Who Was Melchizedek ?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Then I would put that right up there with those ancients who thought the the sun and planets revolved around the earth.

Including Peter and Jude's obvious references to the Book of Enoch?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Including Peter and Jude's obvious references to the Book of Enoch?

Was sexual relations with women the intent behind Peter and Enoch mentioning the angels leaving their first estate and was this their sin that prompted God to deliver them into chains of darkness?

I might not be following you on this one, Pel.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Was sexual relations with women the intent behind Peter and Enoch mentioning the angels leaving their first estate and was this their sin that prompted God to deliver them into chains of darkness?

I might not be following you on this one, Pel.

I might not be following anyone!

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Just to make things messy... Tertullian's thoughts sort of sum up the most ancient of those "elders" who all seem to have accepted the authenticity of the Book of Enoch:



Later Fathers such as Jerome questioned the canonicity of not only Enoch but also of the NT epistles that most obviously quoted it - Jude and 2 Peter. It all seems to have to do with the rather "fantastical" behavior of the angels that fell.

It is my opinion that this is an important intersection between the Judeo-Christian literature of antiquity and the writings of just about every other culture. Even if one wishes to dismiss the alleged conjugation between "angels" and the "daughters of man," there are still important and relevant cultural issues to be explored.

Based upon what Tertullian suggests through his writing, then how can anyone ascertain the legitimacy of the stories that happened before the great deluge that was mentioned in the book of Genesis? Somebody had to hand down some information from somewhere before the flood in order for us to get the account of Genesis. We give so much credibility to Genesis; why is it a problem if we believe Enoch or the "Book of the Upright"?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"He's Prax and he doesn't need no Peter and Jude to be tellin' him what to think!!!"

LOL! Well, I have seen Prax give some intellegent answers before. I figure why not now?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Timmy

One might also wish to dismiss Gen 6:2-4.

Don't try to confuse anyone here Timmy.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If the daughters of men and the sons of God refer to women and angels what prevented such things from continuing down through history to the present day? I would think it would be a well known fact (if such a thing were to occur) to everyone in society that the product of fallen angels and women are giants and we should all conclude that every modern giant has such a beginning!

Did you not read Timmy's post? What is your explanation of Genesis 6:2-4 ?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Was sexual relations with women the intent behind Peter and Enoch mentioning the angels leaving their first estate and was this their sin that prompted God to deliver them into chains of darkness?

I might not be following you on this one, Pel.

Well, first of all... I don't know. I don't know how or even if it could happen. I don't know that it did happen literally - but from an entirely cultural standpoint it does seem that something important is going on here.

Almost every culture on the planet has some tale about "the gods" or "the sons of the gods" or some supernatural order of beings interbreeding with human women and/or men. Peleus the father of Achilles comes to mind as an example of a human male who conceived a child with a goddess; in this case Thetus. The father-god figure of Zeus was notorious for his affairs with mortal women and all of his offspring were either gods (Apollo and Aphrodite) or heroes (Heracles).

The denial of such unions is really a novelty from late antiquity and the early medieval age. Given Peter and Jude's apparent acceptance of this view, we either have to take it seriously in some fashion or reject Peter and Jude.

[Praxeas]

From Wikipedia
The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is a pseudepigraphic work ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18).
While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it was explicitly quoted[2]:8 in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.


It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from Qumran and a few Greek and Latin fragments. There is no consensus among Western scholars about the original language: some propose Aramaic, others Hebrew, while the probable thesis according to E. Isaac is that 1 Enoch, as Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew[2]:6 .



Ethiopian scholars hold that Ge'ez is the language of the original from which the Greek and Aramaic copies were made, pointing out that it is the only language in which the complete text has been found[3].
According to Western scholars its older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BC and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of 1st century BC[4]; It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction.

-----

My thoughts. Who authored the Book of Enoch? Enoch? If so was Enoch an Ethiopian?

That is the problem with the book. The date and author. If there was a book of Enoch, like other Torah books, it would be written in Hebrew/Aramaic. And all we have are fragments of Enoch.

So my thoughts are that the original did not survive history. That is one reason to not include any so called books of Enoch today, we just don't know that we have the original.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That is the problem with the book. The date and author. If there was a book of Enoch, like other Torah books, it would be written in Hebrew/Aramaic. And all we have are fragments of Enoch.

So my thoughts are that the original did not survive history. That is one reason to not include any so called books of Enoch today, we just don't know that we have the original.

Good thoughts. But are we then to excise Jude 1:14-15 and 1 Peter 3:19-20 from our Bibles as well?