>>5621004 pb
>Enoch is scripture.
Not convinced.
The Hebrew word for scripture is kathab כתב . It simply means writing.
-
Jesus said that not a jot or tittle would pass away from the law. Since Matthew is written in Greek but Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, he probably said "Torah"which refers to all the revelation of God, not just legal pronouncements or the first five books. Since Enoch only exists in fragments. it was not important enough for God to protect. The OT books contain an intact sensus plenior or sod layer demonstrating that they have been protected.
-
The Word of God, the OT, has a sensus plenior layer. This only exists in the Hebrew square text where words derive their meaning from the combined meanings of the letters, which in turn derive their meanings from the strokes. Since Enoch does not exist in the sacred script, it cannot be evaluated for sensus plenior.
Yes I know that it is claimed that the square text was borrowed from their captors, but seriously; why would a people write their most sacred scriptures in the language of their enemies? This is as stooopid as claiming that Mormon Jewish Indians wrote in Reformed Egyptian. It is far more likely that the captors defiled the sacred text, the same as they did the implements of the temple.
So naah, I don't buy that Enoch is Holy scripture, or Word of God.
It is also far more likely that Jude does not belong. The teachings of Paul are validated by the sensus plenior in the OT. The teaching of Jude is not.
The Gospels and letters have a different character than the OT. The OT HAS sensus plenior, the Gospels are a proof that Jesus is the Messiah of the sensus plenior, and the letters (all but Jude) are validated by the doctrine of the sensus plenior of the OT, though the reference to the body of Moses is a SP reference.
The other exception is that Acts 12 contains sensus plenior intentionally to teach how to read it in the OT.