01:35:50 Another problem with Gary Michuta desiring to place the Hebrew/Aramaic original of Daniel into the inter-Testamental Period with the later Greek additions is that history and archaeology do not allow for it. The Cylinders of Nabonidus, dated between 555 to 540 BC, reveal the biblical character of Belshazzar from Daniel chapter 5. So, there is no way the Hebrew/Aramaic original of Daniel could’ve been written at the same time as the later Greek additions which were around 100 BC. The author of the original Hebrew/Aramaic writing identifies himself as Daniel who lived during this earlier time period. This is a perfect example of a Catholic apologist who wants uninspired writings to be written during a time when inspired writings were not being written, by pushing the actual inspired writing into the inter-Testamental period with the later uninspired Greek additions, despite the evidence to the contrary. It also proves that the Greek additions were not part of the original, since they were written centuries later.
I don't think we can say Jude is quoting the BOOK Enoch. Notice that Jude says the Enoch that is speaking was the "seventh from Adam," meaning way back at the time of Adam, the MAN Enoch actually spoke these words. //Jude1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones// This is certainly not Jude quoting a false prophecy. Jude is quoting an actual inspired prophecy from the MAN Enoch. People shouldn't PRESUME that the BOOK Enoch is what Jude is quoting. If the BOOK Enoch is not inspired, then we shouldn't think Jude is quoting it, especially on prophetic matters of Jesus arriving with ten thousand Angels.
Nick X, in my debate against Gary Michuta last summer, he conceded that Jude is indeed quoting the BOOK of 1 Enoch, because Jude is quoting it word-for-word. However, I agree with you that Jude is referencing a VERBAL prophecy passed down orally from Enoch, which eventually made it into the book of 1 Enoch. However, that is the whole point of our argument: just because the NT cites a particular passage found in a writing during the Old Testament ERA, that doesn't necessarily mean it is citing the actual writing ITSELF as Scripture that it is found in. That is why we gave 1 Enoch as an example, because Gary didn't understand that Catholics do the same thing with Deuterocanonical books cited in the NT. The NT writers aren't citing those Catholic BOOKS as Scripture, no-more than Jude is citing the BOOK of 1 Enoch as Scripture. That's because neither are being cited specifically as SCRIPTURE, like the books of the Hebrew are. This is where Catholics are inconsistent with their criteria for including the Deuteocanonical books, but not non-Catholic books like 1 Enoch.
@@BornAgainRN if Jude is quoting a verbal prophecy of MAN Enoch, then Jude isn't actually quoting the BOOK Enoch at all. (That the Book Enoch had this written down is incidental.) So you have to keep in mind what source is being cited, and not presume one way or the other. In this instance, we deduce that the Prophecy of Enoch was an oral teaching passed down orally over the centuries, because the Book Enoch wasn't even written until over 1,000 years after the MAN Enoch walked this earth. Each alleged quotation/allusion has to be taken on a case by case basis.
@@analogiafidei //if Jude is quoting a verbal prophecy of MAN Enoch, then Jude isn't actually quoting the BOOK Enoch at all.// I would take the position, and do so in the video, that Jude is just referencing what's going on in the book as an example and there's no reason to think otherwise.
@@analogiafidei again, this is completely my point. Most of the alleged quotes and iallusions in the New Testament which appear to be coming from the Deuterocanon are not the original source, just as the book of 1 Enoch is not necessarily the original source that Jude is citing. And just as Jude is citing the prophecy of the MAN Enoch, which was later written down in the book that bears his name, likewise these other new testament citations are actually referencing earlier inspired writings from the Hebrew Bible, which are later referenced in the Deuterocanon but not the actual books themselves. Again, this is where Catholic apologists are inconsistent
Seems scripture has an answer for you - See John 11:51 says Caiaphas - By virtue of his office (imagine that) - PROPHESIED: 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,* said to them, “You know nothing, 50, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.”51 He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, To me is is clear prophesy continued - and not only continued was tied to an office. Oh darn I hate it when that happens. Consider this, not all prophesy is scriptural or inscripturated - and before you say, "Yes it is", are the prophesies of Enoch scripture? Are they true prophesy? Yes! Here is a novel idea - why not debate Gary....?
Scott, you obviously did not watch our discussion, nor do you understand what "cessation of prophecy" means or is limited to, because this passage does not refute our argument. No one is denying there was a resurgence of prophecy during the NT era, such as the quote you provided. The argument is that it "ceased" BETWEEN the time of the death of Malachi & the time of John the Baptist. It would help a great deal if you first understood an argument by listening to it first, so you don't set up a strawman. BTW, I "have" debated Gary Michuta on Reason & Theology, as well as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers on Pints With Aquinas (and a Catholic on Catholic Answers stated that I won the debate against Trent). You might want to assume less, and ask & investigate more - like "ask" if I have debating him, and listen to our discussion BEFORE making assumptions of what you "think" we mean by "cessation of prophecy."
Scott, we specifically went over in this video, and I even alluded to this passage, that not every time the word "prophecy" is used in ancient sources it is of the same caliber. This is what L. Stephen Cook was trying to relate in his doctoral thesis. Please look at the link to excerpts from that in the description. Besides the timing elements that Steve mentions, this would be a more attenuated, predictive type statement. No one claims that Caiaphas received messages from the Lord in the form of dreams or visions like the other prophets besides Moses who was the Lord face to face.
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
01:35:50 Another problem with Gary Michuta desiring to place the Hebrew/Aramaic original of Daniel into the inter-Testamental Period with the later Greek additions is that history and archaeology do not allow for it. The Cylinders of Nabonidus, dated between 555 to 540 BC, reveal the biblical character of Belshazzar from Daniel chapter 5. So, there is no way the Hebrew/Aramaic original of Daniel could’ve been written at the same time as the later Greek additions which were around 100 BC. The author of the original Hebrew/Aramaic writing identifies himself as Daniel who lived during this earlier time period.
This is a perfect example of a Catholic apologist who wants uninspired writings to be written during a time when inspired writings were not being written, by pushing the actual inspired writing into the inter-Testamental period with the later uninspired Greek additions, despite the evidence to the contrary. It also proves that the Greek additions were not part of the original, since they were written centuries later.
I don't think we can say Jude is quoting the BOOK Enoch. Notice that Jude says the Enoch that is speaking was the "seventh from Adam," meaning way back at the time of Adam, the MAN Enoch actually spoke these words. //Jude1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones// This is certainly not Jude quoting a false prophecy. Jude is quoting an actual inspired prophecy from the MAN Enoch. People shouldn't PRESUME that the BOOK Enoch is what Jude is quoting. If the BOOK Enoch is not inspired, then we shouldn't think Jude is quoting it, especially on prophetic matters of Jesus arriving with ten thousand Angels.
Nick X, in my debate against Gary Michuta last summer, he conceded that Jude is indeed quoting the BOOK of 1 Enoch, because Jude is quoting it word-for-word. However, I agree with you that Jude is referencing a VERBAL prophecy passed down orally from Enoch, which eventually made it into the book of 1 Enoch. However, that is the whole point of our argument: just because the NT cites a particular passage found in a writing during the Old Testament ERA, that doesn't necessarily mean it is citing the actual writing ITSELF as Scripture that it is found in. That is why we gave 1 Enoch as an example, because Gary didn't understand that Catholics do the same thing with Deuterocanonical books cited in the NT. The NT writers aren't citing those Catholic BOOKS as Scripture, no-more than Jude is citing the BOOK of 1 Enoch as Scripture. That's because neither are being cited specifically as SCRIPTURE, like the books of the Hebrew are. This is where Catholics are inconsistent with their criteria for including the Deuteocanonical books, but not non-Catholic books like 1 Enoch.
@@BornAgainRN if Jude is quoting a verbal prophecy of MAN Enoch, then Jude isn't actually quoting the BOOK Enoch at all. (That the Book Enoch had this written down is incidental.) So you have to keep in mind what source is being cited, and not presume one way or the other. In this instance, we deduce that the Prophecy of Enoch was an oral teaching passed down orally over the centuries, because the Book Enoch wasn't even written until over 1,000 years after the MAN Enoch walked this earth. Each alleged quotation/allusion has to be taken on a case by case basis.
@@analogiafidei //if Jude is quoting a verbal prophecy of MAN Enoch, then Jude isn't actually quoting the BOOK Enoch at all.//
I would take the position, and do so in the video, that Jude is just referencing what's going on in the book as an example and there's no reason to think otherwise.
@@analogiafidei again, this is completely my point. Most of the alleged quotes and iallusions in the New Testament which appear to be coming from the Deuterocanon are not the original source, just as the book of 1 Enoch is not necessarily the original source that Jude is citing. And just as Jude is citing the prophecy of the MAN Enoch, which was later written down in the book that bears his name, likewise these other new testament citations are actually referencing earlier inspired writings from the Hebrew Bible, which are later referenced in the Deuterocanon but not the actual books themselves. Again, this is where Catholic apologists are inconsistent
Again, we don’t have to assume that Jude viewed this as a prophecy that happened in actual history based on how Midrash is viewed
Seems scripture has an answer for you - See John 11:51 says Caiaphas - By virtue of his office (imagine that) - PROPHESIED:
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,* said to them, “You know nothing, 50, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.”51 He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
To me is is clear prophesy continued - and not only continued was tied to an office. Oh darn I hate it when that happens.
Consider this, not all prophesy is scriptural or inscripturated - and before you say, "Yes it is", are the prophesies of Enoch scripture? Are they true prophesy? Yes!
Here is a novel idea - why not debate Gary....?
Scott, you obviously did not watch our discussion, nor do you understand what "cessation of prophecy" means or is limited to, because this passage does not refute our argument. No one is denying there was a resurgence of prophecy during the NT era, such as the quote you provided. The argument is that it "ceased" BETWEEN the time of the death of Malachi & the time of John the Baptist. It would help a great deal if you first understood an argument by listening to it first, so you don't set up a strawman.
BTW, I "have" debated Gary Michuta on Reason & Theology, as well as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers on Pints With Aquinas (and a Catholic on Catholic Answers stated that I won the debate against Trent). You might want to assume less, and ask & investigate more - like "ask" if I have debating him, and listen to our discussion BEFORE making assumptions of what you "think" we mean by "cessation of prophecy."
Scott, we specifically went over in this video, and I even alluded to this passage, that not every time the word "prophecy" is used in ancient sources it is of the same caliber. This is what L. Stephen Cook was trying to relate in his doctoral thesis. Please look at the link to excerpts from that in the description. Besides the timing elements that Steve mentions, this would be a more attenuated, predictive type statement.
No one claims that Caiaphas received messages from the Lord in the form of dreams or visions like the other prophets besides Moses who was the Lord face to face.