Hahaha, I like that metaphor!

Yeah, but does Enoch have the powerhouse acting of a Kirk Cameron? I think not!

He once showed a video of the cupboard he uses as a t shirt closet

Considering he is one I doubt he would. You know they excommunicate people for heresy right? You’re asking him to break every tie he has in an area that will have repercussions for him if he tries to leave. I don’t know if he has kids but the Mormon jury and judge will not side with him. You do understand that right ?

@@timothywilliams8530 Yes, I know how cults operate. But an honest scholar in his position would go where the data leads, don't you think?

Not only revelation, there are many allusions to the book of Enoch in the Nt.

Did you read the Hermeneia translation?

@Bible-Christian 🤣😂🤣

​@Bible-Christian "scholars"😂😂 well the Nt authors used that book as they used the book of Moses. 😂😂

​​​​@Bible-Christian you mean the church and again which of the many canons? Church fathers also used that book 😂 the Nt authors had a different opinion, otherwise they wouldn't have used that book😂😂

It was definitely not mainstream Jewish, the orthodox Jews regarded the Jesus story as a "stumbling block" as admitted by Paul

Check out Beyond the Essene Hypothesis (Gabriele Boccaccini) for a good discussion of this very topic!

@Bible-Christian I don't idolize anyone or anything. That includes the Bible. And I certainly don't consider you or anyone else an authority on what is from or not from God.

@Bible-Christian good! I do not claim any authority over anything.

Agreed

Yeah, it would be helpful to hear Dan’s take. (A non-academic book I read says Jesus is alluding to Enoch 15 where Enoch hears the Watcher’s petition, explains their sin and punishment.)

4 Maccabees should also probably be mentioned. It’s from around 25 CE.

This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.

After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.

I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...

@@OliviaMarieSmith-ei8hyAbsolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.

I will leave your information below this comment.

​​​​@Bible-Christian its new for many who not get told the truth by their pastors or bishops. the book is now also "the word of God" and it even more confirms, that most of the Jesus story is a fable 😂

​​​@Bible-Christian in which of the many canons? the Nt authors quoted and used that book like they quoted the "books of Moses". So they are all "Gods word"😂 this shows how they just cherry picked what fit in their story about Jesus and what not and how Xtians today do the same.

​​​@Bible-Christian which of the many canons? And you mean what the church did and the Nt authors used that book like they used the book of Moses and Church fathers used that book too and there was no fixed canon until the 4th century or even much later until Luther 😂

​The Book of Enoch was considered as scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)[28] and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras,[29] Clement of Alexandria,[30] Irenaeus[31] and Tertullian

They too: Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius and Cassian

Huh? Yes. It's literally in the Bible. Acts 21:18-30 makes it clear that early Jerusalem Church led by James were worshipping in the Temple. Even Paul joined in despite his own opinions on Temple worship.

Regarding Metatron, I've been of the personal opinion that, since Enoch-as-Metatron appeared roughly somewhere between the 2nd and 6th centuries CE, it was an attempted Rabbinical Jewish answer to the bitheism/developing trinitarianism of Early Christianity. Like, trying to give post Second Temple Jews who were open to a bitheistic conception of God and Heaven a "kosher", rabbinically approved ersatz Jesus to sit at the right hand of God?

He says it both ways in different videos I think. E-nik is the typical Mormon pronunciation but most others say E-nok

@@bubbles581 Ok thanks!

As I understand it, the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic Gospel that was found to be heretical and therefore not included in the new testament. As I have been told, the contents of the Gospel of Thomas are nothing but quotations of Jesus's words.

​​@@jamesarnette1394 the gospel of Thomas is not gnostic. And the church found it to be heretical. Well, the book of Thomas was used by many Christians too and others rejected the books of our NT. So it doesn't mean anything.

Are you asking about the Gospel According to Thomas, or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Two very different books.

The Canaanite pantheon, Yahwism (both of which become infused with Judaism), Zoroastrianism, Hinduism off the top of my head.

When did Kendrick mention Enoch? or do you mean when he mentions Metatron?

@@saturnhex9855 because he called one of his sons Enoch. He’s also referenced in Mr Morale.

I dont think he accurately portrays how early Christians and mainstream Judaism thought of 1 Enoch. It seems like the early apologists consistently thought of 1 Enoch as pseudographical. And while the Dead Sea Scrolls are immensely valuable to our understanding of the translation and canon of the OT, at the end of the day the Essenes were more of a cult, so it’s not likely that mainstream Judaism accepted 1 Enoch as canon. I’m not sure what the early applogist stance is on the Torah’s composition, I know the tradition is that Moses wrote the whole thing. But I’ve heard a more likely explanation that Moses facilitated the passing along of oral tradition regarding Genesis, and Joshua likely acted as scribe. Again, I’m not sure if, say, Eusibius held that view, but it explains how the Torah survived the deluge. Plus, as Inspiring Philosophy pointed out, 1 Enoch bears some tells of Greek influence, which could further explain how the early church fathers came to the conclusion that 1 Enoch is not Scripture.

​@@jessebumannmost early church fathers did in fact endorse Enoch

The Torah was understood as an incarnation of YHWH's essence that was in heaven before being given to Moses-how is the Flood in any way relevant?

I doubt he really existed, but the condition of albinism would have been noticed by that point, and maybe even made out to be some sort of augury of good/bad fortune (depending on the culture). People telling stories most likely saw or just heard about such conditions, and thought they'd be a good element to add in, similar to Jesus sweating blood-like sweat in the garden, which is also a real, if rare, condition.

Being "fan fiction" of a work doesn't imply in any way that the original work was factual. There is plenty of "fan fiction" for Harry Potter. It's just saying that it is a derivative work, by a different author, based on the characters and settings from an earlier work.

@@jpyoung5137 Got it 👍🏼.

What’s your crisis about? Dan doesn’t answer questions unless it’s livestreams, so attend those. The answers you seek depend on what you accept as evidence. I’ll tell you though, that the anonymous Greeks who wrote those Jesus stories in the gospel were educated in literary traditions that flourished by rewriting familiar stories and giving new twists in them; think of what Ovid wove versus Homer versus Virgil, etc. The gospels fit the writing style and mostly fit into the genres of the Greco-Roman elites, who were educated enough to write such prose. Most people couldn’t write, and of those few who could, fewer still could write as well as to compose and recompose the stories that you find in the gospels. It was commonplace to put words into the mouths of the people they wrote stories about-and Jesus was no exception. I could give a few well-known examples, if you’d like. But that’s what we are dealing with here. The stories of Jesus were like any other fables of the period. No need to freak out. No need to think you actually know what Jesus thought or said about Adam or Noah-we don’t know he said those things. We know a character said those things. That’s it.

@@hardwork8395 Can you give me some examples. Thanks!

@@ShunM-vr6mt Mark 16:9-20 long/short ending of Mark John 7:53-8:11 Woman taken in adultery These are two well-known examples, textually attested in manuscript evidence, and accepted by most scholars-including many evangelical ones. So we turn to my statement that common practice amongst those versed in literary techniques of the day, did as they were taught in their writing education-they reworked material and put well-crafted words into the mouths of their protagonists: Socrates, Alexander the Great, Jesus, ahistorical characters, too. Oxford reference says that (Herodotus and Thucydides) “By including (i.e. inventing) speeches at all, both historians were copying Homer, and Thucydides' very difficult speeches resemble Homer's in that their style is different from the narrative.” There are other sayings of Jesus that are clearly riffing off popular cultural and philosophical themes and characters from Greco-Roman culture; and it makes sense, as the writers (like we are now) are largely a product of their times, so the writing reflects those themes, which is partly why some of the material is dated; it doesn’t age well-sorry to all you Christians that think it’s timeless! They did this to Paul, too, by the way. There are clear places we know from the manuscript evidence that he never says certain things. So, even though Paul was a real person and we have his actual , personal thoughts and writings-unlike Jesus…the editors of the Canonical New Testament still changed and added sayings because that was the rule-not the exception.

@@ShunM-vr6mt I will note that most people accept that Matthew, Luke, and John are reworking certain stories told in Mark. These people are flat out plagiarizing ( in our terms), word-for-word lines and SECTIONS from Mark-which seems to contradict that the other 3 are merely an eyewitness recounting-they are COPYING TEXT they have in front of them. And when they vary, it’s very clear they are making editorial decisions to add or leave stuff out from Mark. So this brings us back to my point, that this is yet another witness to the point I’ve been making: the people involved in the copying and editing process of the Markan material they plagiarized in the other gospel accounts, are rehashing and reworking the material as they were taught, and sometimes that means, for example, on making their characters say more pro-Roman stuff because they have some agenda. The book of revelation loved to rework Daniel and other texts. This rabbit hole is deep. But these guys were predictable writers. And even more so because there were even fewer still qualified back then to teach the skill, let alone having the opportunity to-or having been forced to; and having such a fraction of the pool of available writers being qualified and able to teach, leads to a tiny in-group of people who taught extremely similarly, having been trained by many of the same people themselves.

So, there’s much more, and more complicated arguments and this isn’t the forum for it. My personal take is that the gospels are just the window dressing; they are just the stage to dress up what they likely only had from Jesus: precious few legitimate, unsophisticated and un philosophical (to the elite greco-romans) sayings. They situated certain things to point to him as being certain important cultural archetypes that these people would respect and recognize, and that also made him more approachable; they left exotic details in the stories to give it the feel and necessary foreignness to keep it fresh and interesting to certain classes of people bored of classics and contemporary thought. They were also pushing some boundaries of writing genre.

Yes. Very much blood drinking giants.

Nothing is too nonsensical to be said once liberal politics is being defended

The Bible is meaningless garbage. Now go away and do something meaningful with what remains of your short, pathetic existence.

any of them are scholars?

@@loomiere-gs1qc Their scholar status feels irrelevant when they debate better than him. But if ad hominem is your thing, keep on truckin' I guess.

@@phoenix21studios "Debate better then him" . That's a very subjective statement. I mean, that's great if you like them and their arguments better than Dan's but to say they are "DEEPLY embarrassing [Dan]", again is a very subjective statement. One would therefore turn to expertise in some manner to see if the "debater" had special knowledge about the subject. So Loomiere's question is quite valid I think.

@@phoenix21studios That's not how the adult world works. And at no moment i intended to 'ad hominem' anyone. I was asking a genuine question. See...? Talking, even parrots can do. I couldn't care less for "who debates better" If you think "who debates better" is the point of what Dan do you're already lost intellectually. Do medical doctors need to answer any yapping of any rando on youtube about the dangers of vaccines?? No.That's not how the world of grown ups work. Academical debate is done between academics. And actual data is what matters. I've seen some of the vids responding to some of Dan's videos but none of them "humiliate" anyone. Some of them where attacking him personally. Some of were genuinely trying to fight for their faith. He even graciously made a few responses to a few of them. He doesn't NEED to make a video for every schmuck with a 2 dollar prayer book and a middle/high school diploma and a cam, who thinks they know better than a scholar on a particular subject tho. Anyway... cheers. 🤷‍♀

​@@phoenix21studiosYeah, just zip it. McClellan is simply telling factual information and hypotheses in regard to biblical literature that is amid the scholarly cónsénsus; it does not matter what some random person who has no scholarly knowledge or experience thinks in comparison and specifically in an antagonistic approach toward him. If anything, I boldly avow that I believe that you are only saying this due to a rhetorical goal of yours that is meant to preserve some sort of dogma that is threatened in some manner.

The book of the watchers harmonizes perfectly. The early Christian’s and second temple Jews certainly believed in the sins of the angels in the antediluvian age.