touchdowns because his is a consensus.

Like in global warming (ducking).

In chapter 62, the phrase “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones” sounds descriptive of Jesus Christ per se - as compared to how He will appear in the end times. IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)

To me, context is significant. 1 Enoch 62 passage context is the final judgement at the end of time if you read further down. This you compared to the messianic secret elements of the gospels. However, Paul writes this even within the 2 Cor quotation (as well as the gospels ) about the revelation of Christ, which speaks contrary to the Enoch passage.

IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)

Again, the context of the Enoch 62 is that of an end time judgement - not the first advent. The aspects described above are parallel only at a stretch and I don't find the comparison especially convincing.

The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:

While I won't deny that 1 Enoch was cited by the early church and shows up in Christian as well as Jewish pseudographic works, he is not totally unbiased in his selection of those supporting it. For instance while Origen initially was supportive of 1 Enoch, he later is on record as doubting its authority. Infact, Origen went as far as to say that the churches do not recognize Enoch as divine.

The document The “Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis” is helpful in identifying which books were considered apocryphal and subject to elimination, like Enoch. The document itself is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE and contains parts which are traced back to Damasus. The document evidently was put together sometime in the 6th century.

A document listing the canon as we know it is by Athanasius (about 376AD). FF Bruce does a good job tracing the development of the listing from church leader to church leader.

I am aware book burnings - but these were associated to the persecution phase of the Roman empire. Secondly, as far as categorizing Enoch, it was understood from pre-Christian period to be pseudographic, and not apocryphal - these are two different technical terms that are commonly mingled together.