Enoch's DEATH is in Hebrews

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

8 minutes ago, Serving said:

AFlameofFire,

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

Cheers.

I think you explained yourself well, and I like that you separated between the not dying part and the not seeing death part because there is distinction between them which can appear as a contradiction, but you explained that well in the context of how you were understanding it by scripture.

[WilliamL]

18 hours ago, Serving said:

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

Completely false: Jude males no such claim.

18 hours ago, Serving said:

I provided Hebrews 11 which states that Enoch did die ..

And the very same chapter says "he did not see death." Which you chose to override.

18 hours ago, Serving said:

The spirit of your letter is not in good faith .. a bad sign best rectified in prayer and repentance wouldn't you think?

The spirit of your original post was not in good faith. It was a biased hit job on the beliefs of many. Deal first with the log in your own eye?

[WilliamL]

On 12/17/2023 at 8:33 AM, Serving said:

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of PROMISE, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same  PROMISE:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had PROMISED.

12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

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. ...

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the PROMISES offered up his only begotten son...

So let's now see what this passage really teaches. Verse 13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the PROMISES..." Now, were Abel or Enoch or Noah, or anyone else before the time of Abraham, at all involved with "the promises" to Abraham and his wife and his sons mentioned in verses 9, 11, 13, and 17?? NO. Therefore, does "these all died" include Enoch? NO!

So the only thing Hebrews 11 testifies about the possible death of Enoch is verse 5's "he did not see death." End of issue.

Edited December 18, 2023 by WilliamL

[Serving]

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

22 hours ago, Serving said:

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

#1 Completely false: Jude males no such claim.

22 hours ago, Serving said:

I provided Hebrews 11 which states that Enoch did die ..

#2 And the very same chapter says "he did not see death." Which you chose to override.

22 hours ago, Serving said:

The spirit of your letter is not in good faith .. a bad sign best rectified in prayer and repentance wouldn't you think?

#3 The spirit of your original post was not in good faith. It was a biased hit job on the beliefs of many. Deal first with the log in your own eye?

#1 Oops, yeah my mistake, that should read this: "Proponents of Enoch 1 claim Enoch did not die by citing Genesis 5:21" .. They can site Hebrews 11 too like you did .. this sometimes happens, nobody is perfect.

#2 "he did not see death" .. on page 2 of this post you will see how I answered AdHoc for context regarding how the usage of "not see death" can be applied.

You do consider context when reading the scriptures right? When two opposing claims are made within a text, usually that means the text is not saying what it seems to be saying on the surface .. like Hebrews 11 is doing .. so my advice to you is dig deeper.

Just while I'm thinking of it .. the concept "not see death" is not far removed from statements Christ Himself made concerning those who follow Him who will "not see death" and various other wordings conveying the same message .. nobody thinks He meant that believers would never see physical death, though certain hostile religions use that to mock Christianity because they don't understand the concept of context, at least they don't "understand" when it comes to the bible .. or, suddenly stop using it when facing opposing views, of course.

You're looking at the Enoch verses the same way when concerning "not see death". You need to dig deeper.

Again, page 2 .. my reply to AdHoc to see how context can explain "not see death" quite easily.

#3  Ever hear the Lord say, "Blessed are the peacemakers"?

What do you think the reverse of that saying would read if we changed peacemakers to troublemakers?

Always striving to be a better servant of the Lord, I think about things like that you know .. do you?

Anyway, again .. page 2, my reply to AdHoc covers how contextual use of Genesis 5 can solve the seeming contradiction in Hebrews 11 .. check it out.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Serving
Oops ..

[WilliamL]

19 hours ago, Serving said:

Anyway, again .. page 2, my reply to AdHoc covers how contextual use of Genesis 5 can solve the seeming contradiction in Hebrews 11 .. check it out.

No, you completely ignored both AdHoc's and my statements about "these all died," in context, is a direct reference to those having "the promises" God made with Abraham and his family. Of which Enoch had no part. "Genesis 5 can['t] "solve th[at] seeming contradiction" !

Just like you earlier ignored my statement that you can't honestly say that 1 Enoch is false by quoting out of 2 Enoch, and essentially saying that they are only one book. 

Picking and choosing what to use and what to ignore is not sound exposition of the Word.

[Serving]

11 hours ago, WilliamL said:

No, you completely ignored both AdHoc's and my statements about "these all died," in context, is a direct reference to those having "the promises" God made with Abraham and his family. Of which Enoch had no part. "Genesis 5 can['t] "solve th[at] seeming contradiction" !

Just like you earlier ignored my statement that you can't honestly say that 1 Enoch is false by quoting out of 2 Enoch, and essentially saying that they are only one book. 

Picking and choosing what to use and what to ignore is not sound exposition of the Word.

Okay William I will answer what you are asking for .. let me quote AdHoc's post because it is short and sweet .. like my answer will be .. because sound exposition of the word goes both ways as I shall demonstrate.

Let me quote AdHoc so he may be made aware of my answer too .. 

Will post soon ..

[Serving]

On 12/18/2023 at 5:30 AM, 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

Hi AdHoc,

William said I didn't answer your post sufficiently and that I dodged your main point .. If you feel that way too, then I hope this answer alleviates both your protests.

I highlighted a word in your answer above, that is my answer to your protest friend.

Sorry I didn't answer that point directly .. hope that cleared it up for you and William.

Cheers. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Serving
Made a silly error in my reply that I didn't actually mean

[AdHoc]

7 hours ago, Serving said:

Hi AdHoc,

William said I didn't answer your post sufficiently and that I dodged your main point .. If you feel that way too, then I hope this answer alleviates both your protests.

I highlighted a word in your answer above, that is my answer to your protest friend.

Sorry I didn't answer that point directly .. hope that cleared it up for you and William.

Cheers. 

Hi, and thanks for your replies. I have two options. One is to stand on what is said and leave the proof of your thesis up to you. Or I can try to answer your comprehensive build-up. But first I would like to deal with the "IF" you highlighted.

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are not named. But the Greek for "Witness" does not mean what is commonly meant by the modern Christian term today. The Witnesses were not preaching the gospel nor teaching Christ. They were "Witnesses to events and are prepared, under oath, to tell what they saw, even under pain of death". A rude example is a man or woman who has to testify against the mafia. They saw something that needs to be told, and could (and did) pay with their lives.

The Bible makes a special mention of two men who did "not see death". Both were strategically placed to Witness wickedness that led to God's judgment. One was a Gentile and the wicked deeds he saw ended in the universal judgment of the earth - the flood. The other was a Jew, and he witnessed Israel in idolatry, which ended in a three and one half year judgment on Israel. This very situation will prevail on earth, and in Jerusalem during the last three and one half years of this age.

Both these Witnesses could be resurrected to tell what they saw. But if they were to be killed again, then a grave problem would arise with God's Word because in Hebrews 9:27 it emphatically says that it is given to man "One to die and then comes judgment".

The logical solution to having two Witnesses from yore is that they did not die, and would, at a future date, be martyred. The seriousness of this scenario is as follows. The reason that any man dies (except our Lord Jesus) is that he is partaker of Adam's sinful nature. This is explained in Genesis 3, Roman 5:12-17 and 6.23.

There, the "sin" is singular, and Romans uses it prolifically as compared to "sins" (plural), or, as in the Offerings 1. a "sin offering" and 2. a "trespass offering". Cutting short the whole explanation, the Holy Spirit is the maker of the resurrection body (1st Cor.15:44, 2nd Cor.5:1-5) and for a man to die a second time, the Holy Spirit would have to create a body with "sin". The Holy Spirit would then become the author of "sin" and death. Perish the thought. The way it lies needs no great and complex instruction. Two men in history did not see death and at the end of this age, God's needs at last Two Witnesses of those early years to testify and die for their testimony, in order that both Gentiles and Jews are warned.

So, having considered the whole picture, we have indications of who the Two Witnesses are, BUT ... their names are still withheld by scripture. So I am constrained to write "IF".

The rest remains the same. It is your job to prove that Enoch "saw death". I would suggest what I always do when my theory is called into question. I admit that the counter-argument is good and retreat to reconsider. In this, I do not admit defeat, I show a teachable spirit and I can reverse my standpoint at any time that I receive more light on the subject. If you find out, after say a year, you were wrong, why ... the whole thing has blown over and your honor remains intact.

In closing I must compliment you on your courteous manner of presenting your arguments - a true Christian spirit.

[Serving]

18 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Hi, and thanks for your replies. I have two options. One is to stand on what is said and leave the proof of your thesis up to you. Or I can try to answer your comprehensive build-up. But first I would like to deal with the "IF" you highlighted.

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are not named. But the Greek for "Witness" does not mean what is commonly meant by the modern Christian term today. The Witnesses were not preaching the gospel nor teaching Christ. They were "Witnesses to events and are prepared, under oath, to tell what they saw, even under pain of death". A rude example is a man or woman who has to testify against the mafia. They saw something that needs to be told, and could (and did) pay with their lives.

The Bible makes a special mention of two men who did "not see death". Both were strategically placed to Witness wickedness that led to God's judgment. One was a Gentile and the wicked deeds he saw ended in the universal judgment of the earth - the flood. The other was a Jew, and he witnessed Israel in idolatry, which ended in a three and one half year judgment on Israel. This very situation will prevail on earth, and in Jerusalem during the last three and one half years of this age.

Both these Witnesses could be resurrected to tell what they saw. But if they were to be killed again, then a grave problem would arise with God's Word because in Hebrews 9:27 it emphatically says that it is given to man "One to die and then comes judgment".

The logical solution to having two Witnesses from yore is that they did not die, and would, at a future date, be martyred. The seriousness of this scenario is as follows. The reason that any man dies (except our Lord Jesus) is that he is partaker of Adam's sinful nature. This is explained in Genesis 3, Roman 5:12-17 and 6.23.

There, the "sin" is singular, and Romans uses it prolifically as compared to "sins" (plural), or, as in the Offerings 1. a "sin offering" and 2. a "trespass offering". Cutting short the whole explanation, the Holy Spirit is the maker of the resurrection body (1st Cor.15:44, 2nd Cor.5:1-5) and for a man to die a second time, the Holy Spirit would have to create a body with "sin". The Holy Spirit would then become the author of "sin" and death. Perish the thought. The way it lies needs no great and complex instruction. Two men in history did not see death and at the end of this age, God's needs at last Two Witnesses of those early years to testify and die for their testimony, in order that both Gentiles and Jews are warned.

So, having considered the whole picture, we have indications of who the Two Witnesses are, BUT ... their names are still withheld by scripture. So I am constrained to write "IF".

The rest remains the same. It is your job to prove that Enoch "saw death". I would suggest what I always do when my theory is called into question. I admit that the counter-argument is good and retreat to reconsider. In this, I do not admit defeat, I show a teachable spirit and I can reverse my standpoint at any time that I receive more light on the subject. If you find out, after say a year, you were wrong, why ... the whole thing has blown over and your honor remains intact.

In closing I must compliment you on your courteous manner of presenting your arguments - a true Christian spirit.

Hi AdHoc,

I read what you said carefully and I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from.

I won't debate anything you declared because your reply wasn't given in that spirit of debate but was your musings and advice rolled into one.

Cheers for the advice at the end, advice I too have given many times over the years, so I hear you.

I hope I don't come across as un-teachable nor am judged in that light it's just that um, err, how can I say this .. um, before coming to worthy I did 7 solid years of debating on the most popular forum of it's day, over 400 000 members alone .. debating "normies" like us, debating pastors, authors, many scholars and a professor or two, multiple thousands of interactions covering every subject you can think of and shown and been told that I am quite capable and do in fact understand scriptures quite well, to the point where I was rarely directly challenged by anyone near the end of my association with said site, even those who really really didn't like me .. my "enemies" were all at peace with me, even though they vehemently disagreed with me on certain stances, but not all stance just some ..

And would even privately message me asking not to go on their posts and challenge them because people were turning to my interpretation on a matter as though it were some grave insult to them or some popularity contest I was ruining for them or something like that. 

I say this to show I'm not self deluded nor have visions of grandeur, not that you said anything of the sort of course, just covering bases .. but simply because others, over time, never accused that about me, over time being the key point of course .. it's just that I do have a good grasp of scripture is all and could see the merit of the argument I now support when I first scrutinized it for myself .. meaning, I NEVER debate anything blindly.

But those 7 years were my "service years" so to speak, I was like Paul .. a bulldog .. I now practice a different approach and take a far far more laid back approach and rarely post these days unless it's something I feel inspired to debate or discuss.

I really truly don't say this to boast, okay, okay, maybe 10 % of a boast though it's not MY knowledge it's God who provides so any boast would be hollow if it were a self centered boast, Lol, but I can assure you AdHoc, that the times I have been shown to be wrong in the past, I have instantly admitted my error/corrected my mistake and all without hesitation.

I don't worry about my honor simply because it's not about me, God will decide if I get shamed or justified or anything in-between. 

And thanks bro for your compliment, I don't always live up to it though, sometimes the old soldier comes out and I can say the wrong thing or react the wrong way that could come across as a bit nasty/unfriendly/un Christ-like .. I call it battle fatigue, Lol.

God bless.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Serving

[AdHoc]

9 hours ago, Serving said:

Hi AdHoc,

I read what you said carefully and I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from.

I won't debate anything you declared because your reply wasn't given in that spirit of debate but was your musings and advice rolled into one.

Cheers for the advice at the end, advice I too have given many times over the years, so I hear you.

I hope I don't come across as un-teachable nor am judged in that light it's just that um, err, how can I say this .. um, before coming to worthy I did 7 solid years of debating on the most popular forum of it's day, over 400 000 members alone .. debating "normies" like us, debating pastors, authors, many scholars and a professor or two, multiple thousands of interactions covering every subject you can think of and shown and been told that I am quite capable and do in fact understand scriptures quite well, to the point where I was rarely directly challenged by anyone near the end of my association with said site, even those who really really didn't like me .. my "enemies" were all at peace with me, even though they vehemently disagreed with me on certain stances, but not all stance just some ..

And would even privately message me asking not to go on their posts and challenge them because people were turning to my interpretation on a matter as though it were some grave insult to them or some popularity contest I was ruining for them or something like that. 

I say this to show I'm not self deluded nor have visions of grandeur, not that you said anything of the sort of course, just covering bases .. but simply because others, over time, never accused that about me, over time being the key point of course .. it's just that I do have a good grasp of scripture is all and could see the merit of the argument I now support when I first scrutinized it for myself .. meaning, I NEVER debate anything blindly.

But those 7 years were my "service years" so to speak, I was like Paul .. a bulldog .. I now practice a different approach and take a far far more laid back approach and rarely post these days unless it's something I feel inspired to debate or discuss.

I really truly don't say this to boast, okay, okay, maybe 10 % of a boast though it's not MY knowledge it's God who provides so any boast would be hollow if it were a self centered boast, Lol, but I can assure you AdHoc, that the times I have been shown to be wrong in the past, I have instantly admitted my error/corrected my mistake and all without hesitation.

I don't worry about my honor simply because it's not about me, God will decide if I get shamed or justified or anything in-between. 

And thanks bro for your compliment, I don't always live up to it though, sometimes the old soldier comes out and I can say the wrong thing or react the wrong way that could come across as a bit nasty/unfriendly/un Christ-like .. I call it battle fatigue, Lol.

God bless.

Thanks for the insights. I find your honesty refreshing. Which of us fallen men doesn't have a foible or two. I too get passionate sometimes. Luckily, I've got a good wife to bounce things off and get some sympathy (in the form of being told to go and have a cold shower).

We're all on a road to

13 ... come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4:13)

... but it can be a long road and we're all at a different stage. So we've got to be generous to the others.

Take care