Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallels

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Who says the current book of Enoch was the one Jude quoted? It always baffles me that folks don't think of that.

We have thought of that, and it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We have thought of that, and it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread.

And it's still a question?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

And it's still a question?

I don't think the question has been answered, except with 'nobody is sure'.

But that wasn't the entire point of the thread. The discussion is Peter and Jude's use of information common and current among 1st century Jews, beliefs and ideas and traditions. Those beliefs and ideas and traditions happen to be described rather clearly in the Book(s) of Enoch (as well as some of the other Jewish apocryphal writings of the time) and reflect a certain strata of Jewish religious thought.

It is my point that Peter and Jude both seem to be refuting those notions and turning them back upon the ones teaching them, who appear to have been busy trying to infiltrate the early church, bringing in all sorts of 'fables and myths' and who also seem to have been rather loose in their morals and standards.

I am wondering if the 'sect of the Nicolaitans' may be connected in some sense, as well, although I think there is so scant information on that group that everything may be just speculation with nowhere to go, as far as that goes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think the question has been answered, except with 'nobody is sure'.

But that wasn't the entire point of the thread. The discussion is Peter and Jude's use of information common and current among 1st century Jews, beliefs and ideas and traditions. Those beliefs and ideas and traditions happen to be described rather clearly in the Book(s) of Enoch (as well as some of the other Jewish apocryphal writings of the time) and reflect a certain strata of Jewish religious thought.

It is my point that Peter and Jude both seem to be refuting those notions and turning them back upon the ones teaching them, who appear to have been busy trying to infiltrate the early church, bringing in all sorts of 'fables and myths' and who also seem to have been rather loose in their morals and standards.

I am wondering if the 'sect of the Nicolaitans' may be connected in some sense, as well, although I think there is so scant information on that group that everything may be just speculation with nowhere to go, as far as that goes.

My opinion on the Nicolaitans suits their title "overcome the people." Jesus tells the disciples to call no man father, or master. Clearly there were those who wanted to hold preeminence among the people. One like this was Diotrephes, who wanted the place of Christ in the church family, and was throwing out any minister who would oppose him. Colossians 1:18, states that only Jesus has the preeminence, as the head of the Church body. Diotrephes longed for that position. This was also antichrist making the minister the head instead of Christ, and literally denying the Son, therefore denying the Father in the Son.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My opinion on the Nicolaitans suits their title "overcome the people." Jesus tells the disciples to call no man father, or master. Clearly there were those who wanted to hold preeminence among the people. One like this was Diotrephes, who wanted the place of Christ in the church family, and was throwing out any minister who would oppose him. Colossians 1:18, states that only Jesus has the preeminence, as the head of the Church body. Diotrephes longed for that position. This was also antichrist making the minister the head instead of Christ, and literally denying the Son, therefore denying the Father in the Son.

Kind of like the 'man of sin, who sitting in the naos of God showing himself that he is God; etc...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Kind of like the 'man of sin, who sitting in the naos of God showing himself that he is God; etc...

Exactly, they loved to have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They loved to be greeted with the utmost respect in the meetings, loving to be called 'Rabbi' by subordinates. Gathering people to themselves, people with itching ears, They are the kind who work their way into people's homes and win the confidence of vulnerable wives who are burdened with the guilt of sin and controlled by various desires. Always loving to be first among their brethren, not willing to accept accountability by their elder brothers. Not helping their brethren in need, but forbidding those who desire to do so, putting them out of the church.

[votivesoul]

This post is entering dangerous territory, but not that that's a bad thing. Truth often takes us into parts unknown, even to where Satan's seat is.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This post is entering dangerous territory, but not that that's a bad thing. Truth often takes us into parts unknown, even to where Satan's seat is.

Dangerous territory? Which post? Where's the danger?

[votivesoul]

Right here:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My opinion on the Nicolaitans suits their title "overcome the people." Jesus tells the disciples to call no man father, or master. Clearly there were those who wanted to hold preeminence among the people. One like this was Diotrephes, who wanted the place of Christ in the church family, and was throwing out any minister who would oppose him. Colossians 1:18, states that only Jesus has the preeminence, as the head of the Church body. Diotrephes longed for that position. This was also antichrist making the minister the head instead of Christ, and literally denying the Son, therefore denying the Father in the Son.

I fully agree with what our esteemed evangelist has written, but it--especially the emboldened text above--runs so contrary to what many in our movement espouse, as to become dangerous, even treasonous to dare say it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Right here:



I fully agree with what our esteemed evangelist has written, but it--especially the emboldened text above--runs so contrary to what many in our movement espouse, as to become dangerous, even treasonous to dare say it.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...4&postcount=26