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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Its odd that instead of commenting on Pauls plain statement that the SAINTS will have victory over death at the RESURRECTION you flew into all of these things about what the Greeks believed.

Mike, I didn't fly into anything. You were correcting Truthseeker telling him what he thought hell was might not be what he was taught? I then asked you to explain the difference of the translated English word for hell found 2 Peter 2:4? You then returned with a post stating how Hades is different than Tartarus.

You mentioned there being a difference which humans went to Hades, and angels Tartarus? That would of been ok, but it seems (since your recent posts) that you feigned wanting to be corrected in your opinion concerning the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Hades is different than Tarturus. People are in one angels in the other. If I am wrong and Paul mentions Hades or Gehenna any other time in his writings I would like to know since I am saying otherwise. I would rather be corrected than teaching error.

You see that is why I went into showing what the ancients believed concerning the two Greek words.

I'll tell you what? You come down to the eschatology section, and answer my questions concerning: WHY an end time revival? Two Witness Prophets? The Manchild Ministry? The Angel preaching the everlasting gospel? God killing millions of his enemies through various judgments? Your right understanding of the book of Revelation and how it makes a difference? Also explain how many who at least think they are saved will wind up with the mark of the beast? What is that mark, and how do people unwittingly receive it? You see I started a thread in July 6 2014 wanting to deal with those questions? But never was able to have you respond? So, I know your frustration when someone on't deal with your questions. So, waiting to see you down in that section.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...46&postcount=1

[Godsdrummer]

Just want to say to Esaias and EB that this is some good stuff you have posted, just came across this and read it through, not saying I agree or disagree just saying these post should at least make one stop and think.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm just trying to work through this. On the one hand, a quick reading of 1 Peter and Jude implies they endorsed the book of Enoch and similar then-current ideas. On the other hand, those ideas are 1)nowhere found in actual canonical scripture, and 2)seem to be countered by a closer reading of 1 Peter and Jude, and 3)seem to be countered by other statements of canonical scripture.

I am open to other interpretations, but at the moment this seems to be what satisfies all the available data.

How do we know that Peter was referring to the book of Enoch at all? Just because there may be a few parallels of the book of Enoch and 1 Peter doesn't mean that was intentional. I certainly find this thread interesting, but I don't think we can do anything but speculate. The fact that Enoch and the canonized scripture are contradicting is probably largely the reason Enoch isn't canon.Although there may be some truth (?) in the book of Enoch, it isn't the scripture.

It is interesting to me in the OT hell is always translated seol, but in the NT it is Gehenna, Hades, and in 1 Peter Tartarus. Hades and Tarturus are places of the afterlife in Greek mythology. It is interesting to me how culture shapes our terminology.

A question: Is there anywhere in the OT that indicates a resurrection? I don't doubt the resurrection, but I don't see it in the OT.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Just want to say to Esaias and EB that this is some good stuff you have posted, just came across this and read it through, not saying I agree or disagree just saying these post should at least make one stop and think.

We are just discussing this topic, more input the better.

Just don't tell Elder LeDeay.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

How do we know that Peter was referring to the book of Enoch at all? Just because there may be a few parallels of the book of Enoch and 1 Peter doesn't mean that was intentional. I certainly find this thread interesting, but I don't think we can do anything but speculate. The fact that Enoch and the canonized scripture are contradicting is probably largely the reason Enoch isn't canon.Although there may be some truth (?) in the book of Enoch, it isn't the scripture.

It is interesting to me in the OT hell is always translated seol, but in the NT it is Gehenna, Hades, and in 1 Peter Tartarus. Hades and Tarturus are places of the afterlife in Greek mythology. It is interesting to me how culture shapes our terminology.

A question: Is there anywhere in the OT that indicates a resurrection? I don't doubt the resurrection, but I don't see it in the OT.

The Apostle Peter uses Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-28 to uses scriptural confirmation for the Lord's resurrection. The dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14 represent a resurrection of Israel/Judea coming up out of Babylonian captivity. Jonah in the belly of the whale Jonah 1:17, Jonah 2:1-9 again shows death, burial and resurrection.

What makes the Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallel interesting to me is that Esaias presents an idea that Jude and Peter aren't advocating the Enochian material, or the Assumption of Moses. But like Paul who quotes Stoics, Epicureans, and Greek mystics, while not advocating them, Peter and Jude are doing the same.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The Apostle Peter uses Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-28 to uses scriptural confirmation for the Lord's resurrection. The dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14 represent a resurrection of Israel/Judea coming up out of Babylonian captivity. Jonah in the belly of the whale Jonah 1:17, Jonah 2:1-9 again shows death, burial and resurrection.

What makes the Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallel interesting to me is that Esaias presents an idea that Jude and Peter aren't advocating the Enochian material, or the Assumption of Moses. But like Paul who quotes Stoics, Epicureans, and Greek mystics, while not advocating them, Peter and Jude are doing the same.

Very good. I should have thought about Psalms 16. The resurrection seems to be somewhat concealed in the OT. Of course there are illustrations that point to it, but it seems that their thinking in that time didn't include a resurrection as we present heaven and hell.

I should probably read the book Enoch before I interject very much. I have skimmed parts of it, but I don't know much of what the book says. Interesting thoughts being presented.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Very good. I should have thought about Psalms 16. The resurrection seems to be somewhat concealed in the OT. Of course there are illustrations that point to it, but it seems that their thinking in that time didn't include a resurrection as we present heaven and hell.

I should probably read the book Enoch before I interject very much. I have skimmed parts of it, but I don't know much of what the book says. Interesting thoughts being presented.

Now please keep in mind that Esaias, or myself are not advocating the Enochian literature. But I do encourage people getting a good understanding of what the history was like, the literature was like, during the compilation of the Old and New Testament. Peter, and the apostles were dealing with all of the different Jewish schisms, plus Judaizers from their own ranks. Paul, dealt with not only Gentile literature, and culture. But also Judaizers who were creeping into his churches teaching things they ought not. In Titus 1:11-12 Paul doesn't pick Enochian literature to quote from, but a Pagan mystic Epimenides of Knossos. When Paul quotes the Greek mystic seer he is in no way agreeing with everything Epimenides promoted. Paul just chose to use that one quote which he did agree with.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Now please keep in mind that Esaias, or myself are not advocating the Enochian literature. But I do encourage people getting a good understanding of what the history was like, the literature was like, during the compilation of the Old and New Testament. Peter, and the apostles were dealing with all of the different Jewish schisms, plus Judaizers from their own ranks. Paul, dealt with not only Gentile literature, and culture. But also Judaizers who were creeping into his churches teaching things they ought not. In Titus 1:11-12 Paul doesn't pick Enochian literature to quote from, but a Pagan mystic Epimenides of Knossos. When Paul quotes the Greek mystic seer he is in no way agreeing with everything Epimenides promoted. Paul just chose to use that one quote which he did agree with.

Does it not seem more likely that Paul is saying "there are vain talkers who must be stopped" and that the vain talkers have Epimenides as "one of their own" who said some vain stuff like "Cretans are liars"? And the vain talkers need to be rebuked?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Does it not seem more likely that Paul is saying "there are vain talkers who must be stopped" and that the vain talkers have Epimenides as "one of their own" who said some vain stuff like "Cretans are liars"? And the vain talkers need to be rebuked?

I think so, and therefore with Peter and Jude we may have the same situation, but just with Enochian material.

[mfblume]

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