Enoch's DEATH is in Hebrews

[tim_from_pa]

@Mr. M  @Serving

OK, folks.  Here is what I am driving at.  First of all, I believe the Bible is clear in Hebrews 11 that Enoch died, and nobody ascended to heaven not the least of which being John 3:13 as my reason for believing that.  However... I'm wondering about the logical conclusion, Serving, as to how one can say that the book of Enoch says he did not die just because it says he ascended to heaven (which I don't believe anyway)?  In other words, the book of Enoch is very visionary and says a lot in parables and visions.  I don't believe it belongs in canon of Scripture, but what I am saying is one has to make a stronger case.  Another similar mention even in the Bible is the "Transfiguration" story in which that supposedly proves Moses and Elijah are in heaven.  It says no such thing.  They were having a vision akin to seeing through a portal to the future.  They are not there now.

Likewise, Mr. M, the idea of God taking him so that he would not see death, isn't a reference to not ever dying, but rather sparing Enoch death because he was a preacher of righteousness before the Flood and his life was in danger, so God removed him to a safe place.  Where?  I don't know, but he would have still died eventually.  The same can be said of Elijah.  He was taken to heaven (keep in mind of the various definitions of heaven but that's another topic), and yet awhile later we hear that King Jehoram received a letter from Elijah. Since he was a prophet, did he write it beforehand?  Was Elijah around somewhere yet? We can't conclude based on this passage alone, but we can see John 3:13 what Jesus said, and sometimes that's enough to clinch what DID not happen, i.e. not dying and living in heaven for either of them. The only other logical thing I can think of is being translated into a glorious body, but outside of heaven - not sure why the Lord would do that.

Clearly then I do not take the stance "dying and going to heaven" but rather sleeping until the resurrection.

[Serving]

35 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

Nice dodge.

        ?

I have never read the book,

so I am quite certain that I hold no belief based on what is written therein.

I simply asked: 

Is there a particular commonly held doctrine of Christianity

that is supported solely by this book, which should be discredited and rejected?

For which you posted...

This post is about what is not supported.

Which is not an answer. 

Of course it is an answer. 

You asked if there was a doctrine of Christianity that is supported in the book of Enoch which should be discredited & rejected ..

But why would I seek to discredit something in the book of Enoch that supports scripture?

That makes no sense.

Hence my answer:

This post is about what is not supported.

See, no dodge occurred at all.

What makes the book a heresy?

Many claims therein.

If your only point is to question whether or not 

Enoch died, .... 

The claim that Enoch died (in the bible) v's the counterclaim that he did not die (in the book of Enoch) is all that needs to be affirmed to make my case, which is why it is the only point I made .. that is the sole focus I submitted in my argument which shows the two books disagree .. is that not proof enough?

you should begin with YOUR definition of:

"not seeing death", and "God translating him."

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;

and was not found, because God had translated him:

for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

Let me get this right, you are telling me how my argument/post should be presented according to you? 

But my post is not concerning the prophecy you are asking be explained, it is about a claim that I have already made clear, Enoch did not die v's Enoch did die.

That is called a stand alone argument.

You are asking for something else I am not yet presenting.

Patience friend.

 

 

 

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

What does **see death** imply with Enoch, because the question is asked here

Psalm 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not **see death**? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?

Concerning "seeing death" Jesus says,

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep **my saying**, he shall never **see death**.

Whereas in Enoch its worded much the same in this way

Heb 11:10 **By faith** Enoch was translated that he should not **see death**; and was** not found**, because God had translated him:  for **before** "his translation" he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

There might be a few ways to catch somethings in this

Hebrews 11:10 **By faith** Enoch was translated that he should not **see death**; and was**not found**, 
because God had translated him: for **before** "his translation" he had this testimony, that **he pleased God.**

And we already know that **without faith** its impossible to **please God**

And so **before** God translated him he had **this testimony** that **he pleased God** (which would be by the faith which is attributed to Enoch)

And then here as well, which in any comparison I am not sure, but if going in this same direction it speaks of

Enoch was not found, as is shown in the faith (Which Enoch had) which did pleased God) speaking of it similarly this way in Paul

Phil 3:9 And be **found** in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God **by faith** 

Or perhaps,  that "no more I who liveth but Christ" 

Since there is this passing from death unto life (and Christ is life, the life, even our life) the rock in whom we are hid, in whom we ourselves are to be found, and Enoch was not. And it does show there is a "being found" in Him. And so it would make sense in such a comparison within the realm of faith itself. As the OP shows that all of them died in faith but then there are the words which pertain to Enoch, who did not see death also, which are the same words spoken of by Jesus concerning those who were living who kept his saying would equally not see death. 

I wonder if this could apply in the same way

Proverbs 12:28 In **the way** of righteousness" is life and in the pathway thereof there is **no death**.

Edited December 17, 2023 by AFlameOfFire

[WilliamL]

4 hours ago, Serving said:

So Enoch died after all .. but the book of Enoch claims he did not die .. this means one thing and one thing only .. that the book of Enoch is a false testimony .. it is a LIE.

 

3 hours ago, Serving said:

Sure ..

2 Enoch

1a The story of Enoch: how the Lord took him to heaven.

 

Note that here you are quoting from Second Enoch. Which is commonly rejected as being spurious.

But Jude quoted from First Enoch, an entirely different book, which many people and some Christian denominations accept as legitimate, although not well preserved.

You wrote "the book of Enoch claims," which is a fraudulent statement on it's face, because there is no THE book by that name, there are a number of them.

Really sloppy.

Edited December 17, 2023 by WilliamL

[Serving]

1 hour ago, tim_from_pa said:

Serving, as to how one can say that the book of Enoch says he did not die just because it says he ascended to heaven

Tim,

I know where you are coming from ..

Nevertheless, what I provided is in fact evidence enough .. because If you read 2 Enoch and then keep reading all of Enoch in it's entirety, nowhere does it say he died .. instead, it clearly reads that Enoch was taken alive (contextually) to heaven not just once, but taken and returned and taken again several times .. nowhere does it say Enoch dies but instead says that he was taken to heaven alive (contextually) and now resides in heaven.

And I agree with "them" that the book of Enoch does not contextually say that Enoch died either, it is in the very context of the chapter let alone the rest of the book itself .. it can not be denied contextually, so I am going along with "their" argument that Enoch did not die and using it against them.

That is the evidence proponents of Enoch use in many many debates for the last near decade .. "they" argue contextually that Enoch never died from the writings within Enoch itself .. and the actual bible verse mentioning Enoch is an argument "they" further use to support their original claim .. that Enoch never died .. never died in both books.

So it is not my argument that Enoch never died, but the supporters of Enoch make that claim .. 

My post is a refutation to their claims of Enoch not dying .. and that is what I did ..

Thus, by them asking me to explain any other point (Enoch "not seeing death" etc) other than the single point I already made, is actually outside the parameters of my argument and not valid.  

The burden of proof now falls on "their" shoulders, not mine.

It's a stand alone claim (Enoch did not die), and I provided a stand alone counter (he did die)

I don't see how this is not sufficient evidence .. one claim v's one counter claim .. 

The evidence is more than sufficient on my behalf, and it's a very strong argument all by itself in my estimation Tim, which is why I felt I need not introduce any other evidence than that which I already provided.

Cheers Tim

[Serving]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

 

Note that here you are quoting from Second Enoch. Which is commonly rejected as being spurious.

But Jude quoted from First Enoch, an entirely different book, which many people and some Christian denominations accept as legitimate, although not well preserved.

You wrote "the book of Enoch claims," which is a fraudulent statement on it's face, because there is no THE book by that name, there are a number of them.

Really sloppy.

Proponents of 1 Enoch claim Enoch did not die by citing Jude.

Proponents of 2 Enoch claim that Enoch did not die by using both Jude & 2 Enoch.

I provided Hebrews 11 which states that Enoch did die .. this counters the use of Jude from the 1 Enoch camp and counters 2 Enoch at the same time.

So in the overall picture, your little dig is moot and rather petty. 

You could have said it in a more brotherly way instead of giving offence .. "give offence to no man" remember  .. perhaps you should practice that first and then you can correct others in a more Godly manner. The spirit of your letter is not in good faith .. a bad sign best rectified in prayer and repentance wouldn't you think?

 

[AdHoc]

5 hours ago, Serving said:

And what happened to all of these above?

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Hello brother. I'm afraid your thesis fails - twice:

1. The phrase, "5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death... ." is emphatic. He did not see death as a result of God's actions. This action has, to date, no record of changing. It becomes very important if Enoch is one of the Witnesses of Revelation 11.

2. "These all ... " is qualified by verse 9; "...the heirs with him of the same promise".

The Covenant of Promise was not made with those who came before Abraham. Noah could not claim the Covenant of Promise.

But we agree on the Book of Enoch in that it does not belong with the inspired record

[Serving]

1 hour ago, AdHoc said:

Hello brother. I'm afraid your thesis fails - twice:

1. The phrase, "5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death... ." is emphatic. He did not see death as a result of God's actions. This action has, to date, no record of changing. It becomes very important if Enoch is one of the Witnesses of Revelation 11.

2. "These all ... " is qualified by verse 9; "...the heirs with him of the same promise".

The Covenant of Promise was not made with those who came before Abraham. Noah could not claim the Covenant of Promise.

But we agree on the Book of Enoch in that it does not belong with the inspired record

I disagree, 

Hebrews 11 is clear, Enoch died.

THAT is my argument.

Proponents of the book of Enoch say Enoch did not die, Hebrews 11 says he did die.

That singular point IS my point .. the rest, ie: "was not", "translated" & "see death", though related and needing eventual explanation, is still not my point I was arguing .. those points would come next as a secondary and necessary follow on.

Nevertheless :

Enoch was 7th from Adam.

Lamech was 7th from Adam.

Both living at the same time.

Compare for context :

Gods declaration:

Genesis 4:15
And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Meaning : Vengeance is the Lord's and NOT mans, and not Lamech's.

Lamech's boast: 

Genesis 4:23-24
23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Meaning : Vengeance is not the Lords right only, but Lamech's right too .. and his (Lamech's) vengeance will be far worse than God's according to Lamech himself.

Boastful ungodly speech is it not?

Going directly against God's declaration right?

Now, Enoch's statement/prophecy  

Jude 1:14-16

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

> Seems pretty relevant compared to Lamech's boastful boast don't you think?

And if this came to Lamech's ear, how do you suppose Lamech would have reacted?

Seeing Lamech' sons were the founders of culture/craftmanship and weapon smithing etc .. Lamech would of had access to weapons and armour right?

And seeing that Lamech came from Cain's line, the seed of the serpent, whose line already has contention with Abel's line, the woman's seed as it were .. then wouldn't Lamech with his threat and his boast consider Enoch was speaking against him?

And if so, then we have biblical context, though heresay, for why God "translated" Enoch so he would not "see death"

Context can therefore say this :

Lamech boasts his boast.

Lamech's boast is in fact a boast against God Himself.

Enoch rebuked Lamech's boast with his prophecy concerning, among other things, those who boast hard speeches against God

This comes to Lamech's ears, this angered Lamech. Lamech plans to kill Enoch. 

So God translates (meaning taking from one place and placing in another) Enoch to a safe place to see out his short life so he doesn't "see death" at the hands of Lamech.

 Translate does not mean to go up to heaven.

It means being moved from one place to another .. just like Philip was, and just like Elijah was.

And not "seeing death" is not the same as not dying.

It's all context.

So there is context that explains your protest verses AdHoc ..

So I did not fail in my thesis after all .. I do have context

But again, this context is not my burden to prove simply because my argument was precise and only concerning the argument that "Enoch did not die"

I did not set out to argue your provided points .. that's another argument, an argument I did not yet raise .. yet.

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Serving
Oops ..

[Serving]

3 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

There might be a few ways to catch somethings in this

Hebrews 11:10 **By faith** Enoch was translated that he should not **see death**; and was**not found**, 
because God had translated him: for **before** "his translation" he had this testimony, that **he pleased God.**

And we already know that **without faith** its impossible to **please God**

And so **before** God translated him he had **this testimony** that **he pleased God** (which would be by the faith which is attributed to Enoch)

And then here as well, which in any comparison I am not sure, but if going in this same direction it speaks of

Enoch was not found, as is shown in the faith (Which Enoch had) which did pleased God) speaking of it similarly this way in Paul

Phil 3:9 And be **found** in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God **by faith** 

Or perhaps,  that "no more I who liveth but Christ" 

Since there is this passing from death unto life (and Christ is life, the life, even our life) the rock in whom we are hid, in whom we ourselves are to be found, and Enoch was not. And it does show there is a "being found" in Him. And so it would make sense in such a comparison within the realm of faith itself. As the OP shows that all of them died in faith but then there are the words which pertain to Enoch, who did not see death also, which are the same words spoken of by Jesus concerning those who were living who kept his saying would equally not see death. 

I wonder if this could apply in the same way

Proverbs 12:28 In **the way** of righteousness" is life and in the pathway thereof there is **no death**.

AFlameofFire,

If you read my response to AdHoc you will get a better understanding of my point of view and reasoning .. 

Cheers.