There is no such thing as The Bible

For example, they claim that certian passages are prophcies that aren't. They mistranslate certain passages to make the appear to be prophecies. They take passages out of context, both culturally, and from the surrounding text to 'prove' Jesus. They add certain concept that are very Greek to the Jewish religion, and project it onto the old testament. They forced such concepts as 'original sin', and the demi-god known as "Satan" onto the New testament with their assumptions.

One thing you will find is that NO "messanic Jewish" congregation is Jewish.End of story.

Well, of course, if you define Judaism as rabbinical Judaism, then no, Messianic Jews would not be Jewish in that sense.

Which translation/version of the OT do you use?

Can I ask where exactly Jesus is said to have considered the book of Enoch as scriptural?

Let me rephrase that...the RCC "infallibly pronounced" that the Apochrypha was scriptural for the first time in 1546 at the Council of Trent.

Several of the quotes he used were from the Book of Enoch. Remember, during his lifetime that was the scripture. There was no Gospel as we know them. No Bible.The parts in Hebrews and Jude that talk about Enoch were from the Book of Enoch.In addition Enoch 1 is a Canonical book in several Christian Churches.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Alas, though I have many apochryphal/deutero-canonical books, the book of Enoch is not one of them...I was wondering...in your opinion...what does the book of Enoch contribute to Christianity doctrinally speaking that cannot be found in the 66 books of the Bible that all strains of Christianity accept? Or would you say it is doctrinally consistent with those 66 books?

Thanks for the link Brian, and for your welcome to the website. Will study your link later, bedtime for me right now lol.

The problem with that claim is that it ignores the position of the Orthodox Churches which also use the deuterocanonical works (including some that the RC Church does not accept).The deuterocanonical works are found in the Septuagint, which is the version of the OT used by the early Christians. The Jewish canon seems not to have been decided until afterAccording to the Btitannica the African churhc affirmed that deuterocanoncial books as scrpture at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, long before the Reformation. A list of the canon dating from the early 6th Century includes deuterocanonical works.While there were certainly peopel who suggested otherwise, including some important figures, the deuterocanonical works were used (even by those who considered them to be of lower status) and widely considered scripture right up until the ReformationAll that seems to have gappened at Trent is that the RC Church affirmed its commitment to a long-standing majority view - a view which the Protestants had set themselves against.You really ought to watch that anti-Catholic prejudice.

Actually,the karsites are also Jewish. They are not rabbitical. So, your assumptions are incorrect.If you investigate the 'messanic judaism' movement, you will find that many of them are actually "ex-christians" that were not brought up in the Jewish faith.

There is no such universal Canon.Before we go any further I need to know that you understand that one simple fact. There is no such thing as a universal Canon.As I mentioned in an earlier message, the parts in Hebrews and in Jude that refer to Enoch were plucked from the Book of Enoch.Enoch fell into disfavor at the Council of Laodicea but it is still part of the Canon of the Ethiopian Christian Church,one of the oldest extant Churches.It is not Apocryphal. It was though lost for many, many centuries.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I realise some chrches have larger canons than the ones I mentioned but I don't know of any who have smaller. Which of the minimum 66 books are not accepted and by whom?

The Samaritans recongnize only the first five books of the Bible. The Syrian Church rejects 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelations and 2 Peter. The Ethiopian Church has the largest Canon, in fact two different Canons, one called the Wide Canon, the other the Narrow.But again, at the time of Jesus, none of this mattered. There was NO Canon at all. Enoch was very popular at that time and the fact that Jesus quoted from it and the authors of Hebrews and Jude used it as base material indicates how broadly it was accepted.When Jesus or Paul or others spoke of Scripture, they were not talking about what we call the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, Revelations, 1,2 or 3 John, Paul's writings, none of what we call the New Testament even existed. Even the OT was not fully organized as we know it today. Scripture was the books of the OT and those that were in circulation at that time. It also included the Talmudic discourses and you see time and time again, Jesus holding Talmudic debates with the clergy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am aware Enoch is quoted in Hebrews and Jude...not really sure if that proves anything as far as scripture goes. It does not actually say, the BOOK of Enoch, so it could just be an oral tradition. After all, the NT also quotes a few writings that have never been considered canonical by any church (Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, Titus 1:12). A quote, in and of itself, does not prove the quoted book is inspired. It only shows that the quote itself is true. Besides which, if it is considered a 'false writing', which my sources say it is, then that means it contradicts some teaching of the undisputed NT books. Therefore, both cannot be true.