PDA

View Full Version : The Canon of the Bible



SpeakSlow
Mar 22nd 2007, 10:28 PM
Strange...Jesus of Nazareth even says something from the book of Enoch at one point. ("Clouds of glory....")

Scholars even go so far as to say that it was very influential to early Christians. I know the easy answer would be, "Well, it isn't an inspired work..." Yes, but why wouldn't it be, even if Jesus quoted it.

But I'm not to upset about this...I read bits and pieces and it seems pretty intense with all its talks and encounters with angels and whatnot.

Thanks, SpeakSlow.

opinions?

punk
Mar 22nd 2007, 10:48 PM
Enoch is actually included in the canon of the Bible used by the Ethiopian church.

Souled Out
Mar 23rd 2007, 12:06 AM
Strange...Jesus of Nazareth even says something from the book of Enoch at one point. ("Clouds of glory....")

Scholars even go so far as to say that it was very influential to early Christians. I know the easy answer would be, "Well, it isn't an inspired work..." Yes, but why wouldn't it be, even if Jesus quoted it.

But I'm not to upset about this...I read bits and pieces and it seems pretty intense with all its talks and encounters with angels and whatnot.

The Book of Enoch was referenced because it was popular at the time.

Let’s say your pastor preaches a sermon on covetousness and then uses a couple of examples or lines from The Lord of the Rings to add an extra dimension to his message. That doesn’t mean your pastor thinks the Lord of the Rings is inspired. It just means he’s using something that most people can relate to in order to further drive home a point.

In Acts 17:28 Paul quoted a pagan poet. Again, it doesn’t mean that Paul is endorsing the poet’s writings as inspired. It just means he used an example from a popular piece of that time that people could understand and identify with.

Braves27
May 18th 2007, 09:00 PM
So what do yall think about it?

Enoch, the one from Genesis chapters 4 and 5, who was taken up into heaven without dying.

I just heard about it recently and from what I can see so far, it looks like it was accepted and uncontested in the Scriptures until around the year 100, when Jews who had rejected Christ took it out, possibly because of the prophecies about Him. Early Christians seemed to know it and accept it.

It's even referenced in the epistle of Jude (1:14) (which, later on down the road, was also disputed in part because of this reference). It's always been in the Bible in Ethiopia (although, 4 more books we don't have are as well).

This book isn't like any of the other apocryphal writings, and I'm wondering if it was really removed maliciously, and more importantly, if it belongs in the Bible.

I haven't read much of it yet, it's a long book, but I was hoping you all would have some input.

ravi4u2
May 18th 2007, 09:14 PM
The foundation of our faith lies in the fact that the Scripture is complete and without error.

Kahtar
May 18th 2007, 10:12 PM
Being mentioned in the Word does not necessarily equate to being the inspired canon.
Many books, including the Book of Enoch, have some useful information, and may even be true. But that doesn't make them inspired or necessarily qualify them as 'canon'.

matthew94
May 19th 2007, 01:53 AM
It wasn't written by Enoch, that is the main problem with it (even if it contains some actual words of Enoch passed down orally).

hupo
May 19th 2007, 10:10 AM
The foundation of our faith lies in the fact that the Scripture is complete and without error.
Right on Ravi !

This is dangerous ground we walk.
If we don't have faith in scripture as-is, our whole faith stands on sand rather than a Rock.

Faith is founded on a trust in God's Word being the truth!

Every believer should see where they stand with this

Blessings :pray: :pray: :pray:

watchinginawe
May 19th 2007, 12:02 PM
I'm going to change the name of this thread to the Canon of the Bible.

Continue...

matthew94
May 19th 2007, 01:14 PM
For that matter neither was the Pentateuch written by Moses.;)

It doesn't claim to be. Who do you think wrote it? I believe Genesis was written by its participants and compiled by Moses. The book of Enoch, however, is called the book of Enoch :)

GothicAngel
May 19th 2007, 02:39 PM
For that matter neither was the Pentateuch written by Moses.;)
I am curious, who wrote it then?

Souled Out
May 19th 2007, 02:57 PM
That may well be true, but when the inspired books specifically point to a particular manuscript it must mean that it is important enough to be included.

The Book of Enoch and other works mentioned in the Bible are just that, popular literary works. The audiences knew these pieces of literature so they could be spoken of and referenced without explanation.

If the Bible was written today the writers could very well mention works by Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis or George Orwell in order to help drive home or further illustrate a biblical idea. That in no way means that those books are inspired.

What we have is exactly what God designed.

RogerW
May 19th 2007, 04:59 PM
The Book of Enoch and other works mentioned in the Bible are just that, popular literary works. The audiences knew these pieces of literature so they could be spoken of and referenced without explanation.

If the Bible was written today the writers could very well mention works by Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis or George Orwell in order to help drive home or further illustrate a biblical idea. That in no way means that those books are inspired.

What we have is exactly what God designed.

This is so true. We could in fact say though God used men to put down His Words in written form, the Words themself are of God. This is why certain writings were omitted, while the inspired writings were approved. How many other writings were said to be inspired by God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How many other writings can be said to have come not by the will of man, but holy men of God, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit?

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

How many other writings can say they preach the gospel which came not by man, nor by teaching from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ?

Ga 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Ga 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The following excerpt is taken from article The Concept and Importance of Canonicity by Greg Bahnsen.
Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition

What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not "become divine" through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: "...having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever.... And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you" (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God's revealed word which, as such, always has been the church's canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

RW

RSiscoe
May 19th 2007, 08:44 PM
Right on Ravi !

This is dangerous ground we walk.
If we don't have faith in scripture as-is, our whole faith stands on sand rather than a Rock.

Faith is founded on a trust in God's Word being the truth!



It sounds like you think the Bible came down from heaven ready-made and leather bound. There is no divinely inspired list of books that are to be included in the Bible. In the early years of Christianity, as has been said, some books that are not in our current Bible were considered inspired by many. Some of the early canons of scripture include different books than we have in our Bibles today. The canon of scripture was not settled until late in the 4th century, at the councils of Rome (AD 381) Hippo (AD 393), and Carthage (AD 397).

St. Irenaues, writing in about 189AD, lists the books of the New Testament, and excludes Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.

An earlier canon - the Muratorian canon - which is from about 177 AD, excludes some books that we have in the Bible today, and includes the Apocalypse of Peter, which is not in our Bible.

Like it or not, it was men who compiled the list of books that were to be included in the Bible, and these men were not the original 12 apostles. These men were the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the authority of some of the books contained in our Bible today (those that were not universally accepted from the beginning), rests upon the authority of the Catholic Bishops who selected them.

Most of the books we have in our New Testament today were undisputed and accepted by all from the begining, but several of them were not. Hebrews was disputed, and so were 2nd and 3rd John, as well as the Apocalypse (or Revelation), and others. These were not accepted, or at least held in suspicion by many in the early Church, while books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and others were included as scripture.

doug3
May 19th 2007, 10:59 PM
It sounds like you think the Bible came down from heaven ready-made and leather bound. There is no divinely inspired list of books that are to be included in the Bible. In the early years of Christianity, as has been said, some books that are not in our current Bible were considered inspired by many. Some of the early canons of scripture include different books than we have in our Bibles today. The canon of scripture was not settled until late in the 4th century, at the councils of Rome (AD 381) Hippo (AD 393), and Carthage (AD 397).

St. Irenaues, writing in about 189AD, lists the books of the New Testament, and excludes Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.

An earlier canon - the Muratorian canon - which is from about 177 AD, excludes some books that we have in the Bible today, and includes the Apocalypse of Peter, which is not in our Bible.

Like it or not, it was men who compiled the list of books that were to be included in the Bible, and these men were not the original 12 apostles. These men were the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the authority of some of the books contained in our Bible today (those that were not universally accepted from the beginning), rests upon the authority of the Catholic Bishops who selected them.

Most of the books we have in our New Testament today were undisputed and accepted by all from the begining, but several of them were not. Hebrews was disputed, and so were 2nd and 3rd John, as well as the Apocalypse (or Revelation), and others. These were not accepted, or at least held in suspicion by many in the early Church, while books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and others were included as scripture.

Very informative, thanks for sharing. A good start for some research I was planning to do on this topic.

I think the point that Ravi and Hupo were making is that the fixed number and order of books we have now was brought about by God, even if along the way various men tried to impose there own ideas as to what was inspired, and what was not.

Isa 55:10-11 KJV

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 01:49 AM
Very informative, thanks for sharing. A good start for some research I was planning to do on this topic.[/I]

In addition to the sources I mentioned, you also may want to read the list of the books of the Bible given by St. Augustine in his work "The City of God". He gives a complete list of the books of the Bible at the beginning of the 5th century (around 410AD.

You also may want to read "Against the Heresies" by St. Irenaues, which is usually dated at AD189. He also gives a list of the books and provides a little history about them. It's pretty interesting, and it refutes the claims made in the Divinci Code, and in recent History Chanel shows that claim the four Gospels did not exist until after the 3rd century, which isn't true. Here's part of what he said:

St. Irenaues, A.D. 189: "We have learned the plan of our salvation from none other than those through whom the gospel came down to us. Indeed, they first preached the gospel, and afterwards, by the will of God, they handed down to us in the Scriptures... Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Against the Heresies, book 3, 1:1).

ravi4u2
May 20th 2007, 02:50 AM
Various sects developed within Christianity, very soon after the death of the first apostles. Besides the Gnostics and Arians, one of the most noted were the Marcions. They had their own scripture canon. Marcion had rejected the whole of the Old Testament and edited what was left to fit his own ideas. Now, if Marcion's claims were untrue, if the writingsfor which he calimed direct inspiration were not, in fact inspired, then it was up to the church to indicate the writings for which divine inspiration could be legitimately claimed. This was done and various lists of canonical books have come down to us compiled by various chruch leaders in the early centuries before the Council of Carthage in 397 made a final listing of the 27 NT books as we have them today.

It must however be remembered that the NT writings were not vested with any extra authority by their being officially recognised by the Church. The opposite is the case. The recognition of the canonical books were simply the acceptance of a well attested fact. The authority of the Scripture had already been established through its application by the Holy Spirit to the experience of believers. By accepting the writings of Scripture as canonical, the church recognised the authority as paramount in all matters relating to faith and conduct. They formed the norm by which every doctrinal claim could be tested and every dispute decided.

bergie38
May 20th 2007, 04:30 AM
Great topic! I have always wondered about something. Please forgive my ignorance as I am learning everyday :) Is it believed that there are some books of the Bible that aren't in it today? Like they were taken out? If so, this is what I want to know. Does the information in those books have any affect on our salvation? Does it change things? Are they just stories? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

hupo
May 20th 2007, 11:14 AM
It sounds like you think the Bible came down from heaven ready-made and leather bound. There is no divinely inspired list of books that are to be included in the Bible. In the early years of Christianity, as has been said, some books that are not in our current Bible were considered inspired by many. Some of the early canons of scripture include different books than we have in our Bibles today. The canon of scripture was not settled until late in the 4th century, at the councils of Rome (AD 381) Hippo (AD 393), and Carthage (AD 397).

St. Irenaues, writing in about 189AD, lists the books of the New Testament, and excludes Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.

An earlier canon - the Muratorian canon - which is from about 177 AD, excludes some books that we have in the Bible today, and includes the Apocalypse of Peter, which is not in our Bible.
You do have a very valid point, RS.
The bible wasn't written in heaven. The bible was written by God inspired people. If you ask me to prove it. I can't. This is where faith comes in.
When I read scripture I pray about it, sort of check it out with God, so to speak. I trust the Holy Spirit will tell me.
The thing is, if we don't have faith in the scripture we base our salvation on. Our salvation isn't worth much.

So how do we know? Big question. The debate about what books belong to the canon and which don't is not only valid. It's a must for anyone taking his faith seriously.



Like it or not, it was men who compiled the list of books that were to be included in the Bible, and these men were not the original 12 apostles. These men were the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the authority of some of the books contained in our Bible today (those that were not universally accepted from the beginning), rests upon the authority of the Catholic Bishops who selected them.
The bishops of the catholic church may have had a say in what goes into the NT. I wouldn't know about that. The OT is different as it is older and more solidly based in mankinds memory and life.
This is no proof in itself, of course.
Personaly, I tend to base my faith on the OT rather than the NT. I grew up with it while the NT drifted into my life only about 10 years ago.
This is why, while studying the NT too, I wouldn't bother with it if excluded the OT! But Yeshua said He came to complete the law (Torah) and not abolish it.


Most of the books we have in our New Testament today were undisputed and accepted by all from the begining, but several of them were not. Hebrews was disputed, and so were 2nd and 3rd John, as well as the Apocalypse (or Revelation), and others. These were not accepted, or at least held in suspicion by many in the early Church, while books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and others were included as scripture.Like I said, I am just begining to see the NT for what it is and definatly cannot argue your point. I study and pray with the hope that God will show me the truth in this too.


Thank you for your response. Inspiring and forces me to study more of scripture

Blessings :pray::pray::pray:

RSiscoe
May 20th 2007, 07:28 PM
Like I said, I am just begining to see the NT for what it is and definatly cannot argue your point. I study and pray with the hope that God will show me the truth in this too.


Good for you. Praying and staying close to God is very important. Pray to God for guidance, and have a firm trust that He will lead you where He wants you to be. By praying for guidance and placing great trust in the good God, we can be certain that He will not let us down.

God Bless,

ravi4u2
May 20th 2007, 08:06 PM
Personaly, I tend to base my faith on the OT rather than the NT.
Blessings :pray::pray::pray:

The new is better than the old.

hupo
May 20th 2007, 08:25 PM
The new is better than the old.
Well, we could argue over that, but what for?
Much more fun having fun together in God's Word ;)

Blessings ravi :pray: :pray: :pray:

ravi4u2
May 20th 2007, 09:00 PM
Well, we could argue over that, but what for?
Much more fun having fun together in God's Word ;)

Blessings ravi :pray: :pray: :pray:

Hebrews 8:13 "When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to be dispensed with altogether."

Not for arguments sake but for the sake of complete truth...:kiss:

hupo
May 20th 2007, 10:17 PM
Hebrews 8:13 "When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to be dispensed with altogether."

Not for arguments sake but for the sake of complete truth...:kiss:
Well now that you mention "complete"....it does say somewhere that Yeshua came not to abolish the Law but to complete it. Not exactly making it obselete.........

:rofl::rofl: Just can't keep out of a good argument, can we ? :rofl::rofl:

ravi4u2
May 21st 2007, 12:33 AM
Well now that you mention "complete"....it does say somewhere that Yeshua came not to abolish the Law but to complete it. Not exactly making it obselete.........

:rofl::rofl: Just can't keep out of a good argument, can we ? :rofl::rofl:
Yup! complete...so that we don't have to keep it...obselete for us because it is complete in Christ...

Kahtar
May 21st 2007, 01:17 AM
Is there a difference between the 'covenant' and the law?
In my understanding (however feeble that may be) that the 'law' is the terms of the covenant. But the covenant is between God and Israel (the old one). So if that covenant with Israel has been canceled due to Israel's failure to keep their part, causing God to 'divorce' them annulling the covenant, and God establishes a new covenant with a new group of people (which of course can and does include some of those from the old covenant), does that new covenant require a new set of terms, or is God capable of using and requiring the same set of terms in both covenants?
The new covenant is better than the old, certainly. The new covenant is written on our hearts, and fulfilled spiritually, whereas the old was written on stone, and carried out physically.
Of course neither group was/is capable of perfectly fulfilling their respective covenants, thus the need for the Sacrifice.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, and that the law would remain until heaven and earth passed, and all things were fulfilled. Neither of those conditions have occured yet. We're still on the planet, the stars are still in the sky, and we are still awaiting the return of the Messiah, the judgment, etc.

In the sacrificial system, the offerer was to place his hands upon the head of the sacrifice, thereby transferring his sins to the animal, which was subsequently sacrificed, thus covering that person's sin.
Today, we confess our sins, and accept the sacrifice Christ made in our behalf. Our sins are laid upon Him, and His death washes away our sins.
Seems to me that the sacrificial system remains, and we obey it when we accept Christ. What has changed is the need for animals, and continual sacrifice. We now have the Perfect Sacrifice, but we are still abiding by it.
When we daily confess our shortcomings, are we not, spiritually, carrying out the morning sacrifice?
When we offer our prayers up to God, are we not still performing from a spiritual perspective the offering up of incense?
When we get 'refilled' by the Spirit, and our light shines brightly, have we not spiritually 'trimmed our wicks' and 'filled the lampstand', shedding forth the light of Christ in the world?
Are we not still commanded to be circumcized? No longer of the flesh, but of the heart, but that 'mark of the covenant' remains.
Paul tells us the law is good, and that it is spiritual. It always has been. It has never been used for salvation however, and should not be now.
We simply need to gain a clear understanding of the spiritual aspect of the law which we have had from the beginning, as John wrote:
1Jo 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

Okay, sorry, got on a roll. I'll shut up.:D

Edit to add: Oops. A tad off-topic, sorry.

ravi4u2
May 21st 2007, 01:30 AM
Through the ages, we have been saved only by grace. But has by his divine wisdom chose different vehicles as the carriers of this faith:

First was the age of conscience. From the fall of Adam to Moses it was salvation by grace through conscience.

Second was the age of Law. From Moses in Mt Sinai to the resurrection of Jesus salvation was by grace through Law.

Now, we live in the age of Faith. From the resurrection of Jesus to the coming again of Jesus salvation in by grace through faith.

Have they cancelled each other out? I don't think so...there are people today who have not heard the gospel. They will be judged by their conscience. There are people today who keep the Law, they will be judged by the Law. And there are people today who live by faith and are justified by Faith. But one thing is for sure, conscience will fail us for how many times have I gone against my conscience. Law will fail, for if you do not keep one part of the Law, you have not kept the entire. Faith is the only assurance of grace and salvation.

hupo
May 21st 2007, 04:15 AM
Is there a difference between the 'covenant' and the law?
In my understanding (however feeble that may be) that the 'law' is the terms of the covenant. But the covenant is between God and Israel (the old one). So if that covenant with Israel has been canceled due to Israel's failure to keep their part, causing God to 'divorce' them annulling the covenant, and God establishes a new covenant with a new group of people (which of course can and does include some of those from the old covenant), does that new covenant require a new set of terms, or is God capable of using and requiring the same set of terms in both covenants?
The new covenant is better than the old, certainly. The new covenant is written on our hearts, and fulfilled spiritually, whereas the old was written on stone, and carried out physically.
Of course neither group was/is capable of perfectly fulfilling their respective covenants, thus the need for the Sacrifice.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, and that the law would remain until heaven and earth passed, and all things were fulfilled. Neither of those conditions have occured yet. We're still on the planet, the stars are still in the sky, and we are still awaiting the return of the Messiah, the judgment, etc.

In the sacrificial system, the offerer was to place his hands upon the head of the sacrifice, thereby transferring his sins to the animal, which was subsequently sacrificed, thus covering that person's sin.
Today, we confess our sins, and accept the sacrifice Christ made in our behalf. Our sins are laid upon Him, and His death washes away our sins.
Seems to me that the sacrificial system remains, and we obey it when we accept Christ. What has changed is the need for animals, and continual sacrifice. We now have the Perfect Sacrifice, but we are still abiding by it.
When we daily confess our shortcomings, are we not, spiritually, carrying out the morning sacrifice?
When we offer our prayers up to God, are we not still performing from a spiritual perspective the offering up of incense?
When we get 'refilled' by the Spirit, and our light shines brightly, have we not spiritually 'trimmed our wicks' and 'filled the lampstand', shedding forth the light of Christ in the world?
Are we not still commanded to be circumcized? No longer of the flesh, but of the heart, but that 'mark of the covenant' remains.
Paul tells us the law is good, and that it is spiritual. It always has been. It has never been used for salvation however, and should not be now.
We simply need to gain a clear understanding of the spiritual aspect of the law which we have had from the beginning, as John wrote:
1Jo 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

Okay, sorry, got on a roll. I'll shut up.:D

Edit to add: Oops. A tad off-topic, sorry.
Shalom Kahtar,
I'm glad you didn't shut up till the end of your roll. I think what you wrote makes things clear. To me at least. Thanks Kahtar :)

I don't really have an argument with Ravi. I just prefere using the OT where I can, to the NT, which was a "strange fish" in the sea I grew up in.

Yes Salvation is by Grace but we would do well to conceder God's word in the OT too

Blessings :pray::pray::pray:

ravi4u2
May 22nd 2007, 02:38 AM
Shalom Kahtar,
I'm glad you didn't shut up till the end of your roll. I think what you wrote makes things clear. To me at least. Thanks Kahtar :)

I don't really have an argument with Ravi. I just prefere using the OT where I can, to the NT, which was a "strange fish" in the sea I grew up in.

Yes Salvation is by Grace but we would do well to conceder God's word in the OT too

Blessings :pray::pray::pray:

there can be no new without the old. The old is as inspired as the new. The new is the completion of the old. But it is in the new that mysteries that have been hidden in the old, been revealed. I love the Word of God as a whole (both the old and the new) and know that we can only have a complete view of God when we receive Him (the Word) in His entirety. It does such disservice to dissect the old from the new.

Braves27
May 22nd 2007, 06:37 AM
See, the one thing that hasn't really been addressed is the main difference between the book of Enoch and allllllllll the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings, from Maccabees to Tobit to the Gnostic Gospels-----the fact that it was in the Old Testament, and accepted, until the 2nd century, well after the matter should have been settled. Also the fact that there's reason to believe it was taken out maliciously by unconverted Israelites because of the prophecies of Christ!



As long as we're on the topic though, anyone have anything to say about the parts of the apocrypha that were cut right off the end of books in the Bible? (Daniel, Esther, etc..) I think it has to do with the continuity of the languages, but how did it get mixed in there in the first place?

excubitor
May 22nd 2007, 09:19 AM
The excerpt which you have quoted needs some clarification as it is confusing in many parts.


The following excerpt is taken from article The Concept and Importance of Canonicity by Greg Bahnsen.
Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition

What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical.

The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.


What does this mean?
Canon where it is used in the context of the scripture is defined as "the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired. "

So for a writing to be included in the canon and considered canonical it must have recognition of an ecclesiastical council of the christian church. Therefore by its very definition canonicity of writings can only be granted by a council of the church.

I think what the writer means to say is that the quality of inspiration and divinity of the inspired scripture does not come from its granting of canonicity by the ecclesiastical council. Surely that is obvious.



It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not "become divine" through human agreement with it.

When did God speak out and proclaim any book of the Bible to be divine. Did a thunderous voice come bellowing from the sky saying "Acts is divine", "Maccabees is profane". Did the divine books appear written on a black marble pyramid?. No of course not. So how did they become divine? God spoke to the assembly of the saints by the Holy Spirit revealing to them the truth of which books were divine and which were not. The elders of the church and of the synagogue taught the younger which books were divine and which were not, which were inspired and inerrant and which were not. This was done from time immemorial long before the notion of canonicity came about. If this does not constitute a human response then what would you call it?



Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God.

As I have shown, without an ecclesiastical council it is impossible by the very definition of the word to have a canon. Therefore the ecclesiastical council precedes the canon even though the inspired scripture precedes the ecclesiastical council.



Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: "...having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever.... And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you" (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon.

The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God's revealed word which, as such, always has been the church's canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

RW
By this I think he means that the scripture controls and defines the church. If so then I agree with this passage except to say that I understand that the author believes that the church has given authority to scripture by including them in the canon and removed authority from other books or omitting them from the canon. I think he believes that the canon was used by the church to insist the use of certain books as scripture and ban the use of others as scripture. As far as I am concerned this authoritative style of pronouncement of canonical scriptures never happened until the protestant reformation when certain deutero-canonical books were very definitely purged from the canon.

Again I believe that the canon prior to the reformation was simply a recognition of the inspired status of certain books rather than an authoritative pronouncement to members of the church to accept some scriptures as divine and spurn others.

If anybody would like to disagree with me I would be very interested to find these types of authoritative pronouncements prior to the reformation.

ravi4u2
May 22nd 2007, 07:30 PM
See, the one thing that hasn't really been addressed is the main difference between the book of Enoch and allllllllll the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings, from Maccabees to Tobit to the Gnostic Gospels-----the fact that it was in the Old Testament, and accepted, until the 2nd century, well after the matter should have been settled. Also the fact that there's reason to believe it was taken out maliciously by unconverted Israelites because of the prophecies of Christ!



As long as we're on the topic though, anyone have anything to say about the parts of the apocrypha that were cut right off the end of books in the Bible? (Daniel, Esther, etc..) I think it has to do with the continuity of the languages, but how did it get mixed in there in the first place?
Christ is found from Genesis to Revelation. He will be found by those who seek Him. There are yet others who see and see and yet do not see. We cannot go to extra-biblical sources to prove Christ, lest we undermine the authority of the Scripture.

RSiscoe
May 22nd 2007, 11:17 PM
[i]Again I believe that the canon prior to the reformation was simply a recognition of the inspired status of certain books rather than an authoritative pronouncement to members of the church to accept some scriptures as divine and spurn others.[/u]

If anybody would like to disagree with me I would be very interested to find these types of authoritative pronouncements prior to the reformation.

Excubitor,

Your reasoning and logic is great. I really enjoy reading your post. That being said, unless I misunderstood the underlined part above, I will have to disagree with it.

There were indeed several early councils that told which books were to be included in the canon. These councils are as follows:

The Council of Rome, A.D. 381 (sometimes dated at 382)

The Council of Hippo, A.D. 393

The Council of Carthage, A.D. 397

If you can't locate them online, let me know.

ravi4u2
May 23rd 2007, 02:08 AM
It is not the Church that gives authority to Scripture. On the contrary it is the Scripture that gives authority to the Church. Endorsements of human councils mean nothing, for the Word has always been a part of His people, even without any organizational endorsements. It is the very clergy that endorsed the Scripture that later made it 'unlawful' for the common man to read it.

RSiscoe
May 23rd 2007, 02:26 AM
It is not the Church that gives authority to Scripture. On the contrary it is the Scripture that gives authority to the Church. Endorsements of human councils mean nothing, for the Word has always been a part of His people, even without any organizational endorsements. It is the very clergy that endorsed the Scripture that later made it 'unlawful' for the common man to read it.

But how do we know what books belong in the New Testament? The Bible does not include a list of inspired books. It did not comes down to us in one book form. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, and they were not all accepted universally from the beginning. In fact, there is very little evidence from the first 300 years of exactly what books were accepted. There are some writings, but not many.

How are we to know which books are truly inspired? If you lived in the year 250, for example, when there were no Bibles, but only individual scrolls, how would you have known which scrolls were divinely inspired, and which were not? You wouldn't be able to base you belief on any one document providing a list of inspred books since there wasn't any such document. So how would you have known? How would you have distinguished between the inspired books and those that were not inspired?

This is the allusion we are under today. We think that simply because we can go to the store and purchase a Bible that contains all 27 books of the New Testament, that this has always been so. Some people seem to imaging a King James Bible, leather bound, descending from heaven with all 27 N.T. books in it. In those days, the books were on individual scrolls that had to be copied by hand; and it would take years before they were copied into all languages.

Bibles as we know them did not exist. And no where are we provided with a ist of divinely inspired books. Somewhere along the way 27 books were selected, and, like it or not, this was done by men.

ravi4u2
May 23rd 2007, 02:56 AM
For the record, the 27-book collection of the New Testament was confirmed in 325 by the Council of Nicaea for and by the Catholic/Orthodox church, but this does not mean that the standard New Testament collection originated then. Let’s look at the overlooked information confirming the early establishment of the New Testament collection. One of the members of the council, “Bishop” Athanasius, stated that the “books which have been delivered down to us, and are believed to be divine Scriptures” by “the fathers who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word”. These “eye-witnesses” and “ministers of the word” can only be the Apostles within the context. Athanasius was probably referring to the Scriptures since there are no other preaching eye-witnesses, “eye-witnesses” / ”ministers of the word”, than the Apostles (Luke 1:1-3, Acts 1:8, 22, 2:32, 3:15, 4:33, 5:32; 10:39, 41, 13:31-32, 14:3-4, 22:15, 26:16; Hebrews 2:3-4; 1 Peter 5:1; 1 John 1:1-4; and Rev. 1:1-2). The Council of Nicaea would not have thought to actually add or subtract from the collection, when Athanasius stated about the Scriptures, “These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the doctrine of religion is taught: let no one add to them or take anything from them.” See, the collection did not originate with this Council, and evidently, Athanasius knew that the New Testament Scriptures was complete enough not to add and take from, yet the Council of Nicaea is accused exactly of such a thing.


On top of this, is it possible that the Council of Nicaea would have established a collection of Scriptures to support their beliefs with writings that do not? This is clearly illogical, but this is the belief of most, who do not accept the 27-book collection. They believe this Council adopted this collection just to support their beliefs and practices. The beliefs of the Council of Nicaea consisted of infant baptism, separation of Bishops and Presbyters, the existence of Archbishops, the existence of laymen and laity (priests), the actual body and blood of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper, and the re-sacrifice of Christ in every partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The Council could have written their own catechism if they desired to affirm these beliefs, but according to some the Council of Nicaea would rather rely upon a stretched interpretation of a 27-book collection that would allow others to have their own faith by the reading this collection.


Then there is the truth of looking at the manuscripts. Most do not know that no one can say for certain when the 27-book collection was established between 1st and 2nd century just based off of the manuscripts. Now, some scholars might say that no one can know between the 1st and the 4th centuries, but note the manuscript evidence of the 27-book collection that places the time between 1st and 2nd centuries. J.W. McGarvey affirmed the two collections of the two dialects of the Coptic language containing just the 27-book collection to the 2nd century. This means that the collection was put together somewhere between the 1st and 2nd centuries, and that the collection certainly existed before Council of Nicaea.

God's Breath (http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/gods-guidance-in-gathering-the-new-testament-scriptures/) has a more thorough write-up on this topic.

RSiscoe
May 23rd 2007, 03:27 AM
For the record, the 27-book collection of the New Testament was confirmed in 325 by the Council of Nicaea for and by the Catholic/Orthodox church,

I'm almost positive that the Council of Nicea does not provide us with a list of the books of the Bible. You can prove me wrong by looking up the council documents online and posting the one that gives the list of books. I'm sure the Nicea documents are available online.


One of the members of the council, “Bishop” Athanasius, stated that the “books which have been delivered down to us, and are believed to be divine Scriptures” by “the fathers who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word”.

But what books is he talking about? It is true that most of the books in the New Testament were accepted unanimously from the beginning, but not all of them. Some books that are in our Bible were rejected or at least questioned in the early years, and some books that are not in our Bible were accepted.

The point is, there is no divinely inspired list of books that are to make up the Bible. That means the only authority you have for determining which books belong in the Bible and which do not is oral tradition. And the oral tradition is not unanimous for all books. For most yes, but not for all.

ravi4u2
May 23rd 2007, 04:17 AM
I'm almost positive that the Council of Nicea does not provide us with a list of the books of the Bible. You can prove me wrong by looking up the council documents online and posting the one that gives the list of books. I'm sure the Nicea documents are available online.



But what books is he talking about? It is true that most of the books in the New Testament were accepted unanimously from the beginning, but not all of them. Some books that are in our Bible were rejected or at least questioned in the early years, and some books that are not in our Bible were accepted.

The point is, there is no divinely inspired list of books that are to make up the Bible. That means the only authority you have for determining which books belong in the Bible and which do not is oral tradition. And the oral tradition is not unanimous for all books. For most yes, but not for all.
I suspect that we are speaking the same language but just not understanding each other...yes they did not have printing presses in those days. So manuscripts would have to be hand copied and circulated. It must surely take a very long time for the books to reach the 'ends of the earth'. Iraneus from the 1st century is known to have quoted from at least 15 of the 27 books. But yes, the Word Hebrews says is in our hearts, inscribed by the Spirit and so, I agree with you in many parts of the world, till the written came it was orally passing down.

RSiscoe
May 23rd 2007, 12:27 PM
Again I believe that the canon prior to the reformation was simply a recognition of the inspired status of certain books rather than an authoritative pronouncement to members of the church to accept some scriptures as divine and spurn others.


Excubitor,

I was reading a book containing the early Councils of the Church this morning and ran across two of the Councils I mentioned yesterday - Rome and Carthage.

I am going to quoted the list of books given at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382.

The Council of Rome, A.D. 382

The Canon of Sacred Scripture: “Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, which the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus once book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy on book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth on book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book Ecclesiasticus one book. [22 books[

“Likewise the order of the Prophets: Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations (we now divide this into two books), Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. [16 books]

“Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdra two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books [8 books]

“Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

“The epistles of Paul in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians on, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

“Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

“Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle.

The Canon of the New Testament ends here.” (Taken from Denzinger’s, page 33-34).

In case you are wondering, some of the Old Testament books have different names for the same book. This is the case even with today’s Bible. For example, what is described above as the “four books of Kings” is usually listed as “1st and 2nd Samuel”, and “1st and second Kings”.

But if you look at the seven books that some people have in their Old Testament today, and others do not, you will find that these now-disptured-books are included in the above list, and indeed were included in every Canon of Scripture until relatively recently.

I’ll also post the list of books from the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) when I have some time.

ravi4u2
May 23rd 2007, 07:48 PM
By this I think he means that the scripture controls and defines the church. If so then I agree with this passage except to say that I understand that the author believes that the church has given authority to scripture by including them in the canon and removed authority from other books or omitting them from the canon. I think he believes that the canon was used by the church to insist the use of certain books as scripture and ban the use of others as scripture. As far as I am concerned this authoritative style of pronouncement of canonical scriptures never happened until the protestant reformation when certain deutero-canonical books were very definitely purged from the canon.

Again I believe that the canon prior to the reformation was simply a recognition of the inspired status of certain books rather than an authoritative pronouncement to members of the church to accept some scriptures as divine and spurn others.

If anybody would like to disagree with me I would be very interested to find these types of authoritative pronouncements prior to the reformation.It is not the church that gives authority to the scripture but quite to the contrary, it the Scripture who gives authority to the Church. The Church is a product of the Scripture and not the other way around.

RSiscoe
May 23rd 2007, 08:39 PM
It is not the church that gives authority to the scripture but quite to the contrary, it the Scripture who gives authority to the Church. The Church is a product of the Scripture and not the other way around.

What came first? The Christian Church or the New Testament? Here's some questions to consider:

1.) When was the Church stated?

2.) When was the New Testament complete?

3.) How many years did the New Testament Church exist without a single one of the New Testament books?

If the Church came first (and it is a proven fact that it did), how can you say that the Church is a product of the Scriptures?

Kahtar
May 23rd 2007, 08:59 PM
The church prior to the NT was based on OT scripture.

RSiscoe
May 23rd 2007, 09:19 PM
The church prior to the NT was based on OT scripture.

So, are you saying that the apostles and thousands of converts that lived for years without any New Testament writings were relying only on the teachings contained in the Old Testament to guide them?

So when Jesus told the apostles to go forth and [i]"teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."(Mt 28:19-20), He only meant for them to teach what was contained in the Old Testament?

Is that what you mean when you said the Church prior to the New Testament was based on the Old Testament? You meant that Christians only taught the Old Testament before the New Testament canon was complete?

Or do you think that perhaps the Apostles went forth and taught Christianity as they had been taught by Christ?

Kahtar
May 23rd 2007, 11:10 PM
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

What scripture would you say is 'Moses', 'the prophets', 'all the scriptures'?
The NT was not around when these things were spoken, or written.
All the scriptures that Jesus used, and the Apostles, was the OT..
Moses is the first five books, Genesis through Deuteronomy.
The prophets include all the major and minor prophets of the OT.
All that Jesus taught the Apostles was right out of, or in accordance with, the OT. One of the reasons He came was to teach the correct understanding of the scriptures, and also to fulfill them. In fact, He is 'the Word made flesh' Who dwelt among us.
Actually tho, all the OT is based upon Him and His work, and so is the NT.

RSiscoe
May 23rd 2007, 11:53 PM
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

What scripture would you say is 'Moses', 'the prophets', 'all the scriptures'?
The NT was not around when these things were spoken, or written.
All the scriptures that Jesus used, and the Apostles, was the OT..
Moses is the first five books, Genesis through Deuteronomy.
The prophets include all the major and minor prophets of the OT.
All that Jesus taught the Apostles was right out of, or in accordance with, the OT. One of the reasons He came was to teach the correct understanding of the scriptures, and also to fulfill them. In fact, He is 'the Word made flesh' Who dwelt among us.
Actually tho, all the OT is based upon Him and His work, and so is the NT.

But my question is this: Are you saying that the teachings contained in the New Testament were not taught until the New Testament books were written, which was sometime after about 43AD?

In other words, the apostles did not teach what is contained in the New Testament until the New Testament itself was written?

Did the apostles have to read their own writings to know what to believe? Or did they learn what to believe from Jesus and then put it down in writing?

What came first? The Teachings we find taught in the New Testament, or the New Testament itself? If you say the New Testament, then that means the apostles taught something other than Christainity during the first half of the book of Acts, which records the early years of the Church (before the New Testament was written.)

Kahtar
May 24th 2007, 12:36 AM
:) Well, let me see if I can explain myself a little better.

But my question is this: Are you saying that the teachings contained in the New Testament were not taught until the New Testament books were written, which was sometime after about 43AD?Nope, not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the teachings of the New Testament clarify the teachings of the OT, explain them. The New Testament is the written teaching of the Apostles. In other words, what they were teaching, they also wrote down in letters to churches and groups of people.


In other words, the apostles did not teach what is contained in the New Testament until the New Testament itself was written?Same answer: the NT is the written version of what they were teaching.


Did the apostles have to read their own writings to know what to believe? Or did they learn what to believe from Jesus and then put it down in writing? All the Apostles were Jews, who already had a good knowledge of the written Word, which at that time was only the OT, but Jesus explained the correct understanding of that written Word. What Jesus taught them was not a different religion or set of beliefs, but rather the same ones done correctly, and now from a spiritual perspective instead of the physical application they formerly had.


What came first? The Teachings we find taught in the New Testament, or the New Testament itself? If you say the New Testament, then that means the apostles taught something other than Christainity during the first half of the book of Acts, which records the early years of the Church (before the New Testament was written.)
The Old Testament, the Written Word of God, came first, then the Living Word of God came and explained the Written Word.
The Apostles taught what Christ taught them, and what He taught them was the correct understanding of how to worship and love God and live a pleasing life before Him. That was the same basic teaching as the OT.
While the OT saints carried out the teachings of the OT physically, according to the written letter, we now carry out those same teachings from a spiritual perspective.
For example, the OT says they were to be circumcised, in the flesh. Christ, and Paul, taught that now we are to be circumcised in heart. Spiritual circumcision instead of physical circumcision.
The OT taught to sacrifice a lamb for the covering of their sins. They actually took a living sheep, placed their hands on it's head, transferring their sins to the animal, and then killed it, and offered it up on the altar.
Now, we do the same basic thing, except that now we have the Lamb of God, the Perfect sacrifice, who takes our sins and washes them away. Now the spiritual, then the physical. Does that make sense?

ravi4u2
May 24th 2007, 12:41 AM
What came first? The Christian Church or the New Testament? Here's some questions to consider:

1.) When was the Church stated?

2.) When was the New Testament complete?

3.) How many years did the New Testament Church exist without a single one of the New Testament books?

If the Church came first (and it is a proven fact that it did), how can you say that the Church is a product of the Scriptures?
Not what is scripture...but who is Scripture?

GothicAngel
May 24th 2007, 12:46 AM
Not what is scripture...but who is Scripture?
Christian Scripture is the NT plus OT. Books, objects... how is it a who?

ravi4u2
May 24th 2007, 03:12 AM
Christian Scripture is the NT plus OT. Books, objects... how is it a who?The Scripture both the Old and the New is the Word of God...who is Christ Jesus.

Kahtar
May 24th 2007, 03:56 AM
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

RSiscoe
May 24th 2007, 01:33 PM
:) Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. We were probably just looking at it from two different angles. My only point was, and is, that the New Covenant and the New Testament Church, preceeded the written New Testament. The apostles and first Christians did not have to use what was written in the NT to know what to believe about Christian teaching. They new it because they had been taught by Jesus Himself. These teachings and practices were then put down in writing, by the apostles and other early Chrisitians (Paul, Mark, and Luke)

But it should be pointed out that there are certainly differences between the Old and New Covenants. The Old forshaddowed the New, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same. That's why Paul said, in Hebrews 8, that the Old was replaced by the New, and that the old was just about to fade away (which it did a few years after he wrote that).

RSiscoe
May 24th 2007, 01:36 PM
The Scripture both the Old and the New is the Word of God...who is Christ Jesus.

But there is obviously a difference between the Jesus and the Bible.

One is a Divine person who is the true Word of God, while the other is a book that contains God's word in written form. We don't worship the Bible, but we do the person.

Kahtar
May 24th 2007, 02:09 PM
Yes, it makes sense. We were probably just looking at it from two different angles. My only point was, and is, that the New Covenant and the New Testament Church, preceeded the written New Testament. The apostles and first Christians did not have to use what was written in the NT to know what to believe about Christian teaching. They new it because they had been taught by Jesus Himself. These teachings and practices were then put down in writing, by the apostles and other early Chrisitians (Paul, Mark, and Luke)Yep, sounds like we are in agreement on that.:)


But it should be pointed out that there are certainly differences between the Old and New Covenants. The Old forshaddowed the New, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same. That's why Paul said, in Hebrews 8, that the Old was replaced by the New, and that the old was just about to fade away (which it did a few years after he wrote that).Again, we pretty much agree.
So let me ask your opinion on this: Is the covenant and the law the same thing, or are they different? In other words, do you believe that the law of the OT IS the covenant, or the terms of the covenant? And, regarding the new covenant, is it an entirely different set of laws, or perhaps an expanded covenant that uses the same terms, but spiritually instead of physically?

RSiscoe
May 24th 2007, 02:46 PM
Again, we pretty much agree.
So let me ask your opinion on this: Is the covenant and the law the same thing, or are they different? In other words, do you believe that the law of the OT IS the covenant, or the terms of the covenant? And, regarding the new covenant, is it an entirely different set of laws, or perhaps an expanded covenant that uses the same terms, but spiritually instead of physically?

My first throught is to say that the laws are the terms of the Covenant, but I might need to put a little more thought into it to be sure. When I speak of "laws" I am using it specifically to mean the dietary laws, and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. I say that because I believe the moral laws contained in the old Testament, which I believe are an external expression of the natural law that is engraven upon our nature (Romans 2:14-15) are still binding. Since they are part of our nature, they will never be abrogated. Those laws (the 10 commandments for example) carried over into the New Covenant. Keeping the Sabbath is still required, but the day itself was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

And I would also agree with what I think you are getting at, which is that the moral laws are not to be lived just according to the letter, but according to the spirit. For example, Jesus quoted the Old Testament saying we should not commit adultery, and then taught that it was even wrong to do it spiritually; that is, not only is it wrong to do commit the physical act, but it is even wrong to have a lustful desire of committing the act. The one is according to the letter, the other according to the spirit. In the N.T., we are required to keep the moral law according to the Spirit, which is a more perfect form of obeying the law.

Did that answer the question?

Kahtar
May 24th 2007, 04:04 PM
Did that answer the question?Yep, sure did. We are very much in agreement.
As to the laws, there are the 613 OT. The NT has roughly 1050, depending on who you ask.
Both of course have the 10, which are now spiritual.
As to the covenants, look at this:
In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they the wilderness of Sinai. For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come [to] the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD. [I]Exodus 19:1-8
This, I think, is the actual covenant. The 10 commandments, nor the 613, had been given yet, but here they are agreeing to those terms.
Later, they received the terms, and eventually broke them.
Here's God's response to that:
The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen [that] which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these [things], Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw . And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say,
Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; [and] I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I [am] merciful, saith the LORD, [and] I will not keep [anger] for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: [I]Jeremiah 3:6-14
The covenant received at Mt. Sinai, in God's eyes, and that of Israel, was a marriage covenant, and Israel's actions were considered adultery in God's eyes. He gave Israel a writ of divorce, and eventually Judah as well, because instead of listening to the above passage, they did not repent, but continued in their harlotry. Therefore He divorced them.
Now comes Jesus, with a new covenant, again a marriage covenant, one that would include some from the previous covenant. When the new covenant came into effect, the old passed away. In effect, the divorce was final, and God betrothed Himself to another, the church, the bride of Christ, Who is the Bridegroom.
Now, the old covenant has passed away. Scripture is clear on that. And the new covenant is now in effect, and we are betrothed to God, and awaiting the day that He will come, with the sound of trumpets and great fanfare, to carry us away to His Father's House, where the marriage ceremony will take place, including the marriage feast, and the entry into the heavenly chupah for seven days, where the marriage will be consumated, and we will not emerge therefrom till that seven days are over. Then He, and we with Him, will return to this earth and establish His earthly kingdom and rule.
But, how have the TERMS of the covenant changed? From my perspective, while we have a new covenant, the terms remain the same, except that now we fulfill them spiritually instead of physically. The terms are written upon our hearts now, instead of tables of stone.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He said His law would not pass away until the heaven and the earth passed away, and all things have been fulfilled. Since the earth and the heaven remain, and we still await His coming, that tells me His law still remains. How we carry it out, and obey the terms of our covenant with Him, is what has changed a bit.
You correctly assessed the spiritual aspects of the law in your last post. I would submit that not only are the 10 now spiritually applied, but the entire law. The law of sacrifice remains, and we trust in that Sacrifice for our salvation (not the law, but His death in our place), and we fulfill all the laws of sacrifice when we accept His Sacrifice for our salvation.

Thoughts?

ravi4u2
May 24th 2007, 05:28 PM
But there is obviously a difference between the Jesus and the Bible.

One is a Divine person who is the true Word of God, while the other is a book that contains God's word in written form. We don't worship the Bible, but we do the person.
The both are the same and One. Worship is a difficult word to translate. But I especially like to translate it as intimacy. So, yes I do have intimate encounters with Him in the Bible (the Word) and in my time alone of listening to His still small Voice. It is on dangerous grounds we walk when we say that the Person is quite different from the Book, for then we open up a whole can of worms. The Mormons are a good example of this.

RSiscoe
May 24th 2007, 06:13 PM
Yep, sure did. We are very much in agreement.
As to the laws, there are the 613 OT. The NT has roughly 1050, depending on who you ask.
Both of course have the 10, which are now spiritual.
As to the covenants, look at this:
In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they the wilderness of Sinai. For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come [to] the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD. [I]Exodus 19:1-8
This, I think, is the actual covenant. The 10 commandments, nor the 613, had been given yet, but here they are agreeing to those terms.
Later, they received the terms, and eventually broke them.
Here's God's response to that:
The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen [that] which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these [things], Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw . And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say,
Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; [and] I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I [am] merciful, saith the LORD, [and] I will not keep [anger] for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: [I]Jeremiah 3:6-14
The covenant received at Mt. Sinai, in God's eyes, and that of Israel, was a marriage covenant, and Israel's actions were considered adultery in God's eyes. He gave Israel a writ of divorce, and eventually Judah as well, because instead of listening to the above passage, they did not repent, but continued in their harlotry. Therefore He divorced them.
Now comes Jesus, with a new covenant, again a marriage covenant, one that would include some from the previous covenant. When the new covenant came into effect, the old passed away. In effect, the divorce was final, and God betrothed Himself to another, the church, the bride of Christ, Who is the Bridegroom.
Now, the old covenant has passed away. Scripture is clear on that. And the new covenant is now in effect, and we are betrothed to God, and awaiting the day that He will come, with the sound of trumpets and great fanfare, to carry us away to His Father's House, where the marriage ceremony will take place, including the marriage feast, and the entry into the heavenly chupah for seven days, where the marriage will be consumated, and we will not emerge therefrom till that seven days are over. Then He, and we with Him, will return to this earth and establish His earthly kingdom and rule.
But, how have the TERMS of the covenant changed? From my perspective, while we have a new covenant, the terms remain the same, except that now we fulfill them spiritually instead of physically. The terms are written upon our hearts now, instead of tables of stone.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He said His law would not pass away until the heaven and the earth passed away, and all things have been fulfilled. Since the earth and the heaven remain, and we still await His coming, that tells me His law still remains. How we carry it out, and obey the terms of our covenant with Him, is what has changed a bit.
You correctly assessed the spiritual aspects of the law in your last post. I would submit that not only are the 10 now spiritually applied, but the entire law. The law of sacrifice remains, and we trust in that Sacrifice for our salvation (not the law, but His death in our place), and we fulfill all the laws of sacrifice when we accept His Sacrifice for our salvation.

Thoughts?

I agree with just about everything you wrote and do have some thoughts. But I will need to repsond when I have more time.

RSiscoe
May 24th 2007, 06:29 PM
The both are the same and One. Worship is a difficult word to translate. But I especially like to translate it as intimacy. So, yes I do have intimate encounters with Him in the Bible (the Word) and in my time alone of listening to His still small Voice. It is on dangerous grounds we walk when we say that the Person is quite different from the Book, for then we open up a whole can of worms. The Mormons are a good example of this.

Surely you don't confuse God with the Bible, do you? Would you ever fall down on your knees before the Bible and worship it as the Israelites did the golden calf?

God is a completely separate being from the Bible. The Bible does indeed contain writings that were inspired by God Himself, but that does not turn the book into a Divine Person.

The Word of God is one of the Persons of the Trinity. The Bible is a book containing writings that God inspired. It is called the word of God because it is a book containing writings that were inspired by God. Jesus is the Word of God because He eternally proceeds from the Father, just as a thought (when it is complete) proceeds from the intellect of man in the form of a word.

Jesus is the eternal Word that proceeds from the Father. The Bible is a book containing words that were inspired by God. These are two completely different things, just as a letter you write is a different thing from you. It may contain your thoughts, but your thoughts written on paper do not become you.

Surely I misunderstood what you were saying, right?

ravi4u2
May 24th 2007, 10:52 PM
Surely you don't confuse God with the Bible, do you? Would you ever fall down on your knees before the Bible and worship it as the Israelites did the golden calf? When I say Bible, I do not mean a leather bound book but the very Word of God. I see Christ who is the Word of God everywhere in this Book. Of course I bow my knees and worship only to the One who is known by the Word that we have.


God is a completely separate being from the Bible. The Bible does indeed contain writings that were inspired by God Himself, but that does not turn the book into a Divine Person.The God I worship is a God of the Bible. Who has revealed Himself to us through His Word.


The Word of God is one of the Persons of the Trinity. The Bible is a book containing writings that God inspired. It is called the word of God because it is a book containing writings that were inspired by God. Jesus is the Word of God because He eternally proceeds from the Father, just as a thought (when it is complete) proceeds from the intellect of man in the form of a word.

Jesus is the eternal Word that proceeds from the Father. The Bible is a book containing words that were inspired by God. These are two completely different things, just as a letter you write is a different thing from you. It may contain your thoughts, but your thoughts written on paper do not become you.

Surely I misunderstood what you were saying, right?My thoughts written on a paper define me. If I were to write a will, the will becomes me in dividing all things. Where do we see Christ? How do we see Christ? Is it not only through the Word?

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 03:40 AM
The foundation of our faith lies in the fact that the Scripture is complete and without error.

The foundation of our faith lies in Jesus Christ, the living word.

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 03:41 AM
It wasn't written by Enoch, that is the main problem with it (even if it contains some actual words of Enoch passed down orally).

Merely stating this as fact does not make it so. It would be better if you gave reasons why you doubt Enochan authhorship.

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 03:47 AM
The Book of Enoch and other works mentioned in the Bible are just that, popular literary works. The audiences knew these pieces of literature so they could be spoken of and referenced without explanation.

If the Bible was written today the writers could very well mention works by Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis or George Orwell in order to help drive home or further illustrate a biblical idea. That in no way means that those books are inspired.

What we have is exactly what God designed.

Except that Jude, the half-brother of Jesus quotes it as the words of Enoch
"It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"

Your comparing this to a modern citation of C.S. Lewis strikes me as anachronistic.

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 03:50 AM
This is so true. We could in fact say though God used men to put down His Words in written form, the Words themself are of God. This is why certain writings were omitted, while the inspired writings were approved. How many other writings were said to be inspired by God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How many other writings can be said to have come not by the will of man, but holy men of God, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit?

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

How many other writings can say they preach the gospel which came not by man, nor by teaching from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ?

Ga 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Ga 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The following excerpt is taken from article The Concept and Importance of Canonicity by Greg Bahnsen.
Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition

What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not "become divine" through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: "...having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever.... And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you" (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God's revealed word which, as such, always has been the church's canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

RW

There's a problem here RogerW, the written word of God spells out no systematic doctrine for recognizing what is and what is not canonical. It is tempting to mechanically cite what has been handed down to us as the traditional view as pure doctrine.

ravi4u2
May 25th 2007, 03:55 AM
The foundation of our faith lies in Jesus Christ, the living word.I totally and whole heartedly agree...He is the Scripture.

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 04:02 AM
Since this thread began as a discussion of The Book of Enoch, and as a discussion of what are the implications of the Book of Enoch toward our understanding of the subject of the Biblical canon, and since I just joined these boards today, someone will likely accuse me of joining the forum for self-promotion with what I type next. I swear, nothing could be further from the truth. I joined the list today being led to it concernig discussion of the rapture in a writing by Pseudo-Ephraem.

That being said, I've been struggling through The Book of Enoch since last September. Just today I finished an article I started in February.

Its here: its why I accept the Book of Enoch as having been written by the Biblical Encoh, great-grandfather of Noah.

http://www.thebookofenoch.info/html/SequestrationOfEnoch.html



Revision: 5/24/07

The Sequestration of Enoch



"Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones. And I Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me -Enoch the scribe- and said to me: 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers...'" ~ (Book of Enoch 12:1-4)These verses show Enoch being called to ministry. We are told Enoch had been hidden away from mankind, spending time worshiping God with the heavenly host. Enoch was hidden away and after some time he received his call to preach God's message.


The Life of Enoch as Parable

When this happened, Enoch lived out as if in parable what would be the future status of the book he wrote. Enoch's book, like Enoch, was hidden away for a time, and only now is gradually coming into the spotlight for which it was purposed when written. Enoch indicated this possibility when he said the book he wrote so long ago was "not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come". Enoch also wrote, his book was for the "righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation". (Enoch 1:1-2)

The period of Enoch being separate and hidden and his calling to his preaching ministry happened before he was translated into heaven. During the days of his earthly sojourn, Enoch the man, entered into the earthly purpose for his life having returned from his days in seclusion.

Like Enoch, the book he wrote has gone through a period of seclusion, or sequestration if you will. That Enoch would say his book was not for his own generation makes sense when you consider those living in Enoch's day had the preaching of Enoch to listen to. On the other hand, Enoch's words in written form, have become a kind of time-capsule for a later generation which is exactly what is beginning to happen today.

The Book of Enoch has passed through several phases in its process of sequestration and re-emergence on the world scene.

Rejected by official Judaism

The first phase occurred shortly after the ministry of Christ. Though The Book of Enoch had been in wide circulation in the period leading up to the first century A.D., and despite its evident popularity, having been viewed as scripture and quoted in many other books of the day, in 90 A.D, the rabbinic school at Jamnia, representing the spiritual leadership of the Jews at that time, decided upon a strict canon of scripture, one which eliminated Enoch and other books. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that prior to the decision made at Jamnia, the Jews had been more willing to consider other writings as scripture and they'd had a special interest in the Book of Enoch in particular; fragments from at least 10 manuscript copies of the book have been found in the Dead Sea Scroll libraries recovered from caves in the Judean desert. Also, the discovery of the Falasha Jewish community of Ethiopia, which had lost contact with the rest of world Jewry before the Christian era has borne this out; the Old Testament of these Jews includes Enoch's book.

Banned by Church council

Outside of Judaism, however, the Book of Enoch continued for a time to be popular among early Christian writers and in the churches. Enoch's book is referred to in a positive manner in the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Tatian, Lactantius, Methodius, Minucius Felix, Commodianus and Ambrose, being often referred to as scripture. Gradually however, Enoch's popularity dimmed within Christianity. As neo-platonic philosophy and Greek ideas about the nature of angels began to permeate Christian thought, the book fell into disfavor. The book was forbidden by the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century A.D. Apparently, Augustine was influential in further pushing the book into obscurity. Ultimately, the Book of Enoch was removed from the accumulated libraries of the churches of the Mediterranean world.

Ethiopian Sanctuary

The sequestration of the Book of Enoch was fully underway by the fifth century A.D. The book had passed from being widely available into a state wherein its pages were not allowed read in the churches, neither were its pages thought worthy of being copied and preserved. The book passed into a time in which no one of the children of men in the Greek and Latin worlds knew where it was hidden, and where it abode, and what had become of it. But its hiding was for a purpose. Like Jesus' flight to Egypt, Enoch's book was being preserved for the mission for which it had been purposed at first. From the outset, the Book of Enoch was destined to return from its hidden period to center stage for the benefit of a remote generation which was for to come.

Enoch's book was hidden for a period of at least twelve-hundred years. During this time, the world outside of Ethiopia was oblivious to the fact the book was being preserved by the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. Fortunately for the Book of Enoch, the Falasha Jews were themselves not in communication with the people of the Mediterranean world throughout this time.

Phased Re-emergence

Since then, the Book of Enoch has passed through several phases during a prolonged time of its reemergence. The following were the initial phases of the Book of Enoch's re-emergence.

1773 Reintroduction
1821 1st Translation
1883 Clarification
1913 2nd TranslationThe first phase occurred in the late 1700's. While searching for the source of the Nile, explorer James Bruce acquired three complete copies of the Book of Enoch in the Ethiopic language, Geez (pronounced 'gaze'). These were brought to Europe. Almost 50 years later the first translation of the book in the English language appeared, translated by Archbishop Richard Laurence, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. It would be more than 60 years before a full revision would be issued in 1883. Nearly 150 years after its reintroduction to the world outside Ethiopia, in 1913, Robert Henry Charles, issued what has become a preferred translation with corrected chapter and verse numbers.

Authenticated at the Dead Sea

175 years after the Book of Enoch had re-emerged on the world stage, its message was still discounted by the doubtful who alleged its potential for being a forgery. If the Ethiopic Book of Enoch were a forgery, it would not be the first time someone tried to recreate a 'lost book' and foist it off as original. In fact, there had been forgeries of the Book of Enoch circulated before. The truth is, without some source of external corroboration, a legitimate air of doubt could have remained.

In the 1950's, all doubts that the Ethiopic Enoch was the same one quoted by New Testament writers were dispelled by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Jewish libraries discovered in caves in the Judean desert, fragments from seven copies of Enoch in Aramaic had survived. An additional three fragments of Greek copies of Enoch were also found there. These fragments have been used to authenticate and spot-check the Ethiopic translation of Enoch. Since the Dead Sea Scroll libraries have been dated to the two centuries before Christ, we now know the Ethiopic Enoch is the real deal.

Disseminated by the Net

Since the 1990's, the text of the Book of Enoch has been freely available on the internet. (http://www.thebookofenoch.info/) For the first time in history, the Book of Enoch is potentially available to people living anywhere on the planet. Surely the light of the truth contained in the pages of the book Enoch wrote is shining brighter with each passing day. It would appear that against all the odds, Enoch's prophecy concerning the future ministry of his book is in the process of being realized. We are told however, that the Book of Enoch's best days are yet future, for its purpose is for a generation to come.

Accepted in the Day of Tribulation



"The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them: The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, and the eternal God will tread upon the earth, even on Mount Sinai, and appear from His camp, and appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens." ~ (Book of Enoch 1:1-4)The prophets of Israel from the earliest times, predicted a future time of worldwide trouble that would exceed all other periods of crisis for the world and especially for the descendants of Jacob. The prophets have called this period of time by many names. The two most common titles given to the final period of worldwide trouble in scripture are, "The Day of the Lord" and "The Tribulation", (or "Great Tribulation"). Enoch prophesies his book will be a blessing to those living in "The Day of Tribulation".

Based upon the above-referenced verses, it is evident Enoch is referring to the biblical Great Tribulation period for the following reasons:

Enoch's "Day of Tribulation" cannot be referring to the coming deluge because no "elect and righteous" lived through the time of that tribulation. The tribulation caused by the deluge came upon all the ungodly; the righteous were in the ark thus being saved from tribulation.
Enoch uses the definite article "the" to describe "The Day of Tribulation" denoting a specific period of tribulation which will come, not the tribulation all believers come into at times. He did not say "who will be living in tribulation" or "who will have tribulation".
Enoch's 'Day of Tribulation' is the time "when all the wicked and godless are to be removed" (Enoch 1:2), which is one of God's purposes for the Great Tribulation also spelled out in the Bible. Isaiah 13:9 reads, "See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it". Isaiah 24:19-20 also says, "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken. The earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion that it falls —never to rise again". The final end of sin on earth is in view. Though Noah's family was saved due to Noah's faith, we know nothing about the faith of his sons, wife, or daughters-in-law. It is apparent however that wickedness and godlessness grew up again on earth shortly after the waters of the flood receded.
Lastly, and most importantly, the blessing prophesied by Enoch to be coming to the elect who will be living in the Day of Tribulation is spelled out by one momentous fact spoken of in verses 1:3-4, "Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them: The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, and the eternal God will tread upon the earth." They will be blessed by reason of being the generation living at the time when God will personally come to earth to deliver His elect. It is verse 1:9 of this chapter which at a later time would be quoted by Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, in his New Testament epistle. Jude takes the verse to refer to the second coming of Jesus.How will the Book of Enoch become a source of blessing to the elect living in the Day of Tribulation in a way which former generations have not experienced?

The Restoration of Enoch

For many there remain pertinent doubts concerning the text of Enoch as it has come down to us in our day.
Much of Enoch's current problem lies with the trustworthiness of its transmission. Had the book been kept entire and transmitted from generation to generation intact in the Hebrew language, people may be more prone to accept it than in its current state. Because the only complete text of Enoch today is the Ethiopic one, it leaves room for people like Jozef T. Milik to be skeptical about its reliability. Milik states that since the extensive middle portion of the book, which portrays the Son of Man sitting in judgment on God's Throne of Glory, has not been corroborated by fragments from the Dead Sea Scroll caves, its composition is from the late 3rd century after Christ. Milik does see Jesus in the Book of Enoch, and because he does, Milik assumes those portions are of Christian origin.

Fifty years ago the Book of Isaiah had a credibility problem every bit as bad as Enoch does today. Isaiah in the Hebrew scriptures was based upon a Hebrew text from the 9th century AD. The question about Isaiah's transmission led liberal scholars to pose that Isaiah's text as it had come down, had been corrupted during its transmission over the centuries; liberal scholars of an earlier generation had proposed the text of Isaiah had been corrupted by Christian additions.

The discovery of a complete copy of Isaiah at the Dead Sea put an end to that sort of speculation when it was discovered it was essentially the same textual tradition that the Jews had been preserving since the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

In the eyes of many, perhaps the credibility of the Book of Enoch could be resurrected should a more ancient copy of the book be found. Should another cache of ancient books be uncovered in which a complete copy of Enoch in Hebrew turns up, the book's importance to salvation history could once again be restored.

The Book of Enoch: Toward the Future

Many who, for the first time discover the wonders of the Book of Enoch ask the question, 'Why was Enoch not included in the Bible?'
A careful examination of the Book of Enoch will show that in many ways it is very unlike other biblical books though in spirit it is thoroughly similar. In light of this, the real wonder is that it was so widely received by so many for so long.

Among these differences we find the terminology used in Enoch's book is very unlike other biblical books. For instance, one is hard-pressed to find in Enoch anything clearly Judaic in nature. The Law of Moses is nowhere to be found in Enoch. The Sabbath or Sabbath observance is not mentioned. Enoch is bereft of any terminology remotely Mosaic in tone or flavor. This alone makes Enoch unlike any other biblical book including the books of the New Testament.

The Book of Enoch is also unlike any other biblical book in that it has no reference to the two major covenants. Enoch refers to neither the old covenant made by God with the descendants of Jacob nor to the new covenant made by God with any, both Jew and Gentile, who will put their faith in Jesus, Israel's Messiah.

These and other differences in the Book of Enoch could have afforded honest questions about its validity (as was also the case with some other old covenant books).

Despite this, the evidence is there that by the time Jesus arrived, Enoch's Book was widely circulated and highly esteemed. Numerous copies of Enoch were so highly valued as to have been included in the Jewish libraries secreted in the Judean desert and later recovered at the Dead Sea. Consider too, Enoch was alluded to a number of times in the New Testament and even quoted as scripture by Jude the brother of Jesus.
So, why was Enoch not included in the Bible? How did this wonderful book come to be excluded by Judaism in the Roman Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem, and two and a half centuries later how did it become a banned book within Christendom? Whatever chain of events one can uncover, I believe God's hand can nevertheless be seen in those events. Banished by the religious leaders of Judaism and banned by an organized Christendom, Enoch's book was exiled yet preserved and kept by God amongst a group of Jews who apparently fled Israel's northern kingdom (with Enoch in hand) nearly 800 years before Christ.

Like a comet on a wide elliptical orbit around the sun, Enoch is a biblical book on an elliptical orbit around the Biblical corpus; its orbit at times bringing it back into closer relation with the rest of the Biblical canon as it is doing in these last days and at such a time as this.

© 2007 Bob Burns (gojira69@schismata.com)
http://www.thebookofenoch.info/html/SequestrationOfEnoch.html (http://www.thebookofenoch.info/html/SequestrationOfEnoch.html)

RSiscoe
May 25th 2007, 11:45 AM
When I say Bible, I do not mean a leather bound book but the very Word of God. I see Christ who is the Word of God everywhere in this Book. Of course I bow my knees and worship only to the One who is known by the Word that we have.

The God I worship is a God of the Bible. Who has revealed Himself to us through His Word.

My thoughts written on a paper define me. If I were to write a will, the will becomes me in dividing all things. Where do we see Christ? How do we see Christ? Is it not only through the Word?


That's what I hoped you meant - that the Scriptures reveal the true God to us. It almost sounded like you were saying that the Bible itself was God.

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 03:26 PM
The church prior to the NT was based on OT scripture.

I thought the church was always based upon the testimony of Christ, even before the NT came to be.

Kahtar
May 25th 2007, 03:44 PM
I thought the church was always based upon the testimony of Christ, even before the NT came to be.And you thought correctly. The OT IS the testimony of Christ.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27
Moses=Genesis through Deuteronomy
Prophets=all the major and minor prophets of the OT
'all the scriptures'=the remainder of the OT

Gojira69
May 25th 2007, 04:15 PM
<snip>What I am saying is that the teachings of the New Testament clarify the teachings of the OT, explain them. The New Testament is the written teaching of the Apostles. In other words, what they were teaching, they also wrote down in letters to churches and groups of people.

All the Apostles were Jews, who already had a good knowledge of the written Word, which at that time was only the OT, but Jesus explained the correct understanding of that written Word. What Jesus taught them was not a different religion or set of beliefs, but rather the same ones done correctly, and now from a spiritual perspective instead of the physical application they formerly had.

The Old Testament, the Written Word of God, came first, then the Living Word of God came and explained the Written Word.

The Apostles taught what Christ taught them, and what He taught them was the correct understanding of how to worship and love God and live a pleasing life before Him. That was the same basic teaching as the OT.

While the OT saints carried out the teachings of the OT physically, according to the written letter, we now carry out those same teachings from a spiritual perspective.

For example, the OT says they were to be circumcised, in the flesh. Christ, and Paul, taught that now we are to be circumcised in heart. Spiritual circumcision instead of physical circumcision.

The OT taught to sacrifice a lamb for the covering of their sins. They actually took a living sheep, placed their hands on it's head, transferring their sins to the animal, and then killed it, and offered it up on the altar.

Now, we do the same basic thing, except that now we have the Lamb of God, the Perfect sacrifice, who takes our sins and washes them away. Now the spiritual, then the physical. Does that make sense?

Sometimes we can stress a truth too much to the point we're falling into error; I know I've done it many times.

Sometimes we hear people say Jesus' sermon on the mount was given to correct certain misunderstandings about the Law of Moses. While this is true to a degree, to stress this point too strongly makes Jesus out to be simply a Rabbi of the Torah. A closer examination of the sermon on the mount will reveal much that is innovative and new, ie, not envisioned in the old covenant scriptures.

In addition, consider there are eight occassions the new covenant scriptures refer to "mysteries" that were hid from the revelation of the old covenant but have only now come to light in the new.

I'll rest my case with a quote of the Lord, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." John 13:34

As we know the entire Law and the Prophets could be summed in the two greatest of all commandments. But now John 13:34 overshadows, "Love your meighbor as yourself".

The old covenant could have never inferred "love one another: just as I have loved you", because the glory of the Lord who spoke those words had not yet been revealed as He now has been.

Put another way, the old covenant, though prophesying the coming of the Lord, did not reveal Him.

Kahtar
May 25th 2007, 05:05 PM
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
1 John 2:3-8

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD. Leviticus 19:17-18

Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him. Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire. And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt; To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou [art], to bring thee in, to give thee their land [for] an inheritance, as [it is] this day. Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: [there is] none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong [thy] days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever. Deuteronomy 4:35-40

The old covenant could have never inferred "love one another: just as I have loved you", because the glory of the Lord who spoke those words had not yet been revealed as He now has been.My friend, all through the OT are written examples of God's great and love and grace for His Children. You are right, the old 'covenant' does not 'infer' love one another as I have love you', rather it clearly proclaims it.
(by 'old covenant' I assume you are referring to the Old Testament, as opposed to the actual covenant God made with Israel.)

A closer examination of the sermon on the mount will reveal much that is innovative and new, ie, not envisioned in the old covenant scriptures.Please share with us your thoughts here, and show us what is innovative and new.

Jesus 'simply a Rabbi'? No. He was that and more.

While it is true that there were mysteries they did not understand, it was not because they were not written, for they were. They simply did not understand them. I think the same is true today.

Gojira69
May 26th 2007, 03:57 AM
The Book of Enoch was referenced because it was popular at the time.

Let’s say your pastor preaches a sermon on covetousness and then uses a couple of examples or lines from The Lord of the Rings to add an extra dimension to his message. That doesn’t mean your pastor thinks the Lord of the Rings is inspired. It just means he’s using something that most people can relate to in order to further drive home a point.

In Acts 17:28 Paul quoted a pagan poet. Again, it doesn’t mean that Paul is endorsing the poet’s writings as inspired. It just means he used an example from a popular piece of that time that people could understand and identify with.



When your pastor is using a sermon illustration from a movie its not the same as one of the New Testament authors (Jude the half-brother of Jesus) saying the following, "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"

The passage above from Jude sounds like Jude is NOT saying, "here's a good quote" but rather, "Enoch said this!" Jude is quoting Enoch 1:9.

Here is an article I've been working on this subject since February:
http://www.thebookofenoch.info/html/SequestrationOfEnoch.html

Braves27
May 26th 2007, 04:52 AM
It's awesome so many people are thinking about this all at the same time. This is like the third thread in the last few days.:D

The thread titled "canon of the Bible" was originally about the book of Enoch, and is still going on. I want to hear what everyone has to say about this, this is an important issue, something I think is being taken lightly. This book is obviously not the same as the other apocryphal books, and deserves to be addressed as such.




Also, someone just made a point about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which I was just thinking about. They also add the book of Jubilees, and 1-3 Meqyban. If there is validity to Enoch, we should look at why these other 4 books are included in with the only large church in the world that accepts Enoch as canon.

ravi4u2
May 26th 2007, 05:36 AM
There is debate whether or not Jude was actually quoting the apocraphal book of enoch or something else. This debate aside, if this is a quote from the book of Enoch, it does not affect the doctrine of inspiration nor does it mean that the early church removed the book of Enoch because of its internal inconsistencies. First of all, the book of Enoch was not considered scripture by the Christian Church. There was some discussion on its canonicity by a few people, but the Christian Church did not include it in the Bible. Second, Jude only quoted something that was true in Enoch and it does not mean that Enoch was inspired. In fact, Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean that Epimenides was inspired.

Gojira69
May 26th 2007, 06:08 AM
The following excerpt from The Book of Enoch is being offered here for no other reasons than to be a source of edification and to foster curiosity. Also, as we judge the book, as we shall and as we should, shouldn't the book itself be called upon as witness for itself?


In those days I saw the Head of Days when He seated himself upon the throne of His glory, and the books of the living were opened before Him: and all His host which is in heaven above and His counselors stood before Him, and the hearts of the holy were filled with joy; because the number of the righteous had been offered, and the prayer of the righteous had been heard, and the blood of the righteous been required before the Lord of Spirits. And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, and were filled with wisdom, and their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Head of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits. And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore. And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous; for he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, and have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits: for in His name they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life. (Enoch 47:3-48:7 RHCV)

Gojira69
May 26th 2007, 06:33 AM
There is debate whether or not Jude was actually quoting the apocraphal book of enoch or something else.

If this is being seriously suggested, lets hear the information.


This debate aside,

Its probably not right to suggest a serious debate exists of this nature without presenting the details of it.


if this is a quote from the book of Enoch, it does not affect the doctrine of inspiration nor does it mean that the early church removed the book of Enoch because of its internal inconsistencies. First of all, the book of Enoch was not considered scripture by the Christian Church.

Actually, it WAS considered scripture in the early church. I will give you one reference now and more if you request it.


I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude."


There was some discussion on its canonicity by a few people, but the Christian Church did not include it in the Bible. Second, Jude only quoted something that was true in Enoch and it does not mean that Enoch was inspired. In fact, Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean that Epimenides was inspired.

It cannot be the same as Paul quoting the Greek philosopher in Titus or in Acts. In Titus it is to disgrace the philosopher, in Acts it is to make the point Greeks should not worship idols becasue a philosopher respected among Greeks inferred it.

In Jude's book he in effect says, 'this quote from the Book atributed to Enoch actually contains the words of the Biblical Enoch, great-grandfather of Noah'. That is an implicit testimony to the authenticity of the professed authorship of Book of Enoch.

GothicAngel
May 26th 2007, 02:30 PM
Actually, it WAS considered scripture in the early church. I will give you one reference now and more if you request it.


I will request it.

All the Eaerly Church Fathers which I have read on bible books, none have included Enoch. I would like to see any and possibly all references you have supporting Enohc in the canon

Souled Out
May 26th 2007, 02:37 PM
When your pastor is using a sermon illustration from a movie its not the same as one of the New Testament authors (Jude the half-brother of Jesus) saying the following, "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'" The passage above from Jude sounds like Jude is NOT saying, "here's a good quote" but rather, "Enoch said this!" Jude is quoting Enoch 1:9.

Anyone can use literary allusion to express a point. It's the same thing whether you're pastor, a bible writer or Joe Blow.

In the case of Book of Enoch it was known literature so it was a safe condidate for allusion as it was popular.

Just like the Matrix or Narnia, the BOE is a secular source that's fine for illustrating biblical principals, but to try and pass it off as Scripture is a whole other ballgame.

watchinginawe
May 26th 2007, 05:47 PM
It's awesome so many people are thinking about this all at the same time. This is like the third thread in the last few days.:D

The thread titled "canon of the Bible" was originally about the book of Enoch, and is still going on. I want to hear what everyone has to say about this, this is an important issue, something I think is being taken lightly. This book is obviously not the same as the other apocryphal books, and deserves to be addressed as such.




Also, someone just made a point about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which I was just thinking about. They also add the book of Jubilees, and 1-3 Meqyban. If there is validity to Enoch, we should look at why these other 4 books are included in with the only large church in the world that accepts Enoch as canon.I'm going to try to merge this thread with the Canon of the Bible thread. I hope this works!

watchinginawe
May 26th 2007, 06:01 PM
As a note: If the discussion moves to why the book of Enoch should be Canon, this thread is going to be moved where some of the current posters won't be able to participate. In the spirit of the many threads on the topic, we will let the current posts stand supporting this notion at this time just for discussion but please be careful about where this discussion goes. We aren't going to allow an all out criticism of the current Canon of Scripture.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how we got to where we are in Canon, not that the Canon should be open or changed. OK?

God Bless!

ravi4u2
May 27th 2007, 04:22 AM
When saying the Book of Enoch, I hope what is being referred to here is 1 Enoch, because the rest of the books can be clearly seen as product of much editorial arrangement through the centuries.


If this is being seriously suggested, lets hear the information.Tertullian wrote in c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ. But if this were so, perhaps all the books of the OT should not have been there for all speak of Him.


Its probably not right to suggest a serious debate exists of this nature without presenting the details of it. I did not suggest a debate in this forum but a debate which is not new in the christian circles.

BadDog
May 28th 2007, 07:48 PM
Strange...Jesus of Nazareth even says something from the book of Enoch at one point. ("Clouds of glory....")

Scholars even go so far as to say that it was very influential to early Christians. I know the easy answer would be, "Well, it isn't an inspired work..." Yes, but why wouldn't it be, even if Jesus quoted it.

But I'm not to upset about this...I read bits and pieces and it seems pretty intense with all its talks and encounters with angels and whatnot.

Thanks, SpeakSlow.

opinions?SpeakSlow,

Well, FWIW, the 1st book of Enoch is quoted in the NT in a few places. The issue with it was that appraently (they're not sure) ir proports to have been writtten by Enoch... the same Enoch who before the time of Noah "walked with God and was not6y, for God took him." So the issue is not whether or not it was respected before the time of Christ, but if the original author claimned to have been Enoch - and it was not - then it is difficult to call something scripture in which integrity is an issue.

Personally, I do not consider it to be scripture, but since it is quoted often in the NT, that does show that writers of scripture themselves (and the Holy Spirit, of course) had great respect for it, and quoted it as you would scripture. Of course, Luke quotes statements by the Athenians in Acts 17, but he does so in describing Paul's arguments with them - in which Paul quoted their own poets as part of his argument. That's different. And Paul quoted some Corinthian saying-mottoes.

However, regarding scripture, in general, some say that it took awhile (a couple of centuries) before the canon was certain, and that there was much wrestling about what was in the canon and what should not be included. But the following text from 2nd Peter encourages me, as we see that immediately, or at the most an extremely short time elapsed, Paul's writings were recognizes as scripture on a par with the OT writings:

2 Peter 3:15, 16 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter regarded Paul's writings as scripture, and assumed that his readers did the same. What seemed to be the core of what caused readers to consider some NT writing to be scripture was apostolic authority behind it.

BD

Gojira69
May 29th 2007, 08:40 PM
I will request it.

All the Eaerly Church Fathers which I have read on bible books, none have included Enoch. I would like to see any and possibly all references you have supporting Enohc in the canon

Don't you have a comment about the quote from Tertullian above? Your comment seems to not take it into account. Tertullian was one of the Early Church Fathers and he viewed the book as scripture. There was no formalized bible for all Christians in Tertullian's day.

Gojira69
May 29th 2007, 09:05 PM
As a note: If the discussion moves to why the book of Enoch should be Canon, this thread is going to be moved where some of the current posters won't be able to participate. In the spirit of the many threads on the topic, we will let the current posts stand supporting this notion at this time just for discussion but please be careful about where this discussion goes. We aren't going to allow an all out criticism of the current Canon of Scripture.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how we got to where we are in Canon, not that the Canon should be open or changed. OK?

God Bless!

Along these lines of how we got to where we are in canon, it is important to note that there are currently several canons of the Bible recognized within Christendom. There is the one in current use by the RCC, the one used by Protestants, there is one in use by Syrian Orthodox (which drops several books from the New Testament), there is one in use by the Ethiopian Orthodox church which contains more than 50 books in their Old Testament and there are others...

Without critiquing the canon, it is still true that though the scriptures quote a variety of sources outside itself, it is a very different thing when one of the Biblical writers (Jude) says, "Enoch, the 7th from Adam said thus-and-so", because we all acknowledge, Enoch himself was very different for he was one who "walked with God and was not".

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 09:32 PM
Along these lines of how we got to where we are in canon, it is important to note that there are currently several canons of the Bible recognized within Christendom. There is the one in current use by the RCC, the one used by Protestants, there is one in use by Syrian Orthodox (which drops several books from the New Testament), there is one in use by the Ethiopian Orthodox church which contains more than 50 books in their Old Testament and there are others...

Without critiquing the canon, it is still true that though the scriptures quote a variety of sources outside itself, it is a very different thing when one of the Biblical writers (Jude) says, "Enoch, the 7th from Adam said thus-and-so", because we all acknowledge, Enoch himself was very different for he was one who "walked with God and was not".

2 Peter 3:15, 16 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter recognized already, when he wrote this letter, that Paul's writings were scripture. He also assumed that his readers recognized it as well. The recognition of scripture if not immediate, was next to it.

BD

GothicAngel
May 31st 2007, 02:21 AM
Don't you have a comment about the quote from Tertullian above? Your comment seems to not take it into account. Tertullian was one of the Early Church Fathers and he viewed the book as scripture. There was no formalized bible for all Christians in Tertullian's day.
No, I do not have any information regarding Tertullian's view on the Scripture canon. All the Early Christians which I have read have not accepted Enoch.

If you wouldnt mind, could you tell me where Tertullian gives his opinions on Enoch?

Gojira69
May 31st 2007, 02:32 AM
No, I do not have any information regarding Tertullian's view on the Scripture canon. All the Early Christians which I have read have not accepted Enoch.

If you wouldnt mind, could you tell me where Tertullian gives his opinions on Enoch?

Here is the quote:



"I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

"If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

"But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude."

ravi4u2
May 31st 2007, 02:46 AM
The only adequate defense of the truth is the practice of the Truth. Wherever there are those who live lives of subservience to Christ, the Spirit can be trusted to protect the faith and the Word without the need of any human organization. man's well intentioned desire toprotect the Truth by making Him captive to his own limited understanding of it within some human organization is doomed to failure. Truth cannot live in captivity.

Gojira69
May 31st 2007, 05:49 AM
The only adequate defense of the truth is the practice of the Truth. Wherever there are those who live lives of subservience to Christ, the Spirit can be trusted to protect the faith and the Word without the need of any human organization. man's well intentioned desire toprotect the Truth by making Him captive to his own limited understanding of it within some human organization is doomed to failure. Truth cannot live in captivity.

Fourscore and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

punk
May 31st 2007, 06:29 PM
The only adequate defense of the truth is the practice of the Truth. Wherever there are those who live lives of subservience to Christ, the Spirit can be trusted to protect the faith and the Word without the need of any human organization. man's well intentioned desire toprotect the Truth by making Him captive to his own limited understanding of it within some human organization is doomed to failure. Truth cannot live in captivity.

This requires an uncomfortable willingness to overturn any and all cherished beliefs as the promptings of truth require.

Very few gladly live in such a state of perpetual existential insecurity, preferring to have comfortable "truths" which they can cling to.

Who can really say "I would deny all I hold true today, if shown I am wrong".

BadDog
Jun 1st 2007, 02:22 AM
Internal evidence is very strong here:

2 Peter 3:15, 16 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you. He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter recognized already, when he wrote this letter, that Paul's writings were scripture. He also assumed that his readers recognized it as well. The recognition of scripture if not immediate, was next to that.


There were many documents that the early church reviewed and tried to determine their validity. The Book of Enoch was not accepted by many in the early church. I think the Ethiopian church, which has a larger canon, did include it in their list of sacred writings from early on.

One strike against it is that the book is thought to have been written much more recently than the life of Enoch - a few hundred years before the time of Christ rather than thousands of years earlier. It was common at that time for claims for a particular writing to have been by a major figure such as Enoch.

As for the Ethiopian Orthodox church, it still accepts Enoch, along with other traditionally apocryphal works, as authoritative Scripture. Hence Enoch is only preserved unabridged in Ethiopian.

Most of the NT books had been universally accepted by the church by the 300's. We should keep in mind that the church was persecuted until Constantine at around 323 AD - so they didn't have an earlier opportunity to get together for the purpose of discussing what writings they had and which they considered to be authentic. When they did there were a few books, such as 2 Peter, Jude, and James which because they had not been circulated widely were questioned by some people. But spurious letters, such as the Book of Enoch, the gospel of Thomas, and the epistle of Barnabas though respected, were immediately recognized as not coming from the apostles and therefore were rejected by the church as a whole. Apostolic authority was the key to acceptance. The Jewish community had already relegated the 1st Book of Enoch as less than canonical.

Here is a link to a wikepedia article on the Book of Enoch:

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

1 Enoch was written probably in the intertestimental time, though it proportedly originates from Enoch and Noah themselves. In the 5 sections of the book we read some interesting stuff. part of the 1st section has to do with the fallen angels and giants - similar to Genesis 5. the 2nd section has a few references to the "Son of man" - referring to the Messiah.

According to wikipedia, from the time of the Jewish Council of Jamnia (90 AD), the book was no longer part of the Jewish canon. Tertullian wrote about 200 AD that the Book of Enoch was rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. He did not accept the jewish rejection of it, and considered it to be canonical.

Many significant Church Fathers considered it to be an inspired work: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian - mainly based on its quotation in Jude. Jude was not accepted by some at first also due to its quoting of 1 Enoch.

BD

Gojira69
Jun 1st 2007, 04:46 AM
One strike against it is that the book is thought to have been written much more recently than the life of Enoch - a few hundred years before the time of Christ rather than thousands of years earlier. It was common at that time for claims for a particular writing to have been by a major figure such as Enoch.

This is the historical-critical view of Enoch. The same discipline that late dates Daniel's book because, in their view, Daniel could not have written it becasue its prophesies are too accurate. They late-date so many works. So too Enoch, it could not have been written by Enoch, because that's too hard to accept in their view.

Consider this, Moses' first book is accepted by even conservative scholars as a compilation of other sources. I believe this is true but that it was Moses who assembled it. It has always bothered me that Moses seems to assume his readers already know about the story of the Nephilim he relates in Gen. 6, and in a rather off-the-cuff manner he remarks "these were the mighty men of old" as if saying 'so I won't bore ya with the details'. If his audience already knew all about it, from what source did they know it?

The first few verses of Genesis 6 and Enoch 6 are nearly word-for-word as they cover the familiar initial story of the angels who fell and their offspring. The rest of Genesis 6 seems like a compilation of sources. Enoch 6 is in a section of the book that does not seem compiled. Is it possible this was Moses' source?

Have you ever wondered what Leviticus 16 is referring to when it mentions Azazel 4 times? Moses commands the scapegoat be sent to Azazel, but never relates waht this all means, again as if his audience already knows. Enoch's book supplies the information that makes sense of all this. Seems like Moses was aware of the story of Azazel which we have in Enoch.

Ultimately, if a book, due to its great antiquity, is of unsure origin and quaestionable reliability how do we determine if its inspired? It seems to me we need to look at it internally, does its witness to itself vindicate it? The question is, does the book have the touch of the divine on it? Would fulfilled prophecy do it?

I have stumbled upon a fulfilled prophecy in the Book of Enoch, in a portion of the book all the scholars agree pre-dates the event prophesied by at least more than 100 years if you late-date the book. I am not prepared to put it here now but I will later as I'm still writing it up. No man could have predicted in advance what this book did, it would have to have been inspired.

More later.

Braves27
Jun 1st 2007, 07:03 AM
This is the historical-critical view of Enoch. The same discipline that late dates Daniel's book because, in their view, Daniel could not have written it becasue its prophesies are too accurate. They late-date so many works. So too Enoch, it could not have been written by Enoch, because that's too hard to accept in their view.

Consider this, Moses' first book is accepted by even conservative scholars as a compilation of other sources. I believe this is true but that it was Moses who assembled it. It has always bothered me that Moses seems to assume his readers already know about the story of the Nephilim he relates in Gen. 6, and in a rather off-the-cuff manner he remarks "these were the mighty men of old" as if saying so I won't bore ya with the details. If his audience already knew all about it, from what source did they know it?

The first few verses of Genesis 6 and Enoch 6 are nearly word-for-word as they cover the familiar initial story of the angels who fell and their offspring. The rest of Genesis 6 seems like a compilation of sources. Enoch 6 is in a section of the book that does not seem compiled. Is it possible this was Moses' source?

Have you ever wondered what Leviticus 16 is referring to when it mentions Azazel 4 times? Moses commands the scapegoat be sent to Azazel, but never relates waht this all means, again as if his audience already knows. Enoch's book supplies the information that makes sense of all this. Seems like Moses was aware of the story of Azazel which we have in Enoch.

Ultimately, if a book, due to its great antiquity, is of unsure origin and quaestionable reliability how do we determine if its inspired? It seems to me we need to look at it internally, does its witness to itself vindicate it? The question is, does the book have the touch of the divine on it? Would fulfilled prophecy do it?

I have stumbled upon a fulfilled prophecy in the Book of Enoch, in a portion of the book all the scholars agree pre-dates the event prophesied by at least more than 100 years if you late-date the book. I am not prepared to put it here now but I will later as I'm still writing it up. No man could have predicted in advance what this book did, it would have to have been inspired.

More later.


That's awesome. Can't wait to hear more. I think we gotta be more careful about dismissing this too quickly just because it hasn't been widely accepted for a while....

OldChurchGuy
Jun 3rd 2007, 11:57 AM
It doesn't claim to be. Who do you think wrote it? I believe Genesis was written by its participants and compiled by Moses. The book of Enoch, however, is called the book of Enoch :)

Interesting point. Who, then, wrote I & II Samuel, Joshua, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I don't believe there is any evidence in the writings identifying the author, is there?

Curious as always,

OldChurchGuy

BadDog
Jun 4th 2007, 02:34 AM
This is the historical-critical view of Enoch. The same discipline that late dates Daniel's book because, in their view, Daniel could not have written it becasue its prophesies are too accurate. They late-date so many works. So too Enoch, it could not have been written by Enoch, because that's too hard to accept in their view.

Consider this, Moses' first book is accepted by even conservative scholars as a compilation of other sources. I believe this is true but that it was Moses who assembled it. It has always bothered me that Moses seems to assume his readers already know about the story of the Nephilim he relates in Gen. 6, and in a rather off-the-cuff manner he remarks "these were the mighty men of old" as if saying 'so I won't bore ya with the details'. If his audience already knew all about it, from what source did they know it?

The first few verses of Genesis 6 and Enoch 6 are nearly word-for-word as they cover the familiar initial story of the angels who fell and their offspring. The rest of Genesis 6 seems like a compilation of sources. Enoch 6 is in a section of the book that does not seem compiled. Is it possible this was Moses' source?

Have you ever wondered what Leviticus 16 is referring to when it mentions Azazel 4 times? Moses commands the scapegoat be sent to Azazel, but never relates waht this all means, again as if his audience already knows. Enoch's book supplies the information that makes sense of all this. Seems like Moses was aware of the story of Azazel which we have in Enoch.

Ultimately, if a book, due to its great antiquity, is of unsure origin and quaestionable reliability how do we determine if its inspired? It seems to me we need to look at it internally, does its witness to itself vindicate it? The question is, does the book have the touch of the divine on it? Would fulfilled prophecy do it?

I have stumbled upon a fulfilled prophecy in the Book of Enoch, in a portion of the book all the scholars agree pre-dates the event prophesied by at least more than 100 years if you late-date the book. I am not prepared to put it here now but I will later as I'm still writing it up. No man could have predicted in advance what this book did, it would have to have been inspired.

More later.I'll be interested in the "more later."

IMO this is not the same kinda thing. You're speaking of liberal theologians, perhaps not saved, dating OT books later than they were likely written because they do not hold to real prophecy fulfillment.

That is not what we are facing here. Most conservative Jewish scholars did not accept the supposed very early dating of the writing of 1 Enoch.

And Moses was writing when there were many oral traditions around. So he knew that they had heard many things. God apparently used Moses to write many of those oral traditions down. Still, it certainly makes sense that if someone like Enoch did pass on some things about the Nephilim, for example, as well as some prophecies, someone else could have written them down later - such as Moses did with much of the Pentateuch.

Anyway, interested on that other stuff.

BD

Gojira69
Jun 5th 2007, 05:01 PM
Since there is interest in this, I'll post this now, rather than later...


Here is a passage,
And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgment and of their consummation, till the judgment that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever.

In this passage from Enoch the command of God goes forth to bind the angels who sinned; Michael is to "bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth". After 70 generations, we are told, the angels will be taken from the abyss, condemned and subsequently "led off to the abyss of fire", to a condemnation we are told is for ever. So, from the time the command goes forth to bind the sinning angels in the abyss, to their judgement is to be 70 generations.

NOTE: It should be kept in mind that chapter 10 of Enoch is in the first section of the book, a section, upon which scholars agree, predates the Christian era by nearly two centuries.

Here's another relevant passage,
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Using Luke's genealogy, if you count forward from Enoch, seventy generations you come to Christ.

Another passage is relevant here,
Ye mighty kings who dwell on the earth, ye shall have to behold Mine Elect One, how He sits on the throne of glory and judges Azazel, and all his associates, and all his hosts in the name of the Lord of Spirits.

The picture is this, God's Elect One, the 70th from Enoch, will sit on His throne of glory (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&verse=31&version=9&context=verse) and judge the angels.

Here we have a specific point of agreement between the New Testament and a prophecy found in the Book of Enoch! My mind was blown when I first saw this and it was the verification I needed to judge Enoch as a legit book, imo.

He who 'came to destroy the works of the devil' was born exactly 70 generations after Enoch per the genealogy in Luke's gospel. The death of Jesus had a specific result that applied to the demonic forces in the world. Per Colossians 2:13-15, "God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him." (ESV)

If we grant the assumption of the historical-critical folks, and late-date the Book of Enoch to the middle of the 2nd century B.C., and assign it to some nameless scribe or rabbi, we nonetheless have an incredible intersection between The Book of Enoch and the New Testament!

Personally, I think finding truth in Enoch in regard to prophecy, makes me more prone to believe the author was telling truth as well when he stated his identity as Enoch the seventh from Adam.

http://www.thebookofenoch.info/

Gojira69
Jun 18th 2007, 06:21 AM
If the Book of Enoch is NOT a 2nd century BC creation, and was indeed passed down from the patriarchs, one would expect some mention of this process to turn up. In Michael Wise's "The Dead Sea Scrolls" revised and reissued in 2005, there is a series of fragments re-assembled that refers to this. It states the Book of Enoch came from the Patriarchs to Levi. I was so impressed with this passage today, I webified it here for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.thebookofenoch.info/html/DSSaBiblicalChronology.html