The Mark and Matthew references, for the ease of the reader:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A24-25&version=HCSB
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022:29-30&version=HCSB

This seems to be a reference to the Book of Enoch, specifically 15:5-7: " "Therefore have I [God] given them [the humans] wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you [the angels] were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling." " (translation: http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/book-of-enoch/)

This surprised me, so I looked deeper. Jude 14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%2014-15&version=HCSB) verbatim quotes Enoch 1:9 ("And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.") (compare both to Deuteronomy 33:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2033:2&version=HCSB).

Then Paul makes reference to the mythos of Enoch if not Enoch itself (1 Corinthians 11:9-10, “Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”)*. The mythos of Enoch is not wholly unfamiliar. The Nephilim in Genesis 6 are, according to Jewish tradition, the offspring of humans and angels. And it makes a lot more sense that "sons of God" in the same chapter refers to the angels rather than the line of Seth, since the "daughters of man" came from the lineage of Seth (presumably). Job drives home the "sons of God" as angels in three places: 1:6, 2:1, 38:7. (The Hebrew for "sons of God" in all these passages is "בני אלהים.") Jude references the Enoch mythos again in 6-7. The Book of Jasher (attested in Joshua and 2 Samuel) says the same about the corruption of man before the flood that Enoch does: the angels/ Nephilim did it.

There is another instance where Jesus quotes Enoch.
Luke 6:24 Wo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
Enoch 94:8 Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed.

So now I ask all my biblical scholars out there, what do you make of this? Were NT writers influenced by the DDS? Did they accept Enochian tradition as truth?

*This covering required for women "because of the angels" is explained in commentaries as figurative, meaning "because of the leadership figures." But universally, the verse is understood to be saying "so as to not tempt [somebody]." Paul wasn't known for beating around the bush, so why would he call church authorities "angels" when he means "church authorities?" Really, the only explanation that makes sense is, when Paul says "angels," he means "angels." Thus the somebody who might be tempted by the women are the angels, which is a clear reference to the Enoch mythos.

OMG, it's a religious obi. Run, run for your life.

What's the DDS?

*DSS. My apologies. The Dead Sea Scrolls.

This thread is as dead as those sea scrolls...

Jesus was a dentist.

And I thought you were going to be clever and say "Jesus was hung."

I love those tshirts with a picture of Jesus and "BRB" underneath.

http://www.nerdyshirts.com/jesus-brb-funny-t-shirt

lol

Bloody hell, I know we have quite a few debates about religion on here, but when did this forum become a bible study class?

I was trying to stir up trouble amongst our local bible thumpers. Gobble commented in another thread about how he knows he's better read than many thumpers, so I thought I'd demonstrate their lack of claimed knowledge publicly. I'm a little disappointed that none of them have tried to counter this and call it blasphemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

Tells you all about Enoch... How it isn't considered canon by modern Jews but it is by a couple of smaller churches (Ethiopian Orthodox is one) and what not. So, meh!

Of course, I'm not one of the bible thumpers... :-)

Yeah, Draug, you're not lol. I suppose the heart of my question is, why Enoch is excluded from canon if Jesus references it. Can't wait until one of the real believers hops on here!

Not everything Jesus references is in the canon. I mean, the laws of Caesar aren't. He references those.

Enoch was considered an interpretation and expansion of things already in the Bible, and was in popular use as such at the time, but even then wasn't considered a part of it. It would still be referenced because it had relevance as an interpretation.

Plenty of books in the Catholic canon that aren't in the Protestant one...

Let's look at it in another translation that will help you understand the discrepancies:

http://lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Mark_12#24

Happy Cat replid, "r u not in error cuz u do not knoe teh scripturez or teh powr ov ceilin cat? when teh ded rize, they will neithr marry nor be given in marriage; they will be liek teh angels in heaven.

http://lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Matthew_22#29

Happy Cat replid, "u r in error cuz u do not knoe teh scripturez or teh powr ov ceilin cat.30 at teh resurrecshun peeps will neithr marry nor be given in marriage; they will be liek teh angels in heaven.

SD, Jesus referenced what he called /scriptures/. "Don't you know the /scriptures/?" (emphasis added). Why would any Christian denomination exclude Enoch from the canon if Jesus thought these were /scripture/?

+1 fort

It's an extrapolation from the scripture, so referring to it as scripture would be the same as me referring to an event that transpires in the Lord of the Rings movies as being in the Lord of the Rings, but you saying that it's not in the books so it doesn't count. But it is still in the Lord of the Rings, it's just a difference in what we mean by Lord of the Rings.

Extrapolations and interpretations are semi-canonical because they have canon as the source, and can thus be referred to in a canonical sense by some individuals, and correctly, but they are still not included in the canon, and correctly so.

Your LotR analogy falls apart in that, they are of different mediums. "Scriptures," in this context, only has one meaning: divinely inspired words of God. Jesus was telling the Sadducees, "don't you know the scriptures?" Let me try to break this down a little further.

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as canonical written law with everything else being semi-canonical oral law. Further, they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead nor in angels.
Jesus, by tradition, was trained by the Pharisees, who had a broader understanding of what was canonical written law. There is the hypothesis that Jesus was trained or at least influenced by the Essene cults of Judea (this hypothesis has been shown to be very faulty, but there remains a hypothesis that /some/ fringe groups of Judaism influenced and possibly trained him).

When Jesus says, "Don't you know the scriptures," he is 1) making a jab at their theology, 2) making a jab at their title of "teachers," and 3) affirming his own beliefs.

Now, let's back up to my original question. "I am curious, what is your take on Mark 12:24-25 and Matthew 22:29-30 (nearly identical passages)? Jesus claims to be quoting scripture, but the scripture is not locatable in the Tanakh." Tell ya what, SD, if you can show me where in the Tanakh that Jesus derived his answer to the Sadducees, I will withdraw all further speculation.

On the basis that you cannot, I will continue. Your argument about extrapolations being based on canon but non-canonical calls into question the canonicity of Chronicles. Wasn't it just based on Samuel and Kings? They sure do read similarly! And oh yeah, aren't entire chunks of Deuteronomy just /restatements and further interpretations/ of the other books of the law? By your assertion of semi-canonical texts being based on canonized sources, we should throw out both Chronicles and Deuteronomy.

Alright, enough of that. Let's take a gander at Jude. /He quotes Enoch verbatim and even attributes the quote to him/. WTF? The half-brother of Jesus /quotes/ the very text that Jesus references as /scripture/. What do you make of that?

First of all, let me state that my only dog in this race is that I'm a linguist. I am not in the least bit a member of an Abrahamic religion. I'm not going into the Tanakh diving for something, it doesn't mean that much to me. Perhaps someone that it does mean that much to will show up.

Chronicles relationship to Samuel and Kings, and Deuteronomy...at some point, a person decides what is canonical and what is not, how important a particular interpretation is, and so on. Some of the extrapolations and interpretations were judged as important enough to keep, some were not. And by that time, there were several divisions as to which were important enough and which were not. My understanding on Enoch in particular is that certain parts of it were troublesome, particularly the sections about fallen angels, and so it wasn't officially placed into the canon despite other parts of it being useful and widely spread.

But all of this just brings us to my true view of it.

Jesus was trolling, knowing the Sadducees had less knowledge than him, and if he quoted something he could find somewhere, they'd have no way to say it wasn't scripture.

He probably LOL'ed many times on his way away from that meeting.

Like any person in any argument of any sort, he knew how to find something that said what he wanted and attributed it like fact. And without wanting to bother looking into it, the Sadduccees had no choice but to accept that crap.

To be honest, Jesus liked doing that shit. For example, the Pharisees brought him in front of the adulteress. The laws said to stone an adulterer, but Jesus was all about peace. They put him in a lose-lose situation: Kill the chick, ruining your peaceful preaching, but obeying the Jewish law; or break Jewish law for your preaching.

So what does Jesus do? Pick the third option: "Fuck yeah, kill the bitch, but the first one to throw a stone has to be someone who hasn't fucked up before![1]"

Yup, Jesus was the king of sticking it to the man.

[1] - of course the Catholic version continues on: *Stone flies from behind the crowd and hits the adultress in the head* Jesus shouts, "Quit it, mom!!"

Jesus: God of Trolls.

LOL! Brilliant fortknox!

LOL @ fk's post.

Also, if you think about it, he said she should be stoned, but only by those who hadn't sinned. Formal logic says he either sinned, making him no longer sinless, or he has to cast a stone. also, only the sinless one had to cast the first stone. Then it could be a free for all cause the rest could then cast a stone and it not be the first. Epic. Fucking. Fail. Jesus!