Holy Trinity Discussion

#526
#526
bamawriter said:
Are you sure about this one? I couldn't find "blessed are the gentle" or "blessed are the meek" in Enoch. I did find "they shall inherit the earth," but the rest of the verse is different: 1 Enoch 5:9 "But for the chosen, there will be light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit the earth."

That's not similar enough to Matthew 5:5 to call it "a direct quote."


Again, not a direct quote. A few words are present in both, but then the rest diverge:

Luke 6:24: But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already.

1 Enoch 93:7 Woe to those who build up their houses with crime; for from their very foundations shall their houses be demolished, and by the sword shall they themselves fall. Those, too, who acquire gold and silver, shall justly and suddenly perish. Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed; because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your prosperity: [you shall be removed, because you have not remembered the Most High in the days of your prosperity.

There are only six verses in 1 Enoch 94, so you must be thinking of something else.


Jesus never mentions Enoch by name. It's possible that he said something like "as the prophet said" and then quoted Enoch, but you'd have to cite that one.

But again, I think you might be thinking of Jude 14 & 15.
Click to expand...
you’re correct it was Jude , brother of James that called Enoch the prophet and quoted him. So New Testament but the book wasn’t included in the canon.

I’m doing year end stuff so time is limited. I do really enjoy these discussions so I will make an effort to find the paper I wrote on this….if I can’t find it on a quick search.

Hold please.
 
#527
#527
To be meek is to be gentle, humble, lowly. “The meek are the ‘gentle’… those who do not assert themselves over others in order to further their own agendas in their own strength, but who will nonetheless inherit the earth because they trust in God to direct the outcome of events.” ESV Study Bible notes.

Mathew 5.5
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Enoch 5 9

9 But for the chosen, there will be light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit the earth.

My beloved university taught it as a direct connection.
He was also a professor of linguistics so I accept it.
You don’t have to but secondary evidence shows the brother of messiah well read in Enoch.


Luke 6 and Enoch 93 are the same
-edit: other than being translated from 2 different languages.
 
Last edited:
#528
#528
Orangeslice13 said:
To be meek is to be gentle, humble, lowly. “The meek are the ‘gentle’… those who do not assert themselves over others in order to further their own agendas in their own strength, but who will nonetheless inherit the earth because they trust in God to direct the outcome of events.” ESV Study Bible notes.

Mathew 5.5
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Enoch 5 9

9 But for the chosen, there will be light, joy, and peace, and they shall inherit the earth.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that Jesus and/or Matthew assumed the audience was familiar with Enoch such that they would recognize a turn of phrase. That's certainly plausible. But sharing a five word phrase does not a quote make. Especially since none of the surrounding verses are similar between the two books.
 
#529
#529
bamawriter said:
It could be argued that Jesus and/or Matthew assumed the audience was familiar with Enoch such that they would recognize a turn of phrase. That's certainly plausible. But sharing a five word phrase does not a quote make. Especially since none of the surrounding verses are similar between the two books.
Click to expand...
So we’re in agreement that Yeshua was teaching Enoch concepts here?
 
#531
#531
Orangeslice13 said:
So we’re in agreement that Yeshua was teaching Enoch concepts here?
Click to expand...

That's a more concrete statement than I'm willing to make.

But, for the sake of this discussion, the issue with Enoch is not the content. It's been a while since I've read the whole thing, but my recollection is that there's nothing heretical from a historical Christian perspective. Enoch's problem is its date. It claims to be the words of Enoch passed on to Methuselah, but it references scripture that was written after Methuselah's death.
 
#532
#532
Orangeslice13 said:
Question everything.
It is the way
Click to expand...
Oh indeed. I have questioned my own beliefs over and over and still do some days. Faith is like that. If you are not questioning it, then it isn’t faith as much as it is ignoring the importance of it.
But when all is said and done, Christianity seems to fit the way the world works better than anything else. It acknowledges that mankind, no matter how we try, can never be righteous in God‘s eyes; so He came up with the only plan that could save us.
Most religions tell us that if we DO enough, we will somehow merit God‘s favor. Christianity (and Judaism with the blood sacrifices) say; you can never be good enough, so someone or something else has to pay the debt.
 
#533
#533
bamawriter said:
That's a more concrete statement than I'm willing to make.

But, for the sake of this discussion, the issue with Enoch is not the content. It's been a while since I've read the whole thing, but my recollection is that there's nothing heretical from a historical Christian perspective. Enoch's problem is its date. It claims to be the words of Enoch passed on to Methuselah, but it references scripture that was written after Methuselah's death.
Click to expand...
I like you would need to go over it again but isn’t the date of those references in dispute? It’s been more than 20 years. Maybe I’m misremembering.

There was a debate between linguistics professors on Enoch I attended while in school and it got heated. I got so lost in the nuances of that conversation but what amazed me was the passion they both had for their respective positions. I honestly thought it was going to come to blows at one point.
 
#534
#534
LouderVol said:
its an interesting challenge of any long held idea by humans. progress is always challenged.

for Christians, if Jesus legitimately came back, would most of us who claim to be Christians recognize and follow him?
Click to expand...
Considering that he will return with an army of countless angels and saints; I THINK we should be able to recognize Him.
 
#535
#535
I am not a Dispensationalist, but it makes alot of sense to reconcile suppossedly contradictive Scripture. Age of Conscience, Age of Law, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Gospel of Paul (Church Age), Trib.

How was a person saved after Jesus birth, but before his crucifixtion and resurrection and possible atonement…just belief?
 
#536
#536
Orangeslice13 said:
I like you would need to go over it again but isn’t the date of those references in dispute? It’s been more than 20 years. Maybe I’m misremembering.

There was a debate between linguistics professors on Enoch I attended while in school and it got heated. I got so lost in the nuances of that conversation but what amazed me was the passion they both had for their respective positions. I honestly thought it was going to come to blows at one point.
Click to expand...
what school?
 
#537
#537
OrangeTsar said:
Oh indeed. I have questioned my own beliefs over and over and still do some days. Faith is like that. If you are not questioning it, then it isn’t faith as much as it is ignoring the importance of it.
But when all is said and done, Christianity seems to fit the way the world works better than anything else. It acknowledges that mankind, no matter how we try, can never be righteous in God‘s eyes; so He came up with the only plan that could save us.
Most religions tell us that if we DO enough, we will somehow merit God‘s favor. Christianity (and Judaism with the blood sacrifices) say; you can never be good enough, so someone or something else has to pay the debt.
Click to expand...

In the beginning was the word of G-d. His law and by that law everything was made. And nothing was made without that law. The representative of that law became flesh and endeavor to make that law clear to those who had ears to hear.

What makes the G-d of A,I, and J, and Messiah whom he sent, different than all others is that law. And as He said everything rests on the law. In science we call those things constants. The law of Gravity is an example. They are things that just happen but without those constants life could not exist.

You still think the law isn’t important anymore

Interesting to say the least.
 
#538
#538
Orangeburst said:
I am not a Dispensationalist, but it makes alot of sense to reconcile suppossedly contradictive Scripture. Age of Conscience, Age of Law, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Gospel of Paul (Church Age), Trib.

How was a person saved after Jesus birth, but before his crucifixtion and resurrection and possible atonement…just belief?
Click to expand...


By believing G-d as is spelled out in Genesis
 
#541
#541
Orangeslice13 said:
I like you would need to go over it again but isn’t the date of those references in dispute? It’s been more than 20 years. Maybe I’m misremembering.

There was a debate between linguistics professors on Enoch I attended while in school and it got heated. I got so lost in the nuances of that conversation but what amazed me was the passion they both had for their respective positions. I honestly thought it was going to come to blows at one point.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the portion of 1 Enoch chapter 1 that Jude quotes is itself a midrash on Deuteronomy 33.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#544
#544
bamawriter said:
Interestingly enough, the portion of 1 Enoch chapter 1 that Jude quotes is itself a midrash on Deuteronomy 33.
Click to expand...
So how much would Moses have known about Enoch?
If Moses received all his knowledge by direct revelation and knew nothing of Enoch does the similarities give credibility to the word of G-d?

Obviously rhetorical and just food for thought
 
#546
#546
Orangeslice13 said:
So how much would Moses have known about Enoch?
If Moses received all his knowledge by direct revelation and knew nothing of Enoch does the similarities give credibility to the word of G-d?

Obviously rhetorical and just food for thought
Click to expand...

This is where I'll have to defer to you. Like I said before, there is nothing problematic about Enoch from a traditional Christian perspective. Enoch seems to run up against Rabbinic Judaism, not the early Church.
 
#547
#547
Orangeslice13 said:
The only school the matters.
The University of Tennessee

Degrees in psychology with studies in philosophy and religion.

And I build stuff for a living.
Click to expand...
I had a fantastic comparison of world religions professor at UT. Can’t remember her name, but she was just an absolutely fantastic professor and it was a fantastic class. Judaism, Islam, Confucionism, Taoism and Hinduism. Phenomenal class. I wanted more of that, so,

Followed that with Ancient Hebraic Religious Traditions. I was excited about that class (different prof.), but that class disappointed. Didn’t really get to traditions, purpose and meaning, as I had hoped. More of a Jewish literature class. I didn’t care about the poetry or allegory, I wanted to learn history, tradition and meaning. I am still a little disappointed, all these years later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and Orangeslice13
#548
#548
Orangeburst said:
Yes..Adam and after, There is a 2000 year gap in Adam and Abraham..hence my original point, Age of Conscience.
Click to expand...
Well…..if the G-d of Abraham is the G-d of Adam …..and as long as salvation has been recorded it’s always been by faith….and that G-d says he’s the same yesterday, today and forever….it’s reasonable to assume that those same standards were communicated though not written down
 
#549
#549
bamawriter said:
This is where I'll have to defer to you. Like I said before, there is nothing problematic about Enoch from a traditional Christian perspective. Enoch seems to run up against Rabbinic Judaism, not the early Church.
Click to expand...
Actually it doesn’t. It runs a foul of tradition on both sides. But as scripture….not so much
 
#550
#550
Ritzwatch said:
I had a fantastic comparison of world religions professor at UT. Can’t remember her name, but she was just an absolutely fantastic professor and it was a fantastic class. Judaism, Islam, Confucionism, Taoism and Hinduism. Phenomenal class. I wanted more of that, so,

Followed that with Ancient Hebraic Religious Traditions. I was excited about that class (different prof.), but that class disappointed. Didn’t really get to traditions, purpose and meaning, as I had hoped. More of a Jewish literature class. I didn’t care about the poetry or allegory, I wanted to learn history, tradition and meaning. I am still a little disappointed, all these years later.
Click to expand...
Black professor?
And …..very attractive?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top