Epistle of Jude - ungodly men leading the church

TravelJunkie · 16-03-2009 3:14pm #1

Hi

Jude is talking specifically about christians, of people, perhaps thought-leaders penetrating the church.

Does anyone here have thought about the epistle of Jude relevant to now.

tx

hivizman · 16-03-2009 6:43pm

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Jude is talking specifically about christians, of people, perhaps thought-leaders penetrating the church.

Is this reading more into Jude than is there in the text? Verse 4, in the NRSV Anglicized Edition, reads: "For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ [or 'the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ']." Although this perhaps implies people purporting to be Christians, I don't get a sense that Jude is referring to "thought-leaders".

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Does anyone here have thought about the epistle of Jude relevant to now.

The eminent Roman Catholic New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown, in his An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997), at pp. 759-760, is rather dismissive of this letter:

Usually we have concluded our discussion of a New Testament book with "Issues and Problems for Reflection". Jude, however, is a very short work; and today most would not appreciate or find germane its argumentation from Israelite tradition about the angels who sinned with women, Michael's battle over the body of Moses, Sodom, Balaam, and Korah. We owe Jude reverence as a book of Sacred Scriptures, but its applicability to ordinary life remains a formidable difficulty. It is interesting to note that in the three-year liturgical lectionary in use in the Roman Catholic and other prominent churches, a lectionary that covers a very large portion of Scripture, Jude is never read on any of the 156 Sundays, and on only one weekday.

But if there is a modern relevance for Jude, I'd be very interested to read other people's views.

wolfsbane · 16-03-2009 6:46pm

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Hi

Jude is talking specifically about christians, of people, perhaps thought-leaders penetrating the church.

Does anyone here have thought about the epistle of Jude relevant to now.

tx

Jude is speaking about pretend Christians penetrating the church. They are not Christians with some mistaken ideas, nor even Christians with moral failures - they are pseudo-Christians.

They have always been attacking the church from within, and it is so today. It is not the Richard Dawkins', Sam Harris' etc. who are the deadliest threat to the Church, but those who enter in claiming to believe what we believe and then twisting the truth, adulterating it and finally renouncing it. Their object is not to exercise their freedom, but to seduce any they can into following their path to destruction.

The merely deluded may be recovered by earnest exhortation. The wolves are to be exposed and evicted.

Noble Knight · 16-03-2009 6:53pm

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Hi

Jude is talking specifically about christians, of people, perhaps thought-leaders penetrating the church.

Does anyone here have thought about the epistle of Jude relevant to now.

tx

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." 2tim 3:16

The thing is friend although the Epistle is addressed to Christians in general about certain second cent herectical teachers like Marcion or Gnostic teachers I think that in accordence with wjhat St Paul said in my quote above it is still very much usefull to the present day Christian.

PDN · 16-03-2009 7:11pm

hivizman wrote: »

But if there is a modern relevance for Jude, I'd be very interested to read other people's views.

Jude felt there was an urgent situation where false teachers were leading Christians astray. Very relevant today, I would think.

Soul Winner · 17-03-2009 12:45am

Raymond E Brown wrote:

Usually we have concluded our discussion of a New Testament book with "Issues and Problems for Reflection". Jude, however, is a very short work; and today most would not appreciate or find germane its argumentation from Israelite tradition about the angels who sinned with women, Michael's battle over the body of Moses, Sodom, Balaam, and Korah. We owe Jude reverence as a book of Sacred Scriptures, but its applicability to ordinary life remains a formidable difficulty. It is interesting to note that in the three-year liturgical lectionary in use in the Roman Catholic and other prominent churches, a lectionary that covers a very large portion of Scripture, Jude is never read on any of the 156 Sundays, and on only one weekday.

Israelite tradition about the angels who sinned with women? This is recorded in Genesis 6. In any case I don't think those are the angels that Jude is referring to anyway. I think the ones he is referring to are those who followed Satan in rebellion before Adam was even created but then that's just speculation. He doesn't actually mention what the sins were in his letter.

I also think the fact that Jude mentions the battle over Moses's body between Michael and Satan is very telling. I take it that there is still war between Satan and the saints today? Surely this battle is relevant to Christians now? Why did they battle over Moses' body? What was significant about it? Why did Satan want it? Had Satan won the battle would Moses have been able to encourage Christ on the mount of Transfiguration with Elijah? The book might be small but it is packed with lots of really juicy things if one takes the time to ponder on them.

Jude also shows that the early church read the book of Enoch because he quotes from it in verse 14. If it was good enough for New Testament Christians then why is the book of Enoch not in our Bible today?

In any case his opening salutation is very encouraging and is also very relevant because it is addressed to "those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ; Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance."

If nothing else was said in the letter than that, then it would be quite enough for me. We can do with all the mercy peace and love we can get. Everything else said is icing on the cake.

PDN · 17-03-2009 12:55am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jude also shows that the early church read the book of Enoch because he quotes from it in verse 14. If it was good enough for New Testament Christians then why is the book of Enoch not in our Bible today?

The fact that Jude quotes from Enoch doesn't mean that he views it as Scripture. After all, in Titus Paul quotes secular Cretan poets.

Soul Winner · 17-03-2009 1:45am

PDN wrote: »

The fact that Jude quotes from Enoch doesn't mean that he views it as Scripture. After all, in Titus Paul quotes secular Cretan poets.

Very true and well spotted, but I fail to see why Jude would quote Enoch at the point in his letter that he does if he did not regard what Enoch said as scripture. How Jude quotes Enoch is worth noting. Jude uses Enoch in order to augment the central theme of his letter by quoting something that Enoch had said in relation to the saints of God and the coming of the LORD. And Enoch is also mentioned in Hebrews 11:5 as one of the heroes of faith whereas the Cretan poets are not. If nothing else it shows that the New Testament Christians held Enoch in very high esteem.

Paul's reference to secular Cretan poets in his letter to Titus doesn't need to be scripture in order for Paul to make his point to Titus. Plus Jude's letter is addressed to everyone kept by Jesus whereas Paul's letter to Titus was written primarily to Titus. And like some of his other letters we can read between the lines and glean from them what we can and apply it to our own lives if needs be.

JimiTime · 18-03-2009 1:24am

PDN wrote: »

The fact that Jude quotes from Enoch doesn't mean that he views it as Scripture. After all, in Titus Paul quotes secular Cretan poets.

Is there a book of Enoch around today? Or is it only because of its mention here that we know that such a book existed at some stage?

Soul Winner · 18-03-2009 2:16am

JimiTime wrote: »

Is there a book of Enoch around today? Or is it only because of its mention here that we know that such a book existed at some stage?

From Wikipedia:

"The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch) is a pseudepigraphic work ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18).
While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it was explicitly quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical."

More here

From the introduction to R.H. Charles' "The Book of Enoch"

"To describe in short compass the Book of Enoch is impossible. It comes from many writers and almost as many periods. It touches upon every subject that could have arisen in the ancient schools of the prophets, but naturally it deals with these subjects in an advanced stage of developement. Nearly every religious idea appears in a variety of forms, and if these are studied in relation to their contexts and dates, we cannot fail to observe that in the age to which the Enoch literature belongs there is a movement everywhere, and nowhere dogmatic fixity and finality. Though at times the movement may be reactionary, yet the general trend is onward and upward. In fact the history of the development of the higher theology during the two centuries before the Christian era could not be written without the Book of Enoch."

TravelJunkie · 21-03-2009 1:11pm

Thanks everybody for your comments. It is along the lines of which I thought.

I'd love to hear more to meditate on.

Is it a good idea to read books like Enoch? I haven't ever read any non canonical books because I think they might confuse the message in the bible? I assume you can get them. Has anyone read any of these? Is it okay to do so?

tx

studiorat · 21-03-2009 1:27pm

Enoch was chucked out of the canon in 365 by the Bishops of Rome. The Jews dumped it in 85.

Apparently it causes some contradiction to the myth of Noah, whether this is the reason for it being dropped from the canon is unclear.

Anyway, I believe there's a copy of one of the manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library if memory serves me, you should have a look.

As for Jude and un-godly men. Well I suppose that's just another message to batten down the hatches and stick with the program. The politics of fear and all that...

Soul Winner · 21-03-2009 2:28pm

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Thanks everybody for your comments. It is along the lines of which I thought.

I'd love to hear more to meditate on.

Is it a good idea to read books like Enoch? I haven't ever read any non canonical books because I think they might confuse the message in the bible? I assume you can get them. Has anyone read any of these? Is it okay to do so?

tx

Of course it is OK to read this material and know what it's saying. Why not? I've read Enoch and Jasher and as far as I can tell there was nothing in them that contradict canonical books. Granted there are some outlandish stories but then the canonical books themselves have stories like these in them. If there is contradiction between them and the general revelation in the established canonical books then that is a matter for debate. The Apocrypha was included in some older versions of the Catholic and Protestant Bibles until it was taken out. The texts I would be most careful reading are the gnostic texts of the second century but even they can be used to substantiate things written in the New Testament, just watch out for the legendary embellishments to New Testament accounts of events like the resurrection which detract from the truth of the simpler older versions.

JimiTime · 21-03-2009 5:21pm

studiorat wrote: »

Apparently it causes some contradiction to the myth of Noah, whether this is the reason for it being dropped from the canon is unclear.
As for Jude and un-godly men. Well I suppose that's just another message to batten down the hatches and stick with the program. The politics of fear and all that...

Is there any chance that you could post in this forum while maintaining just a little bit of class?? I think we all know your views on our beliefs at this stage, yet you persist, constantly to try and poke away. Its just plain rude tbh.

JimiTime · 21-03-2009 5:25pm

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Is it a good idea to read books like Enoch? I haven't ever read any non canonical books because I think they might confuse the message in the bible? I assume you can get them. Has anyone read any of these? Is it okay to do so?

tx

Well I don't think its a bad idea. I'd say read away. Its only a book.

Here's a link to it online.

hivizman · 21-03-2009 10:27pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I don't think its a bad idea. I'd say read away. Its only a book.

Here's a link to it online.

Here's another on-line version of the Book of Enoch.

I'd forgotten that there are different classes of Apocryphal books. The version of the Bible that I most often use is called "The Bible with Apocrypha" [New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized Edition], but the "Apocrypha" doesn't include the Book of Enoch. The books included are the so-called "Deuterocanonical" books, and it seems that there are a lot of other Apocryphal books out there that don't make it into the Deuterocanonical group.

PDN · 21-03-2009 10:47pm

studiorat wrote: »

Enoch was chucked out of the canon in 365 by the Bishops of Rome. The Jews dumped it in 85.

Apparently it causes some contradiction to the myth of Noah, whether this is the reason for it being dropped from the canon is unclear.

Anyway, I believe there's a copy of one of the manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library if memory serves me, you should have a look.

As for Jude and un-godly men. Well I suppose that's just another message to batten down the hatches and stick with the program. The politics of fear and all that...

You can't chuck something out if it's never been in. The book of Enoch was never in any of the various canons of the early church, nor in the Old Testament canon of Judaism.

And as for your comments on avoiding ungodly men - weren't you the one who gave out about Rick Warren having associations with someone you don't like in Uganda? So you'll slag Christians off if they don't avoid ungodly men, but you'll make snide remarks about them if they do.

studiorat · 22-03-2009 1:57pm

PDN wrote: »

You can't chuck something out if it's never been in. The book of Enoch was never in any of the various canons of the early church, nor in the Old Testament canon of Judaism.

See Cannon 60 of Laodicea.

And as for your comments on avoiding ungodly men - weren't you the one who gave out about Rick Warren having associations with someone you don't like in Uganda? So you'll slag Christians off if they don't avoid ungodly men, but you'll make snide remarks about them if they do.

Rick Warren supporting Martin Ssempra (don't tell me you forgot his name) and his burning condoms for Jesus and publicly "outing" homosexuals is a world away from the paranoia that is Christianity's persecution complex. One (Ssempra) is a very real threat the other is just paranoia plain and simple. I'm suprised even you can't grasp that simple truth.

studiorat · 22-03-2009 2:01pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Is there any chance that you could post in this forum while maintaining just a little bit of class?? I think we all know your views on our beliefs at this stage, yet you persist, constantly to try and poke away. Its just plain rude tbh.

You really should visit the Chester Beatty.

PDN · 22-03-2009 2:37pm

studiorat wrote: »

See Cannon 60 of Laodicea.

Why don't we all read it?
It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

No mention of Enoch there. As I said, it was never in the canon in order to be chucked out of the canon.

Rick Warren supporting Martin Ssempra (don't tell me you forgot his name) and his burning condoms for Jesus and publicly "outing" homosexuals is a world away from the paranoia that is Christianity's persecution complex. One (Ssempra) is a very real threat the other is just paranoia plain and simple. I'm suprised even you can't grasp that simple truth.

You haven't a clue what the false teachers that Jude alludes to were doing. As for referring to Christianity's "persecution complex" - that is more twisted than clever of you. At the time when Jude was written Christians were being persecuted, tortured and executed for their faith (as, in some parts of the world, they still are today).

studiorat · 22-03-2009 3:40pm

My point was that by Laodiceia it was gone. (364-366AD) Posting canon 60 only illustrates this, thanks...

Re: Enoch...

It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture".

You are wrong to state I haven't a clue about Jude etc. I may not exegete the same meaning as you as to what the false teachers were actually doing, but that's not to say one can't understand the text. But of course you'll tell me your divine guidance gives you the inside track and as usual fit it into your own concepts.

As for the Christian Persecution Complex, I'm talking about the fact that some Christians believe they are being oppressed where in actual fact their belief-system has been dominating countries, schools and political systems for the last 1700 years. Remind me again, what's the largest religion on the planet?

Your belief that Jude was writing in a time of persecution is in fact entirely misguided. Jude died the same year as the begining of Nero's persecution and the great persecution, Christians and lions etc wasn't till about 200AD or so.

Scholars in the present time would also agree that the Jewish persecution of Christians at the time of Jude was greatly exaggerated...

http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/seaver/text.html

examination of the sources for fourth century Jewish history will show that the universal, tenacious, and malicious Jewish hatred of Christianity referred to by the church fathers and countless others has no existence in historical fact. The generalizations of patristic writers in support of the accusation have been wrongly interpreted from the fourth century to the present day.

PDN · 22-03-2009 7:14pm

studiorat wrote: »

My point was that by Laodiceia it was gone. (364-366AD) Posting canon 60 only illustrates this, thanks...

Not 'gone' so much as never there in the first place.

You are wrong to state I haven't a clue about Jude etc. I may not exegete the same meaning as you as to what the false teachers were actually doing, but that's not to say one can't understand the text. But of course you'll tell me your divine guidance gives you the inside track and as usual fit it into your own concepts.

Why not cut the prophecies of what you think I'm going to tell you, and deal with what I actually post instead? :rolleyes:

I don't claim any divine guidance or inside track. You don't know what the false teachers that Jude refers to were doing, and neither do I, because we aren't told that much about them.

As for the Christian Persecution Complex, I'm talking about the fact that some Christians believe they are being oppressed where in actual fact their belief-system has been dominating countries, schools and political systems for the last 1700 years. Remind me again, what's the largest religion on the planet?

And what in the name of God has any of that got to do with Jude?

Your belief that Jude was writing in a time of persecution is in fact entirely misguided. Jude died the same year as the begining of Nero's persecution and the great persecution, Christians and lions etc wasn't till about 200AD or so.

Scholars in the present time would also agree that the Jewish persecution of Christians at the time of Jude was greatly exaggerated..

And how do you know when Jude died?

You see, here is your problem. The same tradition that gives us a date for Jude's death is the same tradition that tells us that he dies a martyr's death. You can reject the tradition - in which case you have no idea when he died. Or you can accept the tradition - in which case you can't argue that persecution didn't exist at that time. But to accept the tradition on one count (the date of his death) but to reject it on another count (the manner of his death) would make you a dishonest cherry-picker.

JimiTime · 23-03-2009 1:42am

PDN wrote: »

And what in the name of God has any of that got to do with Jude?

Nothing, but why would one let context or relevance get in the way of venting anti christian feeling.

studiorat · 23-03-2009 9:50am

PDN wrote: »

You see, here is your problem. The same tradition that gives us a date for Jude's death is the same tradition that tells us that he dies a martyr's death. You can reject the tradition - in which case you have no idea when he died. Or you can accept the tradition - in which case you can't argue that persecution didn't exist at that time. But to accept the tradition on one count (the date of his death) but to reject it on another count (the manner of his death) would make you a dishonest cherry-picker.

It's not a problem, that's your problem!!
I've already stated two facts; Jude's death, or the date. And the fact that his martyrdom or persecution at the time in question were in fact exaggerated by Christians after him.
You don't seem to want to agree that Enoch was part of Scripture.

What's the problem with agreeing with one fact and not with another even if they are of the same tradition? It is, oddly enough, the very thing that Christian commentators of the time did when they spoke about the book of Enoch in the other books, is it not? That's to say they accepted some of the facts but not others.

BTW, Agreeing with a date for the death of Jude does not mean I accept he actually wrote the letter. There's a few reasons to believe it was written much later.

@Jimi, may i suggest you find something constructive to add to the argument rather than looking like a persecuted Christian. ;o) I'm not anti-anything I simple disagree with you, so get over it.

PDN · 23-03-2009 10:22am

studiorat wrote: »

It's not a problem, that's your problem!!
I've already stated two facts; Jude's death, or the date. And the fact that his martyrdom or persecution at the time in question were in fact exaggerated by Christians after him.

No, the problem is that you appear to be unable to distinguish between facts and opinions.

There are two sets of scholarly opinion concerning Jude. Conservative scholars hold to the following opinions:
a) That Jude actually wrote the epistle bearing his name at a very early date, only 30 years or so after the death of Christ. (May I say how nice it is to see a non-Christian like yourself taking the time to vocally support the conservative viewpoint on this point.)
b) That Jude wrote his epistle to Christians who were had endured or were enduring the kind of persecution recorded in the Book of Acts.
c) That Armenian Christian tradition is correct in recording that Jude died around 65 AD.
d) That the same Armenian Christian tradition is correct in recording that Jude died a martyr's death together with another apostle, Simon the Zealot.

Liberal scholars hold to the following opinions:
a) That Jude did not write the epistle that bears his name. Rather it was written much later by somebody else.
b) That the persecution mentioned in Acts was exaggerated. However, since these liberal scholars attribute a much later date to Jude they still believe it was written to a church that was enduring persecution under the Romans.
c) That Armenian tradition is unreliable and we cannot date Jude's death.
d) That Armenian tradition is unreliable and we cannot say that Jude suffered a martyr's death.

Now, what you are doing, in order to construct an argument that will get up the noses of Christians in this forum, is to cherrypick a & c from the conservative opinions, then to cherrypick b & d from the liberal opinions. then you claim these are 'facts'. All the while you blithly ignore the fact that no scholar, liberal or conservative, simultaneously argue that Jude himself wrote the epistle, and that he wrote to a people who knew nothing of persecution.

There is a place in this forum for people to argue opposing, but honestly held, opinions. But you are not doing that. You are simply cherrypicking from opposing standpoints to construct an artificial argument. As such you demonstrate zero credibility.

JimiTime · 23-03-2009 10:30am

studiorat wrote: »

@Jimi, may i suggest you find something constructive to add to the argument rather than looking like a persecuted Christian. ;o) I'm not anti-anything I simple disagree with you, so get over it.

May I suggest, as before, you know where you just gave a smart @rse reply about the chester beatty? That you show some decorum, and not take pot shots at every opportunity and even non-opportunity (As I said, you don't let things like relevance get in your way). If you refrain from such pointless poking, you wont have to worry about me. You don't 'simply disagree', if that were the case, there would not be an issue. Its your manners that are the issue. If you made your points without the obvious contempt, I wouldn't even be here.

Jimi. (The poor persecuted Christian:rolleyes:)

studiorat · 23-03-2009 12:45pm

I think you oversimplify the various viewpoints into just two. And certainly seem eager to brand them conservative and liberal. Why you would divide a historical argument into these two I really don't understand, personally I'll choose the most probable which ever side of the fence you choose to put it on.

As far as I can see Jude either, didn't exist at all, was confused with another person and both are ascribed to the deeds of one person. Died peacefully in 44 AD, or was clubbed to death by a pagan mob, or was crucified, be-headed even! If he was killed with Simon in Persia it would certainly explain the lack of historical information. However if he was as influential as to convert kings, again it would cast doubt as to whether a mob would or could attack him.

My point about him dying in 65AD was to illustrate that even if that were the case, mass persecution of Christians was only begining at this time under Nero. And while Christians were obviously persecuted by more orthodox Jews, Jesus' crucifixion illustrates this. The persecution documented by the following 'Church Fathers' was exaggerated. The reason being to point out the correctness of their history and the righteousness of their martyrs. After all "history is written by the victors".

This though is becoming off topic. My original point, being the circular ascribed to Jude is a clear warning to 'his' views that heresy was abound in the church at the time. Most possibly this heresy would have been specifically the Gnostic movement, the time and language would concur. The Episile even openly declares the 'authors' providence, whether true or not it is a clear warning to the readers of the time to "stick with the program".

If like reading Shakespeare you wish to apply it to a modern situation well and good. But I'd suggest firstly see it for what it is, a sermon of the day and regard it in it's original context before the exegesis begins.

Once last point, the various Christian churches IMO need and have always needed a common enemy. Whether it's something like the Alta Vendetia or just plain old Sin and temptation, if they didn't have these, what use for doctrine would there be?

Epistle of Jude - ungodly men leading the church

Comments