Paul writes about "ascending and descending" too (Eph. 4:8-10). He gets if from Psalms 68 and not from Baruch. Could John be taking a hint from Psalms and not Baruch? If not, why not? Eph. 4:8-10) - Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. *_[From Psalms 68:18]_* 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
No. Ephesians IS a direct quote from the Psalms, this one is NOT. I clearly break down the Greek in the most exhaustive way possible to show you it's a direct quote. There is nothing more I can do beyond this to prove our point.
@jackdaw6359 I cannot find your comment, I just saw it in my mailbox. Your objection is that: "one like a son of man is used in Daniel of Our Lord Himself. However, we know it isn't a mere simile. So to argue simile vs reality is not a good look if you were to take the language of Daniel 7 into account. By that logic the one like a son of man is not the Son of Man whereas we know Our Lord is. Similarly in the New Testament We see "a son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 Again an indefinite article about Jesus. So definite or indefinite articles don't make a strong argument in any direction." Now if you read carefully what I wrote, is that "a son of man" or just "son of man" is more ambiguous. It can mean that is a mere human being. And yes it can mean also that it is the messiah. Son "son of man" is a more broad term. How do we discern the difference? By context. I gave you the context for 1 Enoch, where it clearly points to the "messiah", but ultimately its Enoch himself that is described as such. But in Isaiah, there are no divine attributes given to Isaiah, when he is called "son of man". Therefor here, the term only means, mere human being. However in Danie 7 the "one like a son of man" is described as "coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him" So the immediate context tells you that in this case the one like a son of man is clearly the messiah. Similarly in Hebrews 2, the context is that a son of man here is divine "crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under their feet.". On the other hand THE Son of Man is a title. That is explicit, without ambiguity. And this title is used in 1 Enoch. Understood?
Are you going to do something about the Epistle of Jeremiah too ? Because these past days I was thinking about wether all of this has a legacy in the New Testament. If you observe the vertion of the New Testament corpus that was thought, as opposed to the other vertion which is the correct one. But there was a surviving alternative vertion of the New Testament in the fourth century which looked like this, 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Letters, 1 Peter, 1 John. Part of the explaination in my opinion is that the Gospel started with Matthew, Mark, 1 Peter, 1 John. Around the year 41 when Peter and Mark first went to Rome to battle Simon Magus. The Gospel of Matthew was writen since Malachi says it should be writen. Then Mark is writen in Rome in the language. And then they write two letters. If you look at what Jeremiah the Prophet did, he wrote a prophecy book in his name, then wrote Baruch by means of his scribe delivering some of his prophecy within it, and the. He wrote them the Epistle of Jeremiah. That should ring a New Testament bell. Peter and the Apostles see themselves as in the stead of the Prophets. And as such, if you read the Epistle of Jeremiah, and if you read 1 Peter and 1 John, it talks about « The Elect in the dispersion, those who are in Babylone. » and « There are many antichrists arising, this is how you know the real religion and this is how you know the false religion. » and the Epistle of Jeremiah says those things to Israel, « You are in Babylone in a foreign land, this is how you know these you will see are false Gods. ». So since Jeremiah, Baruch and the Epistle are part of their culture, this is how they wrote the New Testament with their own refferences.
Just look at Psalm 68:18. Why couldn't John be referring to that? Paul did in Ephesians 4. These words were on the accepted canon since the Psalms. Baruch got his words from the Psalms and Proverbs.
@@jayguevara6153 - I would love to do such a thing except I'm not good at verbal presentation. My logic and doctrine are top notch but communicating it is a little lacking. But it's my dream to do such a thing.
@@GizmoFromPizmo The text of the Psalms doesn't even REMOTELY resemble the Greek of John 3 & Baruch 3. Now stop spamming our posts. The video CLEARLY lays out how it is a DIRECT quote. Multiple Greek words are MISSING from the text of Psalms for it to be quoting from there. BGT Psalm 67:19 ἀνέβης εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσας (Ps. 67:19 BGT) BGT Baruch 3:29 τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν BYZ John 3:13 ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (Jn. 3:13 BYZ)
Many Red Letter Edition bibles will have John 3:13 (and following) in red letters but that doesn't really make sense. John 3:13 - And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Wait. If that's Jesus talking to Nicodemus then is He saying that He's on earth AND in heaven at the same time? No. It makes better sense to end the quote of Jesus at verse 12 and then pick up the narrative again at verse 13. Many Red Letter Edition bibles have John 3:16 in red too. It's just not a careful reading of the text that makes people do stuff like that. Nobody cares.
Yes, Christ was on Earth & in Heaven at the same time. His humanity was only on Earth, but His divinity stretched from Heaven down into His body on Earth, & everywhere else. So it WAS Jesus who spoke those red letters.
@@ronreeder2967 - That doctrine smacks too much of Gnostic theory. Keeping Jesus in one place at a time - like the rest of us - makes him more human. He was visited by angels. Why come down to earth if He was already stationed in heaven too? I need a more realistic Savior. People who talk about Jesus going into hell to beat up Satan or something (whatever) is also one of those theories that puts Jesus in the grave AND in other places at the same time. Jesus likened Himself to Jonah who was in the belly of the fish for three days. I don't think Jonah was in the fish and somewhere else for three days too. Keeping Jesus human seems to be a difficult thing for folks to do. We need Him to be way spookier than we are so that we have a good excuse for not following Him. I mean, if I could be in two places at once then I could REALLY follow Jesus. But I can't so I won't. I've heard very similar logic from people. An elder (bishop) of my church once said, "Well, I'm not Jesus." That was his excuse for not doing what Jesus did. We seem to need Jesus to be spooky and strange - almost angelic but certainly not human.
The point with Jonah is he was in the belly of the fish dead and not alive. He was still alive spiritually. Jesus would humanly rise again on the third day. When you understand Jonah died then it makes more sense. The important thing Jesus is comparing is not the fact of being in the belly, it’s the fact he’s humanly dead and buried.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 - My point was that Jesus was a human being like us. That's the whole thrust of the first two chapters of the Book of Hebrews. It may sound "reverent" to claim that Jesus was something other than just flesh and blood and you can really sell that to a lot of folks but the bible doesn't support it. If Jesus wasn't one of us then I cannot follow where He leads. The "reverent" tags we want to put on the Son of Man only serve to remove Him from our life experience. What if God wanted to present a genuine example of a person filled with His Holy Spirit and so He Fathered a Son to be that example? We know that humans tend toward this very error because the bible actually speaks to it. Therefore, we need to check our religion and keep it within the bounds of revelation. Discipleship is a discipline.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 - Honestly, that is consistent with what we have been told about His death. Jesus was dead for three days and in a tomb. Did He ascend to the Father during that time? No. He said as much to Mary after He rose. Did He go to hell to kick Satan's butt like we're told by a lot of neo-catholic Pentecostals? No. Jesus was dead and in a tomb for three days then He was raised. He wasn't busy doing other things during that time, otherwise, He really wasn't dead. We don't help out God by claiming things that make Jesus more like a super-hero than our Savior. He did NOT survive the cross and live through it. He had to die in order to do what He came to do.
@@WilliamAlbrecht Quote or refferenced ? And I agree with quote not equals canonical. The Son of Man sitting on the throne of glory at judgement day, how its "better for sinners if they had not been born" the fact hell is a valley, thats in Enoch and he accepts the 'Gehenna' appelation. Also Peter talks about the fact that at judgement day people go "to their own place" When Judas died and went where he did and how.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 you asked if it was quoted. I answered you clearly. It’s also never once included in any of the Councils that gathered to lay out the contents of Holy Writ. Big knock against it
It was quoted. Also Athanasius quotes the Sheppard of Hermas in On the Incarnation « A helpful book ». My point is, I see Baruch as writen by a prophet, and Enoch as such too. Both are christological, both are known by the authors. There’s no need to knock out against it. Even if it’s not part of The Law & the Prophets.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 No, it was NOT quoted. Show me the exact quote our Lord made that lines up with Enoch. Let me see the quote. My point stands, quotation doesn’t equal canonical and this book is never in a single canonical list of the Councils to gather on Scripture.
