Featured The book of Enoch, scripture or not?

I think you are presenting your case through rose colored glasses. What you say is true only to a certain point and then infers that which is not true.

Those entrusted with the scriptures - the Jewish people - did not recognize the apocrapha as scripture but only as devotional materials in their Jewish heritage or similar to commentators in our day. That is precisely how early Christians viewed the apocrypha in contrast to scriptures.

Second, since John wrote it during his own life time to seven churches in Asia minor (Turkey) it was fully received as inspired by the churches that received it. It was fully received by others. Only in the circles of a more liberal and apostate leaning type of Chrisitanity was it questioned and rejected.

 

What I've said is true. And I haven't infered anything apart that canon was not closed (meaning not that they weren't finished being written rather which collection of books were considered to be "inspired".) at the time of the apostles and what was considered canon was more fluid than what people generally believe today.

having read the late Dr. David Flusser's (professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Orthodox Jew) works on the second temple period scripture this expresses that this statement of yours isn't entirely accurate. He holds a more open Jewish canon at the time of the apostles. Though at a later date the Jews did "close their canon" after the already spreading Christianity an established faith at that time and as a response to Christianity's influence on Judaism. You cannot seriously contend that the Jews establishing a canon after the inseption and spread of Christianity was "entrusted to them" by God when their motivation was to limit the spread of Christianity now do you?

Actually, I didn't even speak to this topic. This is a topic you introduced which means you are attempting to set up a straw man. My only Comment with regard to the book of Revelation is that it was an apocalyptic literary type similar to the book of Enoch which type of literature was popular at the time.

 

The Canon was closed and we have been around this bush before. Tertullian refers to a closed canon which by definition cannot be added or subtracted from and that is the very language he did use. Second, the fact that he did not list every book of the New Testament means nothing, as the other books are listed by those prevous to Tertullian who lived AFTER the time tertullian speaks but before him.

You really think that quoting one uninspired man changes history? We know the apocrapha was not recieved as scripture and that has been a settled fact for hundreds of years.

 

When Jesus refers to the prophets he starts with Abel and stops with Zechariah. That excludes 1st and 2nd Macabees from his prophetic list along with all the other apocrypha written between Zechariah and Matthew. Scriptures are the product of prophets.

 

Catholics attempt to divide the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets and THE WRITINGS but the New Testament writers never use that division but speak of it as "the Law, the Prophets and THE PSALMS."

 

Josephus the contemporary Jewish historian with New Testament Christianity NEVER once included the apocrypha with the Old Testament Scriptures.

Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate excluded the Old Testament apocrypha as scripture because he did not believe the Jews accepted it as scriptures.

 

Yes we have. And as before you will attempt to misuse one early christian taking them out of their cultural and life context to promote your stance. However, historically it is factual that ambiguity surounded which books should be canon at the time of Christ and was not set until much later.

Ah... As I've said. Looking at the early writings we find in Athenagoras and Justin Martyr that Christians had a different set of writings than the Jews because as any Christian can tell you the bible is not one book but a library of books or a collection of books. And the Christian collection was different than the Jews very early on. We can see Melito of Sardis (170) had a different collection than mentioned by Tertullian. J.N.D. Kelly States that

Only in your mind would this be true. It is significant that in listing what is accepted he ignores certain books especially since the man fell into the ancient heresy resembeling current Legalistic Pentecostalism known as Montanism. Which btw held on to many Litrugical beliefs to include the Sacraments to which he says:

which btw isn't a baptist belief.

No, I think citing an expert in the field of Hebrew Scriptures who is neither Catholic or Protestant but an orthodox Jew, is able to cite history more and the canonization of hebrew scriptures more accurately than you.

 

This is an easy mistake to make which you fall into quite splendidly. First of all it shows a lack of consideration of how the Hebrew Scriptures are catagorized which isn't in chronilogical order or how the LXX orders them (as does your bible) does it but by Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. It also shows a lack of consideration that Josephus wrote to Apion around 96 long after Christianity was well established and countered to Jewish faith. Clearly following in the Jewish rabbinical footsteps by limiting writings to the exclusion of books holding christian beliefs.

 

You are welcome to you opinion. You are citing uninspired sources which I believe represent a trail of apostasy that grows worse and worse from minor to major errors. You are quoting other sources that I view as complete heretics.

I never quoted myself as a source. But there are many BELIEVING scholars who disagree with your one UNBELIEVING scholar. I also listed other reasons that demonstrates your position lacks crediblity.

The fact is the canon of scripture was closed before the last apostle died as Scripture predicted it would be closed by his apostles (Isa. 8:16-18).

 

The Christian Reformed Church concludes that the Apocypha is not official scripture but is authorized for teaching and illustration.

1 Maccabees is the ONLY history we have of that time period.

 

>Those entrusted with the scriptures - the Jewish people - did not recognize the apocrapha as scripture but only as devotional materials in their Jewish heritage or similar to commentators in our day. That is precisely how early Christians viewed the apocrypha in contrast to scriptures.

Those entrusted with the scripures - the Jewish people - did not HAVE a canon until after 70 AD. The Jewish canon was established because Christians "stole" the Tanakh and revised it for Christian theological purposes. The Tanakh, Jewish OT, is NOT identical to the Christian OT.

 

See, this is a false delema. First of all the discussion isn't about "dividing the word of truth". Or the meaning of a text from scriptures. Thus the requirement of having used sources not inspired by God becomes moot. We are asking a question of history which like all academic studies of history we attempt to assertain by eyewitnesses to that history. And much can be discovered by this method. Whether the men themselves are heretics is irrelevant to the discussion of history. However, I do find it telling that for proof of your position you will cite a person you consider a "heretic". Thus you find yourself in a position to treat the person simultaniously as an authority and a heretic about the same subject. Either the person has a value or you should disregard him altogether. But you can't have your cake an eat it too as the saying goes.

Two points about this statement. By using the Term "believing" you already catagorize these "scholars" as being biased and skewed to your particular view. Thus none of them are objectively viewing the subject. They are subjective. Which is why I usually cite non-Catholic authors as they aren't automatically percieved to be biased for Catholicism. Secondly, it seems more credible that an Orthodox Jewish historian has better knowledge and insite into his own sacred text than an outside "biased" academic that has a totally foreign cultural backgrown to anything from the land of Israel.

The last book of canon was actually writen during the last of the apostles life. That doesn't mean what was considered OT canon was settled at that point by early Christians. Because the gospel and the christian faith was primarily and firstly spead and propegated by oral teaching. OT Scripture were used to support what was spoken by the apostles. Christians therefore already had established beliefs as spoken to them by the apostles to which they sought support and further enlightenment to what they already believed from scripture text. But the final collection of what was acceptable happened long after the Apostles as history attest to.

 

The trouble with Christian in general, Baptists in particular, is that most read the Bible backwards, from Revelation to Genesis. The end is not the most cannonical and Genesis is not commentary on Revelation. It works the other way around. The covenants are cumulative, not replacements.

 

Yes, and its a fun read however the origins of that book is a 13 century rabbi. The attempt to answer certain questions from the Torah from Jewish Midrash is interesting but it cannot be connected to the book referrenced in 2 Samuel. However, it is easy to see how some of the consepts have come to shape the views of certain pastors I knew regarding the same subjects in Genesis. I enjoyed the read however. Just a note; Mormons like this book and often try to claim it as authoritative.

 

Did you notice the two treatments or beliefs from those documents (Enoch and Jasher) have shaped the two primary camps people find themselves in with regard to Genesis "the heros of old", "Giants in the land", and "nephalim"? Also Jasher shows a view held by some regarding the tower of Babylon Story I find very interesting because though many Pastors when answering questions regarding these things in genesis seem to repeat the views fromt hose texts who believe they assertained that perspective from scripture alone. Many of whom never even read those books! Go ahead and test it out. Ask your pastor about who the "sons of God" were and see their reply they may either take the Jasher view or the Enoch view. See how they answer your questions and compare to those books and take scripture and try to assertain how they came to that speculative view with little information in the genesis text itself.