Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Craig Blomberg on whether 1 Enoch must be literally by Enoch
Collapse
X
-
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWho precisely are you arguing against? I don't see anyone here asserting that Jude quoting Enoch is a proven fact with no possible alternatives.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostIt's called being critical and rigorous. It's nigh-impossible to rule out the possibility of a third source or that Jude is quoting from an oral tradition and not directly from 1 Enoch. Yet even with this, unlike Blomberg, I don't see any reason to deny that there was a historical person, Enoch, seventh from Adam who said what Jude quoted him as saying
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWhat I don't get is why Christians are so adamantly against the idea that it's true. Bloomberg, for example, is practically bending over backwards to present an apologetic for why he quoted it other than the possibility that it actually happened. In other words, that it happened and that it reflects the weird incident in Genesis 6 doesn't even seem to be an option to many Christians. I just don't get that."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI don't know your stance on the truth of the account, so I'm probably just misunderstanding your objective here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWho precisely are you arguing against? I don't see anyone here asserting that Jude quoting Enoch is a proven fact with no possible alternatives."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostA theme throughout his book is how Christians often draw too restrictive of boundaries around what is and isn't Christianity/inerrancy. Although he comes down on the conservative side of most of the issues he discusses, his point is that Christians should allow one another to disagree. (He develops some space to discussing the Geisler/Licona controversy, for example).
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIt sounds like Blomberg is making rationales for Jude's citation just based on what you quoted, unless he's playing devil's advocate. It sounds like the stance he's arguing is that the work has no divine credibility, therefore we must find some other alternative why Jude quoted it, which is a common stance that seems to be taken by many Christians. And I just didn't understand why this is the case. Is it because the work is not canonized by a church authority or is it that the story itself is just too off-the-wall to accept as true?"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostIt's because virtually every scholar believes the book/its contents had its roots in the three centuries before Christ, not in primeval time.
Comment
-
The Jude-Enoch connection, more questions to ponder
Originally posted by seanD View PostThen I guess staunch inerrantists have a problem. It wasn't just the specific citation of Enoch by Jude, but the theme of the book and some of its other content that was almost exactly identical to Jude's reference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostIt's because virtually every scholar believes the book/its contents had its roots in the three centuries before Christ, not in primeval time.
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect Jude to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 428):
The author was presumably a Jewish Christian, since he knews such Jewish-apocalyptic writings as the Ascension of Moses (9) and the Enoch Apocalypse (14), and the Jewish legends (9, 11). But the author "speaks of the apostles like a pupil from a time long afterward" (17). Not only does he assume a concept of "a faith once for all delivered to the saints" (3), but against the statements of the false teachers of the End-tim, he adduces in similar manner Jewish and early Christian predictions (14 f, 17). All this points to a late phase of primitive Christianity, and the cultivated Greek language as well as the citations from a Greek translation of the Enoch Apocalypse do not well suit a Galilean. The supposition repeatedly presented that Jude really does come from a brother of the Lord is accordingly extremely improbable, and Jude must be considered a pseudonymous writing. That is all the more fitting if Jude 1 contains a reference to a pseudonymous James (see 27.4).
Norman Perrin writes the following on Jude (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 260):
The letter is pseudonymous, as is all the literature of emergent catholicism in the New Testament.
The most interesting features of this letter are the characteristics of emergent Catholocism it exhibits. The letter speaks of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints"; faith is the acceptance of authoritative tradition, and the writer denounces the heretics and admonishes the faithful on the authority of that tradition. There is also evidence of a developing Christian liturgy. In verses 20-21, "pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ" testifies to the liturgical development of a trinitarian formula. The closing benediction is a magnificent piece of liturgical language, so different in style and tone from the remainder of the letter that the writer has probably taken it from the liturgy of his church.
Jude is dependent on James, and II Peter is dependent on Jude, setting the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem for this epistle. It would be fair to date it to the turn of the second century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jude.html
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
28 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
342 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,369 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment