There is no such thing as The Bible

I have met some Messianic Jews who did grow up Jewish...which to me undermines your point. By the way, I do not consider Messianic Jews to be ex-Christians by any means. If they believe in Jesus as Messiah, they are Christians, whether they are Jewish by birth or religion originally or not. Of course, most of Jesus' original disciples were Jews in the first place...so, how you can say that Jews can't be followers of Jesus sounds like a statement that denies alot of history. The only difference is, Jews for Jesus believe Jesus is the Messiah and live their lives accordingly, other Jews don't but still believe there is a Messiah to come, and live their lives accordingly. One is the example of a Jewish community that believes their Messiah has come, the other an example of one that doesn't.

Of course, the OT canon was in existence at the time of Jesus which is half of the Bible right there! When was the book of Enoch written?

quote:

---

"The materials in I Enoch range in date from 200 B.C.E. to 50 C.E

---

This information, as well as Enoch itself, can be found here.Apparently Enoch I predates some Old Testament works, including Daniel. As such, it is the first book containing apocalyptic prophesy. It also elaborates on the Flood and the cause of the "wickedness" that had to be purged. It actually makes even more wild claims than the Flood story (ie, the existance of "giants").

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Even the notes of one of the more recent editions of the Roman Catholic Bible (NAB) say the apochryphal books are "religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings. Catholics call them 'deuterocanonical' (second canon) books." The deuterocanonical books were the province of the Jewish community and weren't really under the province of the Christian church to decide (being pre-NT documents after all). They were the province of the Jewish community that wrote them and had cenuries before rejected them as part of the canon, for books were accepted or rejected by the contemporary generations who were in the best position to verify the prophetic clamims of their authors (cf. Heb. 2:3-4). The Greek church has not always accepted the Apochrypha, nor is it's present position unequivocal. At the synods of Constantinople (AD 1638), Jaffe (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) these books were declared canonical. But even as late as 1839, their Larger Catechism experessly omitted the Apochrypha on the grounds that its books did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. This is still their position (unless it's changed again in the last 10 years!).

If you look at the record, the translation and compilation of the Septuagint only began around 300 BC. The work continued and additional works were added and others removed well into the Christian Era. This can be seen in the differences between the LXX and MT texts of the work as well as the differences in style between the translations of the different books.The whole creation of what would become fixed Canon was a dynamic and ongoing process. It was one of argument, revision and redaction.Agin, these existed as individual texts. Each stood alone. Until Constantine there was no single work that contained all of what would be considered a Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You seem to be misrepresenting the NAB: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/historical.htmSince the NAB is available online perhaps you can tell me where this "note" of yours is to be found.On the Orthodox church Britannica states The Orthodox Church in America states: Canon of Scripture - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in AmericaAgain we see that the RC church did not change the Bible as you claimed. So I still await an explanation fo why you would make such a claim.

My note you were asking about is in the New American Bible (p. 413) that was the most recent edition circa 1995. The online version would be a curious change indeed.
Re. my claim re. the RCC, their proclamation came a millenium and a half after the books were written, and in an obvious polemic against Protestantism (particularly over the issue of purgatory). We can quibble about whether they were added or taken away, but they were not pronounced inspired by the Church until approx. 500 years ago. I would have thought that would be the key issue for a Catholic.

A page number is not exactly a helpful reference to the online version.So perhaps you can give a useful reference. If it's a footnote the book and chapter would do. If it's an introductory section then the title of that section would do.And I don't see it as quibbling to point out that these books were widely accepted and included in the Bible and its predecessors for the millenium and a half you refer to.

Well, as I think I said in a previous post...re. pre-Christian writings, if it wasn't good enough for the Jews, it's not good enough for me lol. From what I read of it, it sounded more like an OT writing than a NT writing to me.

That's everybody's whole point, Steve. In the time of Jesus, it was good enough for the Jews. Hell, Jesus Himself even referenced Enoch. Surely, if it's good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you.As for the way it sounds - of course it sounds like an OT writing. It IS an OT writing, and it even predates such OT books as Daniel. Many of the Biblical books actually mention the Book of Enoch, but the book itself is strangely absent from the majority of accepted Canon.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Rahvin,
Just because Jesus mentioned some ideas which may be present in the book of Enoch, does not mean he is quoting it! He never said he did, did he? You gave a date for writing from about 250BC to 50AD wasn't it?...50AD would make it contemporary with the NT...that site link you sent me made a statement about it being like a Christian writing in some ways...I was just clarifying things. The book is 'strangely absent' from the canon because it did not meet the standards of canonicity, obviously. Just because a book existed in the time of Jesus, and had ideas used by Jesus and/or the disciples does not mean it's inspired by God as a whole, only the parts of it that were quoted, obviously, dependant upon context. Given the poor condition and paucity of manuscripts of the book, it doesn't look like God really cared about it being lost anyway.

What makes a standard for canon'?

The book of Enoch as we have it is a composite work. Even if parts of it are contempory with early Christian writings (and 50 AD would be early for ANY Christian writing), much of it is pre-Christian..

No, that seems true. But He did use many of the themes present in Enoch and nowhere else.From the site I linked earlier:

quote:

---

Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch.

---

Read closer. It was assumed to be a post-Christian writing, but the findings at Qumran show that it predates Christ. It's an OT writing. Some parts that we have found date to later periods, but those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to long before the time of Jesus. And what are the requirements for being "divinely inspired?" The author of Hebrews seems to think it was...

quote:

---

Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

---

Right. Obviously, if any book is lost, God doesn't want it in the Bible. If any book is in the Bible, it's becuase God wants it that way.I don't think that logic is sound. Particularly because, as this thread has deomonstrated, there is no single, universal Bible. There are many versions of Canon, and the loss of a book could not possibly mean, by itself, that God doesn't "care" about it.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Just because Enoch was translated does not mean the BOOK of Enoch is divinely inspired. From what you/the site link have said, Enoch lived way before this book was written, so it obviously wasn't written by Enoch...so...not sure why you are arguing so hard for it's inclusion in the canon. What is your point?