Book of Enoch

[thereselittleflower]

Endorsement by the early church fathers actually makes the book of Enoch MORE questionable   The early church fathers had some very unbiblical positions.  They were wrong more often than they were right.

There are plenty of ancient documents that we know were not written by the author bearing their names.  Often names of famous people were used to give documents more credibility in the eyes of the readership.   Just because the book of Enoch bears his name, doesn't mean it was authored by him.

Besides, if one takes a modern copy of the book of Enoch and compares it to the biblical quotation, there is a number of significant differences for them to have come from the same document.

 

 

Endorsement by the early church fathers actually makes the book of Enoch MORE questionable   The early church fathers had some very unbiblical positions.  They were wrong more often than they were right.

It is amazing to me any time someone claims they understand christian truth better than the early christians did who still had the words of the Apostle ringing in their ears.  The closer one to something, the more true one is to it.  We are 2000 years removed, not 100.   That you think you understand christianity better than they did betrays the source of such belief.  The ego.

 

It is a logical fallacy to assume that early fathers knew more, or had a more pure faith simply because they were in closer proximity to the apostles.  That's not how we determine truth. 

 The early church until the 4th century until Augustine, believed in the premillennial view and a literal millennium.   It was Augustine who began the amillennial view of biblical prophecy.    So, if the argument is the earliest fathers are correct simply because they were I closer proximity  to John and the other Apostles, then it follows that you should believe in a literal millennial reign.

That's easy to claim, but it doesn't make much sense.

The early Chirch was not premillenialist until the 4th century.   By the 2nd and 3rd centuries any chiliasm that was left was dying off, and as I have indicated before to you,  it was well recognized that those who were amilleniaalist were many and of the true faith.   The Early Church did not define christianity by people's individual eschatological views:

Justin Martyr:

“I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”

Dialogue with Trypho, 80

Augustine did not stop premlllenialism.  It was dying out by his time.   It had already died a natural death.  It had lost its following much earlier  because of its conflict with the cherished hope of Christians that to be dead in the body was to be alive with Christ in heaven.   Chiliams taught something else altogether, that there was a place outside of heaven where we would wait when we died,and no one went to heaven until the final judgement after the 1000 years was completed.    Since this directly contradicted this great hope of chrsitians,    By the time of Origen, well before Augustine, chiliams was being put to rest as not a fully christian eschatology.    There had always been amillenialists, and amillenialism best harmonized with this great christian hope and the christian understanding that Jesus was reigning now, etc.

Ireneaus even relates a particular episode involving the Apostle John and Cerinthus, a teacher of chiliams/premillenialsm:

 

Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John,

[Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., V. 24], states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within."—Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28.

 

You have been poorly taught Early Church history shiloh.    You are quite wrong about when amillenialism starated or who started it.  The very first christians started it  and it became the predominate eschatological view after chilaims fialed to properly harmonize with the gospel in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.   The excesses of Montanism, a heretical apocalyptic movement embracing chiliams, helped to discredit it and to stamp it as Jewish in origin and character rather than Christian.  

 

"Their opposition and their recent heresy which has separated them from the Church arose on the following account…a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself…in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning. Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one…that was under the control of a demon…But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of prophetic gifts…Thus, by artifice…the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient…secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonable and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises."

(Eusebius of Cesarea, Ecclesiastical History, V, 14. Eusebius is quoting an anonymous writer of the second century.)

 

That this is recognized by protestant scholars can be seen if one actually studies real history:

 

“But it is not correct to say, as premillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number. There is no trace of it in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenogoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, and other important church fathers.”

Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 262.

 

And contrary to your view, other protestant hold a very high opinion of the words of the Early Church Fathers - I agree with this sentiment against your arguments and claims:

we should also be very slow to overturn a doctrine that has been established by the church fathers for centuries. It is arrogant to ignore the works of men who have labored in both Word and Doctrine, so church history does carry some weight when interpreting Scripture.

 

And this is what you have done here and many times already - ignore the works of men who have labored in both Word and Doctrine to deny the weight of their words when interpreting scripture contrary to how you want to see scripture interpreted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[Guest shiloh357]

Endorsement by the early church fathers actually makes the book of Enoch MORE questionable   The early church fathers had some very unbiblical positions.  They were wrong more often than they were right.

There are plenty of ancient documents that we know were not written by the author bearing their names.  Often names of famous people were used to give documents more credibility in the eyes of the readership.   Just because the book of Enoch bears his name, doesn't mean it was authored by him.

Besides, if one takes a modern copy of the book of Enoch and compares it to the biblical quotation, there is a number of significant differences for them to have come from the same document.

 

Like contemporary christians do not hold to VERY unbiblical positions? Like, somehow, we are above reproach when it comes to our understanding of the bible and God's concepts for our conduct and beliefs?

I didn't claim that modern Christians don't have some very unbiblical positions.   That's not the point.   I was responding to post that seems to indicate that since Tertullian accepted the book of Enoch that such an endorsement means that the book of Enoch is a reliable and trustworthy source.   Many use the book of Enoch because they are caught up in extra-terrestrial conspiracy theories and any way they can find to legitimize it as a source they will use to justify the use of Enoch to support belief in extra-terrestrials.   My point is that the early church fathers are not an accurate source for gauging truth.   The Bible alone is our plumline for truth, not the early church fathers.

but that is the point. How did you first know the bible was the word of God? Someone told you. Later, you had an experience with the Holy ghost. Well, perhaps that happened. I don't know, I'm just assuming. Unless you had a vision from God concerning the god inspired truth of the bible, you relied on  people to tell you the bible is the truth. it really is acceptable to rely on authority when that authority has accomplished scholarly works in the area being investigated.  To say the early church father's were wrong or unreliable is to say contemporary church leaders are just as unreliable. Honestly, who are you going to rely on? Scholars whose works have been confirmed or modern dime a dozen pastors and their ilk? I'm not saying that any of  them are right or wrong. But it's clear the closer to the point of origin we can get the closer we are to the real truth, and further we move away from the originator the less truth we see. I say read it for yourself, decide for yourself and keep less than well conceived opinions to yourself as well.

I am not against relying the authorities God has given us in the Church (apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists).  God gave the five-fold ministry gifts to the church and He gave them to us because we need them.   The problem is that the early church fathers, when you read their works, are good for history and getting a feel for their theological worldview and stuff like that.   But when it comes to doctrine the Bible alone needs to be our sole source of authority.   It is infallible, inerrant and immutable.  It is of divine origin, whereas the teachings of the early Fathers is not.    I don't even use modern preachers as a source of truth.   I judge modern teachers and preachers by the Bible.   I glean what I can, but those God calls into the ministry are to scrutinized even more because of their position.   They are not to be put on a pedestal and honored as infallible men that are above question.   That goes for the early church fathers as well.    So I am perfectly comfortable scrutinizing and even rejecting what the early church fathers said because they were mere men and are not above scrutiny.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Early Church and Premillennialism

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/brief-history-of-early-premillennialism

The first premillennialists were those who received God's revelation and wrote it down in the Bible. Eusebius tells us that one of the earliest church fathers that had heard the Apostle John and others who had known the Lord and His Apostles was Papias (a.d. 60-130) the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. Papias taught "that there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth."[1] Irenaeus (a.d. 130-202) tells us that Papias "related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times" (the millennium) in book 4 of Papias' writings, which are no longer extant, except a few fragments. Papias is recorded as saying: "there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth."[2] Polycarp (a.d. 70-155), bishop of Smyrna, is also said to have been a premillennialist.[3] The Epistle of Barnabas (written between a.d. 120-150) presents the common belief that "in six thousand years, all things will be finished. . . . then shall He truly rest on the seventh day." The writer speaks of the second coming of Christ with the clear implication that He will set up the thousand year kingdom on earth, followed by the eight day or the eternal state.[4]

Justin Martyr (a.d. 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho (@ a.d. 140), a Jewish man, made the following premillennial statement:

 

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.[5]

 

Justin considered premillennialism an aspect of orthodoxy in his day.

 

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.[6]

 

Irenaeus and Tertullian

Two of the greatest ante-Nicene fathers were Irenaeus and Tertullian (a.d. 160-230). Irenaeus grew up in Asia Minor and was discipled by Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John. Irenaeus had a very extensive view of Bible prophecy in his last five chapters of Against Heresies, which were suppressed throughout the Middle Ages by anti-premillennialists and rediscovered in 1571.[7] The restoration of a more literal interpretation and reading of the early church fathers by many post-Reformationists led to a revival of premillennialism in the early 1600s.[8] Irenaeus' writings played a key role because of their clear premillennial statements. "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth," he says, "and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]."[9] Again, Irenaeus declares:

 

But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.[10]

 

Tertullian, who gave us the Latin word "Trinity," was also a strong premillennialist. He makes his premillennialism clear when he says the following:

 

But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from above;" and, while declaring that our citizenship is in heaven, he predicts of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld.[11]

 

Other Early Premillennialists

Another outstanding premillennialist of the early church was Lactntius (a.d. 250-330) of North Africa. He wrote an important defense of Christianity that was the first systematic expression of Christianity called The Divine Institutes, which included a section on prophecy. Lactntius said:

 

But when the thousand years shall be completed, the world shall be renewed by God, and the heavens shall be folded together, and the earth shall be changed, and God shall transform men into the similitude of angels, and they shall be white as snow; and they shall always be employed in the sight of the Almighty, and shall make offerings to their Lord, and serve Him for ever.[12]

 

Virtually everyone who wrote on this topic for the first two to three hundred years of the church's history were premillennialists. The list would include individuals like Clement of Rome, who wrote a letter to an early church around a.d. 95;[13] Ignatius of Antioch, who is said to have been a disciple of the Apostles John and Peter. Early church tradition tells us that he was thrown to the lions in a.d. 107.[14] Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 115-181), who wrote one of the first accounts of primitive church history.[15] Tatian of Assyria, who died in a.d. 167; Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who died in a.d. 170; Clemens Alexandrinus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr; Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus, was martyred in a.d. 230 for his faith. Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau who died in a.d. 303; Methodius, Bishop of Tyre died in a.d. 311; an Egyptian bishop named Nepos of the third century; Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage was martyred in a.d. 258; and Commodians, a Christian historian, who wrote about a.d. 250.[16] Others could be added to the list.

Conclusion

It is generally recognized within the scholarly world of early church historians that premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest church tradition. One of the leading experts on the doctrine of the early church is J. N. D. Kelly, who says, "millenarianism, or the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years, came to find increasing support among Christian teachers. . . . This millenarian, or 'chiliastic', doctrine was widely popular at this time."[17] "The great theologians who followed the Apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, were primarily concerned to defend the traditional eschatological scheme against Gnosticism," explains Kelly. "They are all exponents of millenarianism."[18]

Philip Schaff, the dean of American church historians and himself a postmillennialist, provided the following summary of the early church's view of the millennium:

 

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.[19]

 

European scholar and church historian, Adolph Harnack echoes Schaff and tells us, "First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ's second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be

[1] Papias as quoted in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, II vols, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), Vol. I, p. 297.

[2] Papias, Fragments, chapter 6.

[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33, paragraphs 3-4.

[4] The Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 15.

[5] Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 80.

[6] Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 81.

[7] Wilber B. Wallis, "Reflections on the History of Premillennial Thought," in R. Laird Harris, Swee-Hwa Quek, & J. Robert Vannoy, editors, Interpretation & History: Essays in honour of Allen A. MacRae (Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1986), p. 228.

[8] Jeffrey K. Jue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordrecht, Holland: Springer, 2006), pp. 110-13.

[9] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 36, paragraph 3.

[10] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 30, paragraph 4.

[11] Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 3, chapter 25.

[12] Lactntius, The Divine Institutes, book 7, chapter 26.

[13] Jesse Forest Silver, The Lord's Return (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1914), pp. 58-59.

[14] Silver, The Lord's Return, p. 60.

[15] Silver, The Lord's Return, p. 62.

[16] Silver, The Lord's Return, pp. 66-68.

[17] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 465.

[18] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 467 & 469.

[19] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VIII vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), vol. II, p. 614.

[20] Adolph Harnack, "Millennium," The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9^th edition (New York: Charles Scibner's Sons, 1883), vol. XVI, p. 314 cited in Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference! (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), p. 117.

[Littlelambseativy]

I have read the Book of Enoch ...though not certain at this time which version...one disquieted me so ai did not read it. It is interesting..telling of heaven, the fall if the angels and the aftermath. Depending on the version a book worth reading. We are quick to read Sci-fi and murder and mayhem...reading this book can be enlightening yet one should be careful to remember that it is a resource which is undocumented....is it for us now?? That I will let each one who reads it decide for themselves as they let the Holy Spirit guide them and their thoughts.

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

Is there anything in these writings that would preclude salvation through the Gospel? 

[other one]

It should give you a severe urgency to spread the gospel.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Book of Enoch is filled with far too many errors of history and theology to be worthy anything to a modern believer.

We don't know who wrote it,  we don't know when it was written and the only copy we have was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and much of that is not biblical material.

[other one]

There are fragments from many copies in the dead sea scrolls showing it was prevalent. And those agree with the book in the Etheopian Bible from what I read from those studying the subject.

 

I don't have a problem with them not being canon, but I think I have to disagree that they are worthless and or hold no truth.

[Littlelambseativy]

I attempted to locate the copy that I have downloaded and it would not download....have not looked at it for about 5 yrs and I wanted to check the opening sentence. (For Shiloh) ..I can't. Will try to find it online again...in reality perhaps if one is not strong in their faith, it is not a book for them. Yet, it is an interesting piece of literature whether some think it true or not.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is full of enough errors and contradictions with the Bible to make it pretty much worthless other than to give a glimpse into the mindset of the Qumran group.

We don't have a copy of the book of Enoch that is earlier than 250 BC meaning it was likely not written by Enoch.  It is probably just mythology.  Qumran was a group that was into mysticism