Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ? (page 7)

Leolaia

Cyrus....I agree with you, as I stated earlier, that the word "prophecy" implies inspiration; one only needs to look to 2 Peter (which incidentally has a special literary relationship with Jude; the majority opinion is that 2 Peter used Jude), which states that "no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (1:21). But I do not agree with the claim that it would have been dangerously precarious for the author to say what he said in any way comparable to the risk of blasphemy. That argument doesn't make too much sense to me. It is better to simply note that inspiration is central to concept of prophecy (cf. also Philo, Vita Mosis 1.283, 1 Corinthians 14:1-4, 32, 1 Peter 1:10-11).

CyrusThePersian

Leolaia

Sorry! I wasn't trying to give the impression that it was dangerous for Jude to call an uninspired work a prophesy, merely that semantics were much more important back then than they are now. I was trying to point out that when Jude's readers read the word "prophesied" pertaining to 1st Enoch that they would automatically assume that 1st Enoch was an inspired prophetic work, at least in Jude's eyes.

I was merely using the fact that Jesus just said a few words to the Sanhedrin and it got him sentenced to death to show that people put a lot more stock in what people said back then. (Richard Dawkins wouldn't have lasted two days in ancient Palestine!)

CyrusThePersian

Can you prove that they did not?

I don't have to.Miracles are, by their nature unlikely, if not impossible events. It is up to the one making the claim that these events occured to provide evidence for that claim. As Carl Sagan said,"Exraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In other words, I don't have to prove that miracles didn't occur any more than I have to prove that there are no pink elephants on Neptune. It simply isn't my job. It's your job to prove miracles happened.

No one is asking you to believe it. Get lost if you do not like it. But no, you want to influence someone else as if you knew better. But in reality you know nothing about such past history and just want to argue.

Now that's not very nice...

This is the past, things happened and not everyone knew of them just like now. Not every detail was recorded. And it was not unusual to ignore material already covered adequately in other texts.

This is true. However, a miracle working itinerant preacher who could raise the dead, feed thousands of his followers with a few scraps, and have hundreds of people clamoring for his attention to heal their sick ones and had hordes of people following him all over the countryside but whose miraculous works nevertheless failed to get the attention of Suetonius, Tacitus or especially Josephus (the highly suspicious Testimonium Flavinium aside) seems to me to be highly suspect.

CyrusThePersian

Leolaia

I think it is also worth mentioning the possible relationship between Enoch's condemnation of the ungodly in v. 14-15 with the statement in v. 4 that the condemnation of the ungodly was written down long beforehand. The reference is unclear (with several possible interpretations), but a leading possibility is the author has the written condemnation of v. 14-15 in mind.

JosephMalik

"no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit"

Leolaia,

Sure and this is why they kept such Apocrypha apart from what they considered the sacred texts. But this does not mean that they considered the entire scroll as inspired. They did consider them useful since they also contained good information that could be called prophecy. Why? Because the writers were moved by the Holy Spirit. And what does that mean? Well the sacred texts of course like the book of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, this is the Holy Spirit from which such writers were deriving their thoughts. Words like Holy Spirit do not imply miraculous intervention and nothing else. To use a word such as Prophesied and force it to mean total inspiration of a scroll from which just a few words may have been applied cannot be supported. It was Jude that determined what was right in it and what should be kept hidden not Enoch. The same thing goes on here on the net. The reader will have to judge for themselves what is inspired prophecy and what is not.

Joseph

CyrusThePersian

Leolaia,

Nice catch!

Are you saying that if Jude thought that the words he quoted from 1st Enoch 1:9 in v14 of his epistle. were written "long ago" that it would lend even greater credence to the idea that Jude felt that 1st Enoch was inspired and was written by the real Enoch? Too, the fact that Jude says the condemnation was written down shows that he was referencing a written source, i.e.1st Enoch.

We know today that the books of Enoch were only 200-300 years old by the time of Jude's epistle. That's not "long ago" by the standards of that era.Therefore if it's true that Jude thought that this book was ancient then it's another piece of evidence to show 1st Enoch's importance to first century Christianity

Thanks!

CyrusThePersian

JosephMalik

Now that's not very nice...

CyrusthePersian,

It was not meant to be nice, just salty. What you were doing was not very nice. Trying to destroy the faith of others is not nice. And this is made worse when your assumptions are wrong.

Joseph

compound complex

Greetings Scholarly Friends,

The same thing goes on here on the net. The reader will have to judge for themselves what is inspired prophecy and what is not.

Joseph

I appreciate all YOUR comments though it has gone a bit beyond the original question regarding Paul's letters. Still, it serves to answer some concerns that I have. Joseph's comment above gives balance and clarity. I continue to research, wading through SO MUCH contradictory information. Where "extraordinary evidence" or just ordinary evidence come into the mix, I haven't a clue - yet. And faith: is it still 'the evident demonstration of realities not beheld'? What are those "realities"? Does real faith truly differ from credulity?

One thing I have determined: shipwreck of faith with regard to the WTB&TS was enough for one lifetime. I want to go about this search for TRUTH - or is it as simple as correct information? - in a slow and methodical manner and leave passion and ecstacy out of it. Well, at least for now.

Passionate people can have a difficult time becoming objective. I speak for myself.

Please be assured of my gratitude.

Compound-Complex

CyrusThePersian

JosephMalik

I did not make "wrong assumptions". I made balanced reasonable conclusions based on the evidence, to wit:

FACT: The author of 2nd Timothy references "Jannes and Jambres" in 2nd Timothy 3:8. These two characters are not found anywhere in the Old Testament. They are found in the apocryphal Book of Jannes and Jambres. The writer then goes on to state that, "All scripture is inspired of God..."

CONCLUSION: The fact that 'Paul' referenced an apocryphal book and then declared that all scripture is inspired raises questions as to what 'Paul' believed to be scripture.

FACT: Jude directly quotes a book which is now known to be a forgery and cites the quotation as a prophesy.

CONCLUSION: Jude's quotation of a forged document and calling it a prophesy casts strong aspersions on Jude's own authenticity and value.

CyrusThePersian

Compound Complex,

Faith is the assured expectation of thinggs hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.-Hebrews 11:1

To put it succinctly, faith is belief without evidence. Let me illustrate:

If I told you I had a ginko tree in my backyard and you believed me without seeing it you would have faith that what I told you is true. If you came over to my house and confirmed that I do indeed have a ginko tree you would no longer need faith. Why? Because you now have evidence. Therefore your faith was well placed.

If, on the other hand, I told you that I have a Ferarri in my garage and you believed me you would have faith that what I told you is true. If, however, you came over to my house and found in my garage a rusty rake, a few paint cans and my minivan, but no Ferarri, then the evidence would lead you to the conclusion that your faith was misplaced...

...I was a Jehovah's Witness for 45 years. Most of that time I was an elder in the congregation. I had faith, strong faith in God and the Watchtower. Then something happened that shook my faith. (The generation change in the Nov.1995 WT). I began to investigate, to search out the evidence and I found that the Watchtower was, basically, a crock. But for some reason I didn't stop there. I continued to investigate- seeking out the evidence of the "deep things of God" and, to make a long story short, found that my faith was misplaced.

Despite JosephMalik's tirade that I'm trying to destroy people's faith, that is not my purpose. My purpose is to encourage the seeking of evidence, of proof for the things you believe, no matter where that journey takes you.

CyrusThePersian

Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?

Share this