Canon or not?

11,310 Views | 293 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by dermdoc
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
I have always dismissed the apocryphal books as uninspired, and a waste of time, but have never read them. I have an open mind, and want to read it for myself before I dismiss them as I have in the past. Does anyone have any strong feelings about the book of Enoch, and the other books accepted by some churches and not others?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For the NT, I'd consider 1 Clement, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas as almost extensions of accepted Scripture. They were all well known and widely respected by the early Church. I used to be a fan of the "Gospel" of Thomas when it was thought to be an authentic preservation by the Copts of an Apostolic writing, but that seems to be less and less likely the more we learn.

As regards the OT, the Books of Enoch and Jubilees were probably the most influential, followed by 3rd and 4th Ezra and the additions to Daniel.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TxAgPreacher said:

I have always dismissed the apocryphal books as uninspired, and a waste of time, but have never read them. I have an open mind, and want to read it for myself before I dismiss them as I have in the past. Does anyone have any strong feelings about the book of Enoch, and the other books accepted by some churches and not others?


If you are an eternal conscious torment hell person them Enoch will reinforce your beliefs. I can not go there.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Hell is eternal separation from God in my view. I think the bible is clear about that. I understand why you wouldn't want to. I'm more concerned with credibility of the text. I understand how major doctrinal differences would cause someone to accept or reject a text. I was thinking that just because I've held a doctrinal point doesn't mean this old text should not have been included, and doesn't mean I haven't been wrong about some minor doctrinal point. As long as it doesn't contradict any major doctrine that isn't a big concern to me. I am more concerned with historical religious acceptance of the text or not. For example, if I'm not mistaken some of the Apocryphal books were quoted in the widely accepted Canon. Also recently I heard a copy of the book of Enoch was found with the dead sea scrolls. Does this automatically mean its inspired, no. I did find it interesting that someone might have though. New "revelation" like the book of Mormon are easily thrown out, but an older text not as much.
Bobcat06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Enoch is quoted by Jesus and his disciples multiple times.

Regardless of whether you consider it inspired or not, it's useful to understand what the authors of the New Testament believed.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TxAgPreacher said:

Hell is eternal separation from God in my view. I think the bible is clear about that. I understand why you wouldn't want to. I'm more concerned with credibility of the text. I understand how major doctrinal differences would cause someone to accept or reject a text. I was thinking that just because I've held a doctrinal point doesn't mean this old text should not have been included, and doesn't mean I haven't been wrong about some minor doctrinal point. As long as it doesn't contradict any major doctrine that isn't a big concern to me. I am more concerned with historical religious acceptance of the text or not. For example, if I'm not mistaken some of the Apocryphal books were quoted in the widely accepted Canon. Also recently I heard a copy of the book of Enoch was found with the dead sea scrolls. Does this automatically mean its inspired, no. I did find it interesting that someone might have though. New "revelation" like the book of Mormon are easily thrown out, but an older text not as much.


I think you and I could get along fine. And my problem becomes when Christians judge other Christians on non salvific issues.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interesting point. Question is who do you think actually wrote the gospels? And what do you think those writers believed?

And I am one who believes the Bible was inspired and inerrant as written. The problem is the number of interpretations, not just by living people today but by everyone who translated the Bible. Hundreds and even thousands of people have been involved in translations. And all with their own or forced upon them agendas. From Jerome's horrible Latin translation to the King James Version where the same word Sheol in the OT was translated half the time as hell and half the time as grave.

And I find it very troubling that Christians are so afraid that somehow some of the things I just posted will undermine Christianity. Jesus is Lord. God is in control. The lack of faith is concerning to me.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bobcat06 said:

Enoch is quoted by Jesus and his disciples multiple times.

Regardless of whether you consider it inspired or not, it's useful to understand what the authors of the New Testament believed.


I think "believed" is a little strong. Greeks speakers for over a thousand years quoted Homer. Doesn't mean they were worshipping that pantheon, it was just a cultural monument that everyone knew. Same as an American quoting Moby Dick or an Brit quoting Shakespeare. Enoch could have been considered scripture or it just could have been a well known fiction
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I did not know any Christian Church accepted the Book of Enoch as canonical.

Even if you believe the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as uninspired, they do offer historical and theological insight of the time period in which they are written. I would think 1 and 2 Maccabees would be of interest simply from a historical perspective.

The early Christian writings that rablin' ag listed do give insight into the early Church.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Actually the Ethiopian Orthodox and one other African Church accept Enoch as canonical.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
dermdoc said:

TxAgPreacher said:

Hell is eternal separation from God in my view. I think the bible is clear about that. I understand why you wouldn't want to. I'm more concerned with credibility of the text. I understand how major doctrinal differences would cause someone to accept or reject a text. I was thinking that just because I've held a doctrinal point doesn't mean this old text should not have been included, and doesn't mean I haven't been wrong about some minor doctrinal point. As long as it doesn't contradict any major doctrine that isn't a big concern to me. I am more concerned with historical religious acceptance of the text or not. For example, if I'm not mistaken some of the Apocryphal books were quoted in the widely accepted Canon. Also recently I heard a copy of the book of Enoch was found with the dead sea scrolls. Does this automatically mean its inspired, no. I did find it interesting that someone might have though. New "revelation" like the book of Mormon are easily thrown out, but an older text not as much.


I think you and I could get along fine. And my problem becomes when Christians judge other Christians on non salvific issues.


Amen
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems like this is the cart before the horse. Should you not be asking "by what authority is any book canonical?" before proceeding?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XUSCR said:

Seems like this is the cart before the horse. Should you not be asking "by what authority is any book canonical?" before proceeding?


Agree. And brings into question inerrancy. Which of course you can not bring up at most
Protestant churches:
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

Seems like this is the cart before the horse. Should you not be asking "by what authority is any book canonical?" before proceeding?

I don't know why you would say that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's basically what I was asking peoples opinions on.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Enoch is generally believed to be to have been written in the second century BC while the subject is in the 3rd century BC, so whoever wrote it was not an eye witness. You'd have to accept an extremely long oral tradition for any of it to be anything more than a work made up in the second century BC, so it's difficult to consider any of it authoritative.

Correction: the subject matter is in the 3rd millennium BC.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Win At Life said:

Enoch is generally believed to be to have been written in the second century BC while the subject is in the 3rd century BC, so whoever wrote it was not an eye witness. You'd have to accept an extremely long oral tradition for any of it to be anything more than a work made up in the second century BC, so it's difficult to consider any of it authoritative.


Thanks and agree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I find it fascinating that the Reformed church relies entirely on Sola Scriptura and the scripture they depend upon completely was comprised by Catholic/Orthodox leaders. And people were killed over this stuff.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

I find it fascinating that the Reformed church relies entirely on Sola Scriptura and the scripture they depend upon completely was comprised by Catholic/Orthodox leaders. And people were killed over this stuff.


This x1000 percent.

As I said in the other apocrypha thread....the idea of sola scriptura is not Biblical or scriptural. The idea was completely foreign to the church fathers, the early church, and the Orthodox/Catholic Church throughout the first 1,000+ years and on to the current day.

Furthermore, the perfect written word of God is only perfect if it is being interpreted and understood properly.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TxAgPreacher said:

I have always dismissed the apocryphal books as uninspired, and a waste of time, but have never read them. I have an open mind, and want to read it for myself before I dismiss them as I have in the past.

Serious question: How can any one of us today read anything written thousands of years ago and make a determination for ourselves as to what is inspired or not inspired?
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
I have always determined canon by early church fathers usage. The early Christians still had spiritual gifts to determine inspiration, but those passed away.
Quote:

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 : Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will pass away. If there are tongues, they will cease. If there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but whenever the perfect comes, the partial will pass away
We have the bible now so we no longer need new revelation. Determining what is inspired we rely on what the early church considered canon. Believe it or not we have a lot of info on the usage of the different books in the early church writings, and that's why everyone generally agrees on most of scriptures credibility. We are discussing the controversial here.
That's why I want to hear strong arguments for and against their inclusion into canon.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bobcat06 said:

Enoch is quoted by Jesus and his disciples multiple times.

Regardless of whether you consider it inspired or not, it's useful to understand what the authors of the New Testament believed.
Yeshua make no direct quotes from Enoch. He does say a couple things that people believe is a similar concept to something in Enoch, but that's a pretty weak connection.

The only direct quote of Enoch is in Jude 1:14-15.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I have always determined canon by early church fathers usage. The early Christians still had spiritual gifts to determine inspiration, but those passed away.

I guess that is kind of what I am trying to understand. The early Christians included the Deuterocanonicals/ apocryphal books for nearly 1,500 years which is why both the Orthodox and Catholics include them. The original King James Bible included them because Christian Tradition had always included them. These books have been included in the Christian bible for nearly all of our 2,000 year history. Even the KJV Bible included these books until 1885 - so the KJV has only excluded them for the past 135 years.

If, as you say, the gift to determine scripture has passed away then who are you - or who am I to "determine Canon"? Who was rightfully able to make that decision in 1885, or in the 1500's for that matter?

Quote:


We have the bible now so we no longer need new revelation.

This is precisely the problem isn't it? Our Bibles are not the same so either yours is missing something or mine has too much but which is it? How can we know we are correct some 1900 years after the last word was written?

If you believe in Sola Scriptura I would think this is a pretty major issue.

Quote:

Determining what is inspired we rely on what the early church considered canon. Believe it or not we have a lot of info on the usage of the different books in the early church writings, and that's why everyone generally agrees on most of scriptures credibility. We are discussing the controversial here.
That's why I want to hear strong arguments for and against their inclusion into canon.

My argument that they are in fact canonical is that they have been included in the Bible by the apostolic church that Christ founded. This is evident in both the Orthodox and Catholic Traditions and goes all the way back to the beginning.

No individual human being today - not you, or me, or the Pope, or Martin Luther, or anyone - has the ability or authority to determine scripture or what is inspired. This can only be done through the church, guided into all truth and protected by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. It was written by fallible men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In a similar way, over many generations, these inspired writings were collected by fallible men who tested them (and many other writings) against the Traditions and Faith that had been passed down through the Apostles. These fallible men were inspired to determine and recognize which books belonged in the Canon and which did not. This is an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church with infallibility. For this reason i would submit that these books belong in the Bible.
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

Who was rightfully able to make that decision in 1885, or in the 1500's for that matter?
My understanding is that a group of religious scholars looked at the available manuscripts from the early church fathers, and went back as close to the beginning as they could to give us and honest view of what the early church believed (by Devine inspiration before the gift of the Holy Spirit passed) to be canon. So in other words they looked back at the same way you or I would today. I have always trusted that they got it right and that the accepted canon is all I need. There is very little that has been excluded. I'm just a bible nerd and if there is a little more I'd like to know.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Deutorocanon books and additions are a funny case, at least to me. When the early and Reformation Christians were wrestling with the OT canon, they naturally turned to the Jewish people to get their input. We see this as early as Origen, most importantly by Jerome, but also later with the Reformers. The Jewish rabbis considered the Deuterocanon as a step below the other OT Scripture, and these Christians followed their lead.

The funny part is the reason why the Jewish rabbis considered these a step below. The key feature of the Deuterocanon is that these books are written in Greek. They are not translations from Hebrew or Aramaic. Sometime after the Second (Third?!) Temple fell in the late first century, it became Jewish belief that God basically only communicates in Hebrew or the closely related Aramaic. So any book not written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally is not a direct communication from God. Therefore, the Hebrew books are the gold standard, and the Greek books are a sort of add-on.

Now for a Christian, this is ridiculous. Almost our entire NT was originally written in Greek, and we have no issue at all with God inspiring Greek Scriptures. So the rational that the Deuterocanon is somehow inferior due to being originally Greek is a bit laughable. What's more laughable is when Christians exclude OT Greek scriptures based on this tradition, while the entire second part of our Bible is Greek scripture.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Bobcat06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you familiar with Remez? Jesus makes enough remez references to Enoch that I'm comfortable with saying that he was familiar with it.

To be honest, my interest in Enoch is that it expands on a lot of the rephaim / demon background which most canonical texts gloss over. Other texts say that demons exist but dont go into much reason how or why.

Knowing that Jesus (who encounter demons) was familiar with Enoch helps me address the demon subject better because otherwise it would be a big question mark.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bobcat06 said:

Are you familiar with Remez? Jesus makes enough remez references to Enoch that I'm comfortable with saying that he was familiar with it.

To be honest, my interest in Enoch is that it expands on a lot of the rephaim / demon background which most canonical texts gloss over. Other texts say that demons exist but dont go into much reason how or why. He is in total control yet allows evil. Perplexing to me.

Knowing that Jesus (who encounter demons) was familiar with Enoch helps me address the demon subject better because otherwise it would be a big question mark.


Interesting. What do you think the role of demons are? And I have always wondered why God allows them to exist.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Bobcat06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In Genesis 6, God says the world is so evil that he needs to wipe out humanity and start over. The Bible goes Creation, Garden of Eden, family genealogy then destroying the human race. Look around these days and there's all sorts of evil in the world. What happened then that was so much worse than today?

In Genesis 6:1-4, it tells of how angels decided to abandon heaven to live among humans and have angel-human hybrid children called Nephilim. Does that sound familiar? Basically every ancient pagan mythology (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, etc, etc) all talk about gods descending from the stars and having hybrid offspring. In other words, the pagan gods were real but they were fallen angels who required all sorts of twisted sacrifices.

God wiped out humanity to kill off these fallen angels and their offspring, but some of the offspring survived. They are referred to in the Old Testament by a variety of names - Nephilim, Anakim, Emites, Zamzummim. They populate Canaan and these crossbreed are the people that God orders to exterminate. Goliath and his brothers are examples. So is King Og.

However, there is also one more name for these crossbreeds - Rephaites. Rephaites means "faded ones". See, these fallen angels, and by extension their offspring, had a chance to be in heaven and rejected it. As a result, after their bodies died, their spirits remained on earth and looked to corrupt more humans. That is, they are demons. So while the Canaanites were sacrificing children to their pagan idols, the were celebrating the demons associated with it (read 1 Corinthians 10:20)


Enoch contains a lot more explanation for Nephilim etc than canonical texts.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Bible is NOT the Word of God.

Jesus the Logos is the Word of God.

The Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church (Catholic / Orthodox), which over 3 centuries debated and argued - mostly in councils from Rome.

Enoch, which is referenced by St. Jude and was absolutely known to the Apostles, is excluded because the Apostolic Church said so.

Hebrews and Revealing and other once extremely controversial books are included because the Apostolic Church said so.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bobcat06 said:

In Genesis 6, God says the world is so evil that he needs to wipe out humanity and start over. The Bible goes Creation, Garden of Eden, family genealogy then destroying the human race. Look around these days and there's all sorts of evil in the world. What happened then that was so much worse than today?

In Genesis 6:1-4, it tells of how angels decided to abandon heaven to live among humans and have angel-human hybrid children called Nephilim. Does that sound familiar? Basically every ancient pagan mythology (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, etc, etc) all talk about gods descending from the stars and having hybrid offspring. In other words, the pagan gods were real but they were fallen angels who required all sorts of twisted sacrifices.

God wiped out humanity to kill off these fallen angels and their offspring, but some of the offspring survived. They are referred to in the Old Testament by a variety of names - Nephilim, Anakim, Emites, Zamzummim. They populate Canaan and these crossbreed are the people that God orders to exterminate. Goliath and his brothers are examples. So is King Og.

However, there is also one more name for these crossbreeds - Rephaites. Rephaites means "faded ones". See, these fallen angels, and by extension their offspring, had a chance to be in heaven and rejected it. As a result, after their bodies died, their spirits remained on earth and looked to corrupt more humans. That is, they are demons. So while the Canaanites were sacrificing children to their pagan idols, the were celebrating the demons associated with it (read 1 Corinthians 10:20)


Enoch contains a lot more explanation for Nephilim etc than canonical texts.
That's certainly one interpretation of Genesis 6, and it is definitely the interpretation of the person who wrote the Book of Enoch during the Second Temple. It is not the only interpretation though, either in ancient or modern times
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Deep and genuine love cannot exist without the choice to do so.

This choice was extended to preternatural creation.

God takes evil and uses it to His good - both because He loves us, and also, if you believe exorcists such as Fr. Chad Ripperger (I do), so as to demonstrate his superiority over fallen preternatural creation.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://sqpn.com/2020/03/the-mysterious-nephilim-of-the-bible-aliens-angels-or-something-else/

Strongly recommend this listen.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm at work but the webpage, outline, and sources give me a serious Ancient Aliens vibe. If that's the case I really don't want to listen to it. If I'm off base then let me know and I'll give it a run. I've already posted Dr Brand's podcast. It's a bit dry, but it explains the origins of the popular conception of Satan as well the the Nephilim and many other topics with top notch scholarship
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Off base.

Akin is a Catholic apologist with advanced degrees in philosophy.

On his podcast, he goes over all angles (in detail), and then states the Catholic-flavored view.
TxAgPreacher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Redstone said:

The Bible is NOT the Word of God. Strongly disagree

Jesus the Logos is the Word of God. Yes He is the Word

The Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church (Catholic / Orthodox), which over 3 centuries debated and argued - mostly in councils from Rome. Its my understanding that they just looked at the manuscripts just like we would have to if we tried to determine the same thing

Enoch, which is referenced by St. Jude and was absolutely known to the Apostles, is excluded because the Apostolic Church said so. Did they have a reason to exclude it?

Hebrews and Revealing and other once extremely controversial books are included because the Apostolic Church said so. I don't see them as controversial at all.
Lets get back on track to legitimacy. I have no problem with the doctrinal implications of additional teachings on demons. Enoch is older, and it seems that it was rejected because the Jews didn't accept it. True or false?

It seems there is basically no disagreement between Christians about the new testament canon.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Redstone said:

Off base.

Akin is a Catholic apologist with advanced degrees in philosophy.

On his podcast, he goes over all angles (in detail), and then states the Catholic-flavored view.
Cool. Will definitely check it out then
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.