Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

So who helps with the context? I trust the apostles and those closest to them much more than others much later in history. You also have to consider the which canon of the Old Testament is true and most in line with what the apostles and first century Jewish Christians used. There were 3-4 sects who were all still debating the canon

Zobel said:

---

Why do you assume the fathers were divorced from the tradition they were raised in? Who do you think instructed them in the faith?

---

I agree. The fathers are a product of the tradition they were raised in. They were raised in the Greco-Roman tradition, not the tradition of the Apostles or the Second Temple period. The church fathers are basically 800 years late to the party.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

So who helps with the context? I trust the apostles and those closest to them much more than others much later in history. You also have to consider the which canon of the Old Testament is true and most in line with what the apostles and first century Jewish Christians used. There were 3-4 sects who were all still debating the canon

---

Oh no. You got me. Bring the church father to me to explain how I am wrong and I will recant. I think relying on what first century Jewish Christians used is ok. But how do you think the first century Jewish Christians arrived at their conclusions? They read Second Temple material.

Quote:

---

I agree. The fathers are a product of the tradition they were raised in. They were raised in the Greco-Roman tradition, not the tradition of the Apostles or the Second Temple period. The church fathers are basically 800 years late to the party.

---

What an asinine statement.

Traditionally St John of Damascus is considered the last church father in the East, and he died in 749 AD. In the West that is normally considered St Isidore of Seville, who died in 636.

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

I'm struggling to grasp what you're trying to say. Enoch was clearly around, read, and revered during ancient times by ancient Jews. Jesus alludes to things revealed in Enoch and Jude directly references Enoch himself. Qumran is a great example of a sect that spent an inordinate amount of time preserving Enoch and Genesis. Great. Everyone's on the same page here.

You admit there is an understanding of demons as dead nephilim by early christians, but then also say that that there is a lack of writings up to 200AD. (What? which one is it?) . And then that this is evidence that you can't trust the church fathers because you need context?

What do you think the church fathers provide? Its been about explaining context this whole time. You go to an orthodox church today, and they'll make the exact claims you just said. Unclean spirits are restless souls of the dead nephilim as stated in the scriptures and explained by the church fathers.

I struggle to see the point here. Whose interpretation of second temple literature is the early church missing?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

I'm struggling to grasp what you're trying to say. Enoch was clearly around, read, and revered during ancient times by ancient Jews. Jesus alludes to things revealed in Enoch and Jude directly references Enoch himself. Qumran is a great example of a sect that spent an inordinate amount of time preserving Enoch and Genesis. Great. Everyone's on the same page here.

You admit there is an understanding of demons as dead nephilim by early christians, but then also say that that there is a lack of writings up to 200AD. (What? which one is it?) . And then that this is evidence that you can't trust the church fathers because you need context?

What do you think the church fathers provide? Its been about explaining context this whole time. You go to an orthodox church today, and they'll make the exact claims you just said. Unclean spirits are restless souls of the dead nephilim as stated in the scriptures and explained by the church fathers.

I struggle to see the point here. Whose interpretation of second temple literature is the early church missing?

---

I said that there is no notion of spirits as impure in Greco-Roman writings up through 200 AD. In other words, the people who wrote the New Testament did not get their ideas from the Greeks or the Romans. They got their ideas from the Ancient Near East. You cannot trust the church fathers because they are not the early church. The early church was founded long before 200AD or even the birth of Christ.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree. The fathers are a product of the tradition they were raised in. They were raised in the Greco-Roman tradition, not the tradition of the Apostles or the Second Temple period. The church fathers are basically 800 years late to the party.

---

What an asinine statement.

Traditionally St John of Damascus is considered the last church father in the East, and he died in 749 AD. In the West that is normally considered St Isidore of Seville, who died in 636.

---

Again, they were both thousands of years late to the party. Were they there when the Word of God was at the River Kebar??

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

So who helps with the context? I trust the apostles and those closest to them much more than others much later in history. You also have to consider the which canon of the Old Testament is true and most in line with what the apostles and first century Jewish Christians used. There were 3-4 sects who were all still debating the canon

---

Oh no. You got me. Bring the church father to me to explain how I am wrong and I will recant. I think relying on what first century Jewish Christians used is ok. But how do you think the first century Jewish Christians arrived at their conclusions? They read Second Temple material.

---

I guess you'd have to define who you consider a 'Church Father'. My church fathers go back to the first century.and I include the Apostolic Fathers as those I consider when considering things like canons, context etc. not sure where your 800 years late date references.

---

Those are church grandfathers. And Codker agrees with those.

Thousands of years? So the apostles were a thousand years late to the party too?

codker92 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

I'm struggling to grasp what you're trying to say. Enoch was clearly around, read, and revered during ancient times by ancient Jews. Jesus alludes to things revealed in Enoch and Jude directly references Enoch himself. Qumran is a great example of a sect that spent an inordinate amount of time preserving Enoch and Genesis. Great. Everyone's on the same page here.

You admit there is an understanding of demons as dead nephilim by early christians, but then also say that that there is a lack of writings up to 200AD. (What? which one is it?) . And then that this is evidence that you can't trust the church fathers because you need context?

What do you think the church fathers provide? Its been about explaining context this whole time. You go to an orthodox church today, and they'll make the exact claims you just said. Unclean spirits are restless souls of the dead nephilim as stated in the scriptures and explained by the church fathers.

I struggle to see the point here. Whose interpretation of second temple literature is the early church missing?

---

I said that there is no notion of spirits as impure in Greco-Roman writings up through 200 AD. In other words, the people who wrote the New Testament did not get their ideas from the Greeks or the Romans. They got their ideas from the Ancient Near East. You cannot trust the church fathers because they are not the early church. The early church was founded long before 200AD or even the birth of Christ.

---

The people who wrote the new testament got their ideas...from Jesus. These aren't folklore collections of idols related to a cultural area. That would be a Baal cycle, not the Word.

Who are the church fathers that are not in succession from the genesis of the church? Its called apostolic succession not 800AD church father succession because it starts with what Jesus charged the apostles with.

The apostles did not live in a vacuum, nor did they receive Jesus's message in a vacuum. They knew him to be the Jewish Messiah and knew of the second temple issues and culture. That is the whole point of Paul, he'd have been a Jewish scholar for the rest of his days if not for Christ appearing to him.

The idea that the Church was founded before Christ is tautological. Christ founded the Church. How was it founded before Christ then? Of course the jewish story and peoples exists before Christ earthly appearance, and Christ's mission is to fulfill the Jewish scriptures. But to claim that the church fathers started 200 years later is purposefully skipping over 200 very important years by just not calling them church fathers.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

So who helps with the context? I trust the apostles and those closest to them much more than others much later in history. You also have to consider the which canon of the Old Testament is true and most in line with what the apostles and first century Jewish Christians used. There were 3-4 sects who were all still debating the canon

---

Oh no. You got me. Bring the church father to me to explain how I am wrong and I will recant. I think relying on what first century Jewish Christians used is ok. But how do you think the first century Jewish Christians arrived at their conclusions? They read Second Temple material.

---

I guess you'd have to define who you consider a 'Church Father'. My church fathers go back to the first century.and I include the Apostolic Fathers as those I consider when considering things like canons, context etc. not sure where your 800 years late date references.

---

Genesis 48:16 states that the Angel of the Lord redeemed Joseph from all evil. All evil means ALL EVIL. Sin is evil. Thus the Angel of the Lord redeemed Joseph from sin. This book was written at least 500 years before Christ's birth and more than 800 years before church fathers.

Zobel said:

---

Thousands of years? So the apostles were a thousand years late to the party too?

---

According to Genesis 48:16 -- about 500 years or more late to the party.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

codker92 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Elements of Sectarian Judaism appear to consider 1 Enoch to be sacred. This is partly indicated by the presence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic at Qumran, along with the fact that many Second Temple Period books drew on 1 Enoch's content. Materials found among the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the influence of Enochic tradition. Loren T. Struckenbruck "The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition, Early Christianity 4 (2013); 7-40 (esp. p.11).

At Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, related peshers of Book of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, a pesher on the Story of the Watchers and the Damascus Document directly quote from the Book of Enoch. The term pesher means interpretation. Peshers are essentially commentaries on the texts. Peshers for all books in the Old Testament exist at Qumran. The fact that the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch had an official pesher indicates that 1 Enoch was likely considered scripture.

The Enochic tradition is critical to understand the Second Temple notions of the origin of demons being the disembodied spirits of giants. This is evidenced by the early Christian attitudes towards spirits as impure. This is completely absent from Greco-Roman literate up through the second century C.E. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 185 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1, 66-67, 170.

This is why relying on the Church Fathers will not give you a full picture and context of the New Testament. You must read the New Testament and Old Testament in the context they were written.

---

I'm struggling to grasp what you're trying to say. Enoch was clearly around, read, and revered during ancient times by ancient Jews. Jesus alludes to things revealed in Enoch and Jude directly references Enoch himself. Qumran is a great example of a sect that spent an inordinate amount of time preserving Enoch and Genesis. Great. Everyone's on the same page here.

You admit there is an understanding of demons as dead nephilim by early christians, but then also say that that there is a lack of writings up to 200AD. (What? which one is it?) . And then that this is evidence that you can't trust the church fathers because you need context?

What do you think the church fathers provide? Its been about explaining context this whole time. You go to an orthodox church today, and they'll make the exact claims you just said. Unclean spirits are restless souls of the dead nephilim as stated in the scriptures and explained by the church fathers.

I struggle to see the point here. Whose interpretation of second temple literature is the early church missing?

---

I said that there is no notion of spirits as impure in Greco-Roman writings up through 200 AD. In other words, the people who wrote the New Testament did not get their ideas from the Greeks or the Romans. They got their ideas from the Ancient Near East. You cannot trust the church fathers because they are not the early church. The early church was founded long before 200AD or even the birth of Christ.

---

The people who wrote the new testament got their ideas...from Jesus. These aren't folklore collections of idols related to a cultural area. That would be a Baal cycle, not the Word.

Who are the church fathers that are not in succession from the genesis of the church? Its called apostolic succession not 800AD church father succession because it starts with what Jesus charged the apostles with.

The apostles did not live in a vacuum, nor did they receive Jesus's message in a vacuum. They knew him to be the Jewish Messiah and knew of the second temple issues and culture. That is the whole point of Paul, he'd have been a Jewish scholar for the rest of his days if not for Christ appearing to him.

The idea that the Church was founded before Christ is tautological. Christ founded the Church. How was it founded before Christ then? Of course the jewish story and peoples exists before Christ earthly appearance, and Christ's mission is to fulfill the Jewish scriptures. But to claim that the church fathers started 200 years later is purposefully skipping over 200 very important years by just not calling them church fathers.

---

Christ existed before his own birth. That is, he was with Abraham Genesis 26:24; Daniel, Daniel 3:25; and Ezekiel Ezekiel 2

Zobel said:

---

By this reckoning Ezekiel at the River Kebar was a few centuries late to the party. This argument is nonsense.

---

Did the Word of God speak to Ezekiel at the River Kebar?

Did the Word of God speak to the Apostle Paul?

Zobel said:

---

Did the Word of God speak to the Apostle Paul?

---

Paul did not see the Word but Ezekiel did.

Zobel said:

---

St Paul is careful to present his call as a prophetic call, frequently invoking language from the prophets.

For example before Agrippa he says -

Quote:

---

At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

---

Ironically for the purposes of this discussion this echoes Ezekiel 2:1.

Actually, the mark of a prophet - as second temple sources understood - is one who had stood in the presence of the divine council, just like Ezekiel.

He also writes from his own hand -

Quote:

---

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one stillborn, he appeared also to me.

---

I guess we're done here?

---

I dont dispute that the Lord rose. Just that he appeared to Paul. I don't believe there is reliable evidence that risen Christ appeared to Paul (that Paul physically saw Christ), although I do believe Paul heard the Word of God.

Zobel said:

---

"St Paul is a liar sometimes" is an interesting approach.

---

You do realize the word translated "see" appear in 1 Cor 15 is horao. That same word appears in John 3:6.

John 3:36 (LEB): The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys the Son will not see lifebut the wrath of God remains on him.

Not all uses of the word horao (see) mean to physically see with the eyes. In 1 Cor 15 I believe Paul is using the word horao to mean become acquainted with by some sort of experience.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one stillborn, he appeared also to me.

---

that same word is used in every instance in this passage, so now we've gone from "st paul is a liar sometimes" to "all the apostles were liars"

it's also the same word St John uses 1 John 1:1 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

or here in John 20:18 "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord" -- and that he had said these things to her."

this isn't getting better

---

There are other passages that specifically describe Jesus physically appearing to those people. Paul is not one of them. By the way, the word Saint isn't even in the Bible.

K

codker92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one stillborn, he appeared also to me.

---

that same word is used in every instance in this passage, so now we've gone from "st paul is a liar sometimes" to "all the apostles were liars"

it's also the same word St John uses 1 John 1:1 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

or here in John 20:18 "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord" -- and that he had said these things to her."

this isn't getting better

---

There are other passages that specifically describe Jesus physically appearing to those people. Paul is not one of them. By the way, the word Saint isn't even in the Bible.

---

Neither is 'sola scriptura', 'sinners prayer', or a list of the books to be included in the Bible

codker92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one stillborn, he appeared also to me.

---

that same word is used in every instance in this passage, so now we've gone from "st paul is a liar sometimes" to "all the apostles were liars"

it's also the same word St John uses 1 John 1:1 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

or here in John 20:18 "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord" -- and that he had said these things to her."

this isn't getting better

---

There are other passages that specifically describe Jesus physically appearing to those people. Paul is not one of them. By the way, the word Saint isn't even in the Bible.

---

I'm looking for the episode right now but The Whole Counsel of God or Lord of Spirits Podcast has a great episode about Paul's Damascus conversion. I think its either The Whole Counsel of God episodes where they discuss Acts Chapters 9, 22 or 26, or The Lord of Spirits four part series on the Angel of the Lord.

They talk about how during the second temple period, there were devout jews who would meditate on Ezekiel in hopes of experiencing a vision like Ezekiel. Some saw themselves ascend into up the lower levels of heaven, some saw the chariot. There's evidence that Paul, at least, knew about these visions and practices.

The podcast asserts that Paul probably saw the throne (or chariot) of God and saw Jesus sitting on the throne. and that was the 'ah ha' moment of Jesus not just showing that he was some divine being but God himself and possessing the authority to sit on the throne. I'm not remembering enough to lay it all out here like they do though.

I'll have to dig it up today. At the very least, I get to listen to a bunch of really good podcasts today while searching for it.

except the word saint is in the bible dozens of times

one MEEN Ag said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one stillborn, he appeared also to me.

---

that same word is used in every instance in this passage, so now we've gone from "st paul is a liar sometimes" to "all the apostles were liars"

it's also the same word St John uses 1 John 1:1 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched -- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

or here in John 20:18 "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord" -- and that he had said these things to her."

this isn't getting better

---

There are other passages that specifically describe Jesus physically appearing to those people. Paul is not one of them. By the way, the word Saint isn't even in the Bible.

---

I'm looking for the episode right now but The Whole Counsel of God or Lord of Spirits Podcast has a great episode about Paul's Damascus conversion. I think its either The Whole Counsel of God episodes where they discuss Acts Chapters 9, 22 or 26, or The Lord of Spirits four part series on the Angel of the Lord.

They talk about how during the second temple period, there were devout jews who would meditate on Ezekiel in hopes of experiencing a vision like Ezekiel. Some saw themselves ascend into up the lower levels of heaven, some saw the chariot. There's evidence that Paul, at least, knew about these visions and practices.

The podcast asserts that Paul probably saw the throne (or chariot) of God and saw Jesus sitting on the throne. and that was the 'ah ha' moment of Jesus not just showing that he was some divine being but God himself and possessing the authority to sit on the throne. I'm not remembering enough to lay it all out here like they do though.

I'll have to dig it up today. At the very least, I get to listen to a bunch of really good podcasts today while searching for it.

---

You said "They talk about how during the second temple period, there were devout jews who would meditate on Ezekiel in hopes of experiencing a vision like Ezekiel. Some saw themselves ascend into up the lower levels of heaven, some saw the chariot. There's evidence that Paul, at least, knew about these visions and practices."

You are thinking of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. I am not aware of any pershim dealing with those texts, but pesher do exist for 1 Enoch. It is probable that believers in the Second Temple Period considered 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch scripture.

For reference, 2 Enoch is a retelling of Genesis 5:21:-32, that is, it covers events from the life of Enoch to the onset of the Flood. F.I. Andersen "A New Translation and Introduction," in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 1; New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 191.

3 Enoch is what you are describing. As Alexander notes, the book "purports to be an account by R. Ishmael of how he journeyed into heaven, saw God's throne and chariot, received revelations from the archangel Metatron, and view the wonders of the upper world". P. Alexander. "A New Translation and Introduction," in The Old Testament Pseudepirgrapha (vol. 1; new York; London: Yale Univeristy Press, 1983), 1223.

I am not aware of Paul ever claimed he ever went to the highest heaven or that he saw a chariot. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

No, he was definitely talking about Ezekiel - Merkabah mysticism. And St Paul does talk about going to the highest heaven in 2 Cor 12.

Acts 9:4 and Ezekiel 2:1 in the Greek have near identical structures.

It really seems like you're trolling.

Zobel said:

---

No, he was definitely talking about Ezekiel - Merkabah mysticism. And St Paul does talk about going to the highest heaven in 2 Cor 12.

Acts 9:4 and Ezekiel 2:1 in the Greek have near identical structures.

It really seems like you're trolling.

---

I think that is a stretch. Greek is infamous for its lack of nuance, and for obscuring the meaning of the original Hebrew. Paul's letters lack many of the features of Ezekiel's visions.

(1) There is no storm accompanying Pauls visions

(2) Paul describes no spiritual creatures in his visions.

(3) There is no polished bronze at all in Pauls visions.

(4) There are not wings in Pauls visions.

(5) There are no seraphim etc. in Pauls visions.

(6) There is no throne in Paul's visions. Conceivably, if Paul was describing the Glrofied Word, it would be on a chariot or a throne.

(7) There is no rainbow is Paul's visions.

(8) The being Paul saw did not physically grab him, like the Word physically grabbed Ezekiel.

This list goes on...

You are thinking of the ascent of Abraham. Paul's primary concern was addressing the Ascent of Abraham. In that text there is a famous quote that Paul alludes to. The quote is "while the sandal is on your foot, trample the thorn"

EDIT: for what it is worth,. The thorn is a symbol of the nations. Paul would in fact, trample the nations by following the command of the Gospel. That is, Paul, by sandal (travelling and preaching) would defeat the nations.

You need to read more carefully. But I suppose if you did that you'd not be consistently wrong.

Happy trolling.

Zobel said:

---

You need to read more carefully. But I suppose if you did that you'd not be consistently wrong.

Happy trolling.

---

I believe I have eight (8) points you have left unaddress. Zobel, you are not a very good teaser now are you?