|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 0:03:26 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 0:03:26 GMT -5
perhaps this is just my opinion but if the book of Jude makes reference to the book of Enoch then wouldnt that constitute the book of Jude as being non-canonical?
i firmly believe that if the book of Jude is accepted as canonical then i accept also the book of Enoch.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 0:24:05 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 28, 2004 0:24:05 GMT -5
Worthily,
I'm curious, and if you my questions if they are too personal I won't be offended if you choose not to answer, or if you would prefer to answer privately, you may PM me.
You seem to be drawn to the book of Enoch, or it really seems to be important to your faith, what is it about this book in particular that draws you to it? Also, does your church accept Enoch as canonical, or is this more of a personal thing?
If you choose to answer by quoting scripture, could you also add your personal thoughts on the subject too?
Yours in Christ,
Melinda
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 0:39:30 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 0:39:30 GMT -5
The church i attend is soley based upon scripture which neither affilates with any particular denomination. The church i attend sets God through Jesus Christ as priority above all laws of man and whatever law they impute.
The church i attend regards the greatest act of sin against God is to promote man as mediator between God and man for it is Jesus Christ who is mediator, not any earthily man or woman is given position with authority. Our church points people to Christ and fellowships with fellow preachers of the gospel and the highest position in our church is a "preacher" as elder who holds meetings with fellow elders.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 0:45:37 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 28, 2004 0:45:37 GMT -5
The church i attend is soley based upon scripture which neither affilates with any particular denomination. The church i attend sets God through Jesus Christ as priority above all laws of man and whatever law they impute. The church i attend regards the greatest act of sin against God is to promote man as mediator between God and man for it is Jesus Christ who is mediator, not any earthily man or woman is given position with authority. Our church points people to Christ and fellowships with fellow preachers of the gospel and the highest position in our church is a "preacher" as elder who holds meetings with fellow elders. So, does your church consider Enoch to be canonical then?
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 0:48:48 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 0:48:48 GMT -5
we do not read from that particular book publically but for study purposes.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 0:55:26 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 28, 2004 0:55:26 GMT -5
Okay, I can understand that.
My church doesn't accept the apocrypha or deuterocanonicals as canonical, but they are not forbidden reading. In fact, this week, my Bible study class will be looking at these books and reading through some of them.
Blessings,
Melinda
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 1:01:05 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 28, 2004 1:01:05 GMT -5
perhaps this is just my opinion but if the book of Jude makes reference to the book of Enoch then wouldnt that constitute the book of Jude as being non-canonical? i firmly believe that if the book of Jude is accepted as canonical then i accept also the book of Enoch. Not necessarily, as described before. That there may be information within the Book of Enoch that is true, and therefore quoted by Jude, does not imply infallibility to the entire Book of Enoch. We believe that the Bible is free from error in its original texts, is true in all that it affirms, and is the rule (canon) for belief and practice. Many considerations go into this determination, and there was great controversy concerning many books that were eventually accepted by the church as canonical. But a book may not simply be true "in part" and be considered canonical. Historically, the church has determined that the Book of Enoch, which is pseudepigraphical (the author is not as claimed), does not fit this criteria. But it has determined that Jude does. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the passage quoted from Enoch is, in fact, true. Also, you have not yet revealed the position of your church on the canonicity of Enoch. In other words, is the Book of Enoch "infallible in the original text, true in all that it affirms, and a reliable guide of faith and practice" according to your church? God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 1:04:04 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 1:04:04 GMT -5
well, just as adamant are you to question the fallacy of that written book, i hold and will continue to hold the book of Enoch in the same account and conviction as the book of Jude. If the book of Jude is to be found false then and only then will i regard the book of Enoch as being false for i cannot accept half truths. If one is to disregard the book of Enoch as being half truth or a partial truth while the book of Jude as being whole truth and then pointedly making reference to the book of Enoch which is canonized as being highly untrustworthy, then that in itself is a contradiction. i am also relieved with the fact that i also know a small minority of biblical scholars and historians who have "come to grips" and hold the same position as i do.
If you accept the book of Jude you must then accept the book of Enoch plain and simple. period.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 1:24:42 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 28, 2004 1:24:42 GMT -5
well, just as adamant are you to question the fallacy of that written book, i hold and will continue to hold the book of Enoch in the same account and conviction as the book of Jude. And I believe we have completed the discussion of the canonicity of the Book of Enoch. Let us return to our discussion concerning the Trinity. Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 4:23:15 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 4:23:15 GMT -5
And I believe we have completed the discussion of the canonicity of the Book of Enoch. Let us return to our discussion concerning the Trinity. Matthew (soulfyre) do you accept the book of Jude, Matthew? we can avoid all of this debating by just asking for a yes or a no.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 5:00:52 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 28, 2004 5:00:52 GMT -5
Romans 3:2b - "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."
The Jews never allowed Enoch into their scripture. They were the keepers of the Oracles of God. Their canon is what Protestants have always refered to because of Paul's assertion. If they didn't acknowledge it as inspired scripture officially then it is not to be considered scripture. Rome did not even include it in the Council of Trent. Eastern Orthodox do not acknowledge it either. Only a group calling themselves "Ethiopian Orthodox", even though they maintain a heretical doctrine of God and are therefore by definition not Orthodox, has accepted this book. It is still profitable for a Christian to read just as other early writings are, but it is not part of the Jewish canon and therefore not scripture regardless of what anyone desires to believe. The apostle Paul has spoken and it is so.
In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 6:29:53 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 6:29:53 GMT -5
Romans 3:2b - "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." The Jews never allowed Enoch into their scripture. They were the keepers of the Oracles of God. Their canon is what Protestants have always refered to because of Paul's assertion. If they didn't acknowledge it as inspired scripture officially then it is not to be considered scripture. Rome did not even include it in the Council of Trent. Eastern Orthodox do not acknowledge it either. Only a group calling themselves "Ethiopian Orthodox", even though they maintain a heretical doctrine of God and are therefore by definition not Orthodox, has accepted this book. It is still profitable for a Christian to read just as other early writings are, but it is not part of the Jewish canon and therefore not scripture regardless of what anyone desires to believe. The apostle Paul has spoken and it is so. In Christ, Ron thanks for that informative verse for i have one that addresses that with this one: Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. In regards to a contradiction of trust: If its not to be drawn from as a source then neither is the book of Jude. the book of Jude must then be uncanonical, to put into simple terms relating with contradiction. You cannot have a trustworthy source deemed the whole truth and still refer to a source that is outside of that trust or what should have been made aware to Jude. Sooner or later you will have to come to grips with that fact. this site has info on Enoch and all who quoted from his book: reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htmhere is a little known fact: Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". So i ask again, do you accept the book of Jude? yes or no
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 11:45:37 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 28, 2004 11:45:37 GMT -5
thanks for that informative verse for i have one that addresses that with this one: Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. This does not address Paul's teaching in any way, shape, or form. The clear teaching of Paul is that which the Jews called scripture is scripture. The Jews did not consider Enoch scripture, although many did consider it profitable uninspired writing to read and quote. The authors of Jude and Hebrews quoted a truth that was found outside of scripture. This does not mean that the whole book is scripture as Soulfyre has repeatedly pointed out. Your assertion is unsubstantiated. Paul quoted a writer from Crete in Titus. Is everything that writer mentioned to be trusted as scripture? Of course not. Everything in scripture is true, some things found outside of scripture are true as well and can be used without the entirety of the external source being scripture. No, sooner or later you will have to come to grips with the fact that your premise is false and rightfully rejected by the Christian community. Actually, it's a very well known fact and is referred to in any work on the history of scripture. F.F. Bruce's outstanding work "The Canon of Scripture" is one case in point. The Jews did not regard Enoch as scripture, therefore Paul's testimony stands and it is not scripture. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 11:47:32 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 28, 2004 11:47:32 GMT -5
show me a scripture where Paul rejects Enoch or any of his testamony and to imply that he does is a lie plain and simple. Can you give me at least one scripture?
Matter o' fact, why dont you show me any scripture that testifies to reject Enoch and his testamony or any part of his testamony or even a tittle, is there any scripture that specifically states to disregard any part of Enoch's testamony?
Its odd that Enoch was given the same thing that Elijah was given and yet here you stand to testify against Enoch. This has been duly noted towards you.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 28, 2004 13:11:38 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 28, 2004 13:11:38 GMT -5
show me a scripture where Paul rejects Enoch or any of his testamony and to imply that he does is a lie plain and simple. Can you give me at least one scripture? I repeatedly provided Romans 3:2b that states in no uncertain terms that the Jews were the keepers of the oracles of God. The Jews did not recognize Enoch as scripture. I clearly stated that truth can be found outside of scripture and that the apostles are free to quote that truth when it is found without the entirety of that work being considered scripture. This is the consistent testimony of the church. I stand by the Apostle's clear and unambigous teaching in Rom 3:2b and by the historic teaching of the Church regarding the quotation of uninspired works in inspired works. In Christ, Ron
|
|