Book of Enoch?

[gnostic]

Are we still discussing the book of Enoch?

I think it has disappeared into thin air. I'd suppose the topic had ascended with Enoch....or went straight to hell.

Now where did I put my pen?

 

[Ratiocinative]

There could be any number of other books out there that were also inspired by God, but they're not going to add anything new spiritually, though it might add some historical value. We already have much, much more than we need to obtain salvation in the Bible, so why add more? In fact, just read the last few verses in John 20. He's saying that Jesus did lots of other stuff that he didn't write down in this book, but the things he did write down he wrote down so that you would believe that Jesus is the Christ so that you would have life in his name. He doesn't bother to write any more because there is no need, either believe or you don't, adding more won't change your opinion. Everything you need for salvation is in the book of John, take it or leave it.

Now, of course, the other books of the Bible are still very useful. They are critical in establishing many thing, such as historical accuracy, God's anger against sin, the need for a savior, requirements that Jesus fulfilled, etc, but you don't NEED them for salvation. Faith in Jesus is enough, there is no need for anything else. It really is that simple.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They've been modified since the beginning. All of the scholars who handled the text knew this.

I'm not so much concerned about changes in the text because we have been able to look at earlier manuscripts and correct these interpolations but modifications such as removing books.

We are told that the Bible has been inspired by God. Well, wasn't the bible originally the 80 books? If so wouldn't that mean the 80 were inspired and the 66 aren't?....Interesting...

 

[sojourner]

I'm not so much concerned about changes in the text because we have been able to look at earlier manuscripts and correct these interpolations but modifications such as removing books.

We are told that the Bible has been inspired by God. Well, wasn't the bible originally the 80 books? If so wouldn't that mean the 80 were inspired and the 66 aren't?....Interesting...

"The Bible" wasn't "originally" anything. There were several different "official" collections of scripture floating around the different churches. It all had to do with local use, primarily in the context of worship. There was no such thing as an "original Bible" until the Canon was closed. Even then, there was disagreement -- from the beginning. The only "removing of books" that I'm aware of occurred with the Protestant Reformation.

 

[doppelganger]

There could be any number of other books out there that were also inspired by God, but they're not going to add anything new spiritually, though it might add some historical value. We already have much, much more than we need to obtain salvation in the Bible, so why add more?

Not all of us care about or are interested in "salvation" perhaps.

 

[sojourner]

Not all of us care about or are interested in "salvation" perhaps.

I agree. The Bible was not produced as a "tool for salvation," primarily. It was produced to preserve the Tradition of the religious community.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not so much concerned about changes in the text because we have been able to look at earlier manuscripts and correct these interpolations but modifications such as removing books.

We are told that the Bible has been inspired by God. Well, wasn't the bible originally the 80 books? If so wouldn't that mean the 80 were inspired and the 66 aren't?....Interesting...

No. The length of the Bible has always differed geographically. That is, different churches in different parts of the world have always had the majority of the same books in it, but have always had some variance. A few books missing or added here and there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only "removing of books" that I'm aware of occurred with the Protestant Reformation.

Remember Marcion and the debates that Eusebius mentioned. Some people did not accept a variety of books, including the Petrine epistles, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. Many other books were also disputed, meaning some accepted them and some knowing them rejected them.

 

[doppelganger]

Remember Marcion and the debates that Eusebius mentioned. Some people did not accept a variety of books, including the Petrine epistles, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. Many other books were also disputed, meaning some accepted them and some knowing them rejected them.

Though Marcion's historically appears to be the earliest "canon" of scriptures. So it's not necessarily the case that he or his followers removed books so much as others added to them - with the possible exception of the "Gospel" that was in the Euangelion, which the early anti-heresy crowd likened to "Luke" but is lost to us thus far.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Though Marcion's historically appears to be the earliest "canon" of scriptures. So it's not necessarily the case that he or his followers removed books so much as others added to them - with the possible exception of the "Gospel" that was in the Euangelion, which the early anti-heresy crowd likened to "Luke" but is lost to us thus far.

It's quite possible, and I'm convinced of it, that Marcion accepted only the earliest books that arrived at his location, and then excluded later works that he found out about.

 

[doppelganger]

It's quite possible, and I'm convinced of it, that Marcion accepted only the earliest books that arrived at his location, and then excluded later works that he found out about.

Which would be exactly what the proto-orthodox did, too, except that they moved the arbitrary and nonsensical line that marks the "early" books from the "later" ones.

 

[sojourner]

Remember Marcion and the debates that Eusebius mentioned. Some people did not accept a variety of books, including the Petrine epistles, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. Many other books were also disputed, meaning some accepted them and some knowing them rejected them.

But not since the Canon was "closed," right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which would be exactly what the proto-orthodox did, too, except that they moved the arbitrary and nonsensical line that marks the "early" books from the "later" ones.

Not like Marcion. Marcion's father was a Christian bishop, and my theory is that the earliest (and only) gospel that he had was Luke and the undisputed Pauline letters, perhaps themselves only in fragments. For some reason - probably due to special hindrances like persecution, pride, or poverty, the other early Christian writings did not make it to his father's church - as they were being written and distributed at their earliest point.

The proto-Orthodox churches had to accept the writings initially at some point, and Marcion's church didn't, because they were disconnected.

 

[kai]

Then that settles it.

it is one of the oldest christian churches older than the church of england, listen to your elders

 

[doppelganger]

Not like Marcion. Marcion's father was a Christian bishop, and my theory is that the earliest (and only) gospel that he had was Luke and the undisputed Pauline letters, perhaps themselves only in fragments. For some reason - probably due to special hindrances like persecution, pride, or poverty, the other early Christian writings did not make it to his father's church - as they were being written and distributed at their earliest point.

That's certainly the preferred theory, but the dating gets really "fuzzy" (particularly with the "Gospels") once you get back before 120-150 BCE. As for whether he had "Luke" that's hard to say, though there are certainly many similarities. His detractors say it was an edited version of "Luke," but according to extant references, Marcion apparently maintained Luke was an edited version of the "Gospel of the Lord" (see e.g. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's certainly the preferred theory, but the dating gets really "fuzzy" (particularly with the "Gospels") once you get back before 120-150 BCE. As for whether he had "Luke" that's hard to say, though there are certainly many similarities. His detractors say it was an edited version of "Luke," but according to extant references, Marcion apparently maintained Luke was an edited version of the "Gospel of the Lord" (see e.g. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament).

Precisely, and that's the theory that sustains my argument.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There could be any number of other books out there that were also inspired by God, but they're not going to add anything new spiritually, though it might add some historical value. We already have much, much more than we need to obtain salvation in the Bible, so why add more? In fact, just read the last few verses in John 20. He's saying that Jesus did lots of other stuff that he didn't write down in this book, but the things he did write down he wrote down so that you would believe that Jesus is the Christ so that you would have life in his name. He doesn't bother to write any more because there is no need, either believe or you don't, adding more won't change your opinion. Everything you need for salvation is in the book of John, take it or leave it.

Now, of course, the other books of the Bible are still very useful. They are critical in establishing many thing, such as historical accuracy, God's anger against sin, the need for a savior, requirements that Jesus fulfilled, etc, but you don't NEED them for salvation. Faith in Jesus is enough, there is no need for anything else. It really is that simple.

I see what you mean and your view seems to be the general agreement. What I'm concerned about is what if the events in the NT concerning Yeshua's life, which a lot of it is missing or not recorded, didn't happen the way people believe it did but other stories are true. If John is right and these other books could be used to show the history then maybe these books change the story......Just a thought...I'm interested in why some back then regarded the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture as it is supposed told by Peter but was never used as scripture. I'm thinking it had something to do with the conversation he says he has with Yeshua while the look a like was the one being crucified. To me this would certainly change the chain of events. It certainly could make sense, since after the crucifixion it was recorded in the NT that Yeshua appeared but the woman who thought him to be a gardener or when he appeared and was walking with a couple of disciples and even they didn't know who he was. Incidentally, this story told in the Apocalypse of Peter seems to fit the Islamic view of events concerning the crucifixion.....Again, it's just a thought.....

 

[sojourner]

I see what you mean and your view seems to be the general agreement. What I'm concerned about is what if the events in the NT concerning Yeshua's life, which a lot of it is missing or not recorded, didn't happen the way people believe it did but other stories are true. If John is right and these other books could be used to show the history then maybe these books change the story......Just a thought...I'm interested in why some back then regarded the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture as it is supposed told by Peter but was never used as scripture. I'm thinking it had something to do with the conversation he says he has with Yeshua while the look a like was the one being crucified. To me this would certainly change the chain of events. It certainly could make sense, since after the crucifixion it was recorded in the NT that Yeshua appeared but the woman who thought him to be a gardener or when he appeared and was walking with a couple of disciples and even they didn't know who he was. Incidentally, this story told in the Apocalypse of Peter seems to fit the Islamic view of events concerning the crucifixion.....Again, it's just a thought.....

In the end, it really doesn't (or shouldn't!) matter a great deal whether the recorded events actually happened they way they're portrayed. Xy is not predicated upon historical fact, but upon a theology of our relationship with God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In the end, it really doesn't (or shouldn't!) matter a great deal whether the recorded events actually happened they way they're portrayed. Xy is not predicated upon historical fact, but upon a theology of our relationship with God.

Interesting. Christians believe Yeshua died on the cross for their sins and their sins were washed away through the shedding of his blood. Some, not all, believe he is God incarnate but if the record shows none of this to be true then the outcome shouldn't matter?

Very interesting.......

 

[doppelganger]

but if the record shows none of this to be true then the outcome shouldn't matter?

Very interesting.......

Just because it didn't occur as an historical event doesn't mean it's not true.