Should I Enoch be part of the Bible?

[No*s]

This is a catch-22 question, but should the book of I Enoch be considered Scripture, especially to a Christian? Most Christians will quote I Tim. 3.16 for the definition of Scripture, but I contend I Enoch fits those:

ll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

There is also the passage from II Peter 1.20-21:

And we have the prophetic word made more sure, which you do well to heed, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture comes about from one’s own interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being brought along by the Holy Spirit.​

The relevant portion is where the book of Jude quotes I Enoch like Scripture:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly among them about all their ungodly deeds which they have committed impiously, and about all the harsh words which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."​

I Enoch clearly fits II Peter's criteria for Scripture. There can be little room for doubt. It is quoted as a prophecy. It fits St. Paul's criteria as well. It is clearly considered inspired. It is profitable for rebuke, correction, and teaching righteousness. That's why it's used pointing out and condemning the errors of some people and to helping the audience learn what not to do. It, thus, fits with all of St. Paul's criteria.

I don't accept it in my Bible, because there was no such thing as a closed Bible for quite some time. It gradually narrowed over time, and I accept the Tradition of the Church on that matter. Similar issues could be raised with other books through the NT (e.g. the Assumption of Moses).

My question is, why do the Christians on this board reject I Enoch in spite of the opinion of a book in the New Testament? There isn't much doubt how he considered it. I accept Church Tradition, but a great many people cannot claim that, and the Bible via Jude does cite this book as Scripture.

 

[MrMorden]

i would have to read it for myself before making an informed desicion, but on a sort of side note, i've been wondering where and when the bible became the bible. i dont know why i dont know this, but i do want to find out. i've yet to research the topic myself, but perhaps you could shed some light on it for me. and also, where could i find 1 Enoch?

 

[No*s]

You can find it here:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm

I don't accept it on the same grounds I accept the other books: Tradition, but it's a valid question for those without Tradition .

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I have had the same question for quite some time. From what research I have done on the first book of Enoch, I am of the opinion that the book of Jude shoud NOT have been cannonized simply for the fact that I think there is good reason why 1 Enoch didn't get cannonized although my only favorite verse in the book of Jude is verse 3 since I have used it to explain my zealousness for Christian Apologetics before. That is the ONLY book in the Bible that I have questioned that way though. Take for example, I know of the Books of Jasher (reffered to in Joshua and 2 Samuel) and Wars (Numbers 21:14), but from what I have researched on these books is that they are pretty much just historical recordings books and don't have a reputation in any way of being mystical or questionable. I guess that is all I have to say on the subject. I sure wish I had more answers though, Don't we all ?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[No*s]

Here's the problem . The Old Testament wasn't settled either when the Church was formed. II Timothy uses the book The Assumption of Moses in a pretty similar way, but via allusion, and if Jude should be excluded, then it raises doubts about the inclusion of many other books. Why, for instance, include the Gospel of John instead of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene or the Song of Solomon in place of the Wisdom of Solomon?

"Bad theology" and still maintain Scripture as the primary authority, because the doctrine comes before Scripture there. This really is a hard situation. It's one of the considerations that drove me away from being a Baptist lol.

 

[MrMorden]

Bad theology" and still maintain Scripture as the primary authority, because the doctrine comes before Scripture there. This really is a hard situation. It's one of the considerations that drove me away from being a Baptist lol.

yes me too, although i prefer to remain independent of any denomination, as they all seem a bit close-minded. but i wont delve too much further, i started a topic about this a few weeks back

 

[No*s]

yes me too, although i prefer to remain independent of any denomination, as they all seem a bit close-minded. but i wont delve too much further, i started a topic about this a few weeks back

Ah, then I must have overlooked it . I was a Baptist, because I accepted the principles, not the other way around, but everything falls apart when one abandons Sola Scriptura . It does sound like you've been doing similar thinking.

 

[BUDDY]

I have always been interested in the book of Enoch. I have heard a lot about it but have not had the time to do some real research and see for myself what the book is all about. I would also like to research why certain books were excluded from cannonization. I figure there had to have been a reason for it, and that would be worth noting.

 

[No*s]

I have always been interested in the book of Enoch. I have heard a lot about it but have not had the time to do some real research and see for myself what the book is all about. I would also like to research why certain books were excluded from cannonization. I figure there had to have been a reason for it, and that would be worth noting.

I don't think you can find the reasons. Basically, the canon was determined by bishops who told their congregations what books they should study (usually to combat heretics). The list gradually narrowed itself down and continued to do so at the behest of the bishops until we get what we have today. There weren't really any earth-shattering councils or arguments. It was just the authority of bishops, and it gradually narrowed it down.

So, I don't think you'll find the reasons. I don't think there were any reasons we can list as driving the canonization process beyond clarifying the Orthodox faith; it was just a phenomena of the Church.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

We just HAVE to pick on the Baptists eh?

First off, as far as labels goes, Just because I belong to a Baptist church doesn't mean that I agree with absolutley everything in their doctrinal statement, laws, precepts, etc. I DO however agree with the essentials of that denomination. Take for instance, I have noticed some people in the church I go to throw the word "free will" around which is almost like a boxing ring bell going off for me but I hold back and bite my tongue . It's like Calvinism, while I adhere to the basics of it, I am convinced that ole John Calvin was way off in his beliefs concerning infant baptism and what happens with children who meet an unfortunate early end in life. Although, as far as "sola scriptura" goes, I am of the opinion and have heard this from followers of other denominations that Southern Baptists promote of an attitude of " sola scrptura" then many others do which is one of the main reasons I left what claimed to be a "nondemoninational" church which was another way of stating "super charismatic" for a Southern Baptist church. So there

Anyways, back to the subject at hand. While I agree with you that there are lots of questions left to be answered about cannonization, for some reason, the books of enoch make me a bit leary. The first problem I can come up with off the top of my head is if we were to consider these books to be genuine, we would have to assume that the "enoch" we are discussing would have to be the "enoch" mentioned in Gen. 5:22-24 as far as biblical prophets goes since I don't know of any others. Now for quite some time skeptics questioned Moses' authorship of the first five books of the Bible with the backing that there was no known written language of Moses' time until the Code of Hammurabi which was written before the first five books of the bible was discovered which refuted that notion. If we were to consider that the "Enoch" of the book of Genesis was the author of these books, that would just bring more fuel to the fire of that notion. Take for instance, how did that book survive the flood, for one. If we were to consider that it was written by an extrabiblical "prophet", then we come up with the problem of why is there a book from a prophet that is not mentioned in the Bible? The whole notion just raises too many red flags for me so those are my reasons for what I believe on this subject.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[No*s]

I spoke about Baptists, because that's what I have the most experience with . I apologize if I assumed too much on the Sola Scriptura. Rejecting it, though, removes any authority for any group except the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, or the Non-Chalcedonians. Of course, I narrow that list down further lol. Because all Protestant theology and churches are predicated on that belief I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was one you held. My apologies.

The skeptics use the Code of Hammurabi to assert that Moses didn't write the book of Genesis . The reasoning is that the CoH is unquestionably older, and Genesis is like it on multiple levels (it and several other ancient texts like the Enuma Elish).

There isn't any question that I Enoch is pseudapigraphic. I'm of the opinion it is a reediting of very old traditions and sayings and worked into their historical context, but that is unprovable. That goes beyond its validity, though. The Early Church, like ancient Judaism didn't consider all holy writings on the same footing. They didn't yet have a closed canon. So, in this sense, I Enoch would be inspired but less important than, say, Jeremiah, Matthew, or the Wisdom of Solomon.

This layered concept of Scripture not only allows for pseudapigraphic books, but even openly accepts them. I am aware Protestants don't accept the Apocrypha, but there is no way that the book of Judith is historical, but it was still considered edifying enough for the Early Church to accept it. In other words, the fact that Enoch was written during the Greek occupation doesn't necessarily detract from it . In many ways, it may have been essential. The pseudapigraphic nature of apocalyptic literature prevented men like Antiochus IV from killing the spiritual leaders of the people.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I am all for Sola Scriptura. I would love to take a skillsaw to most if not all Bible commentaries for the simple fact that most people I see with a study Bible ususally run to their commentary at the bottom of the page before looking at other scripture that have to deal with the very same subject. I have found through past experience that the old addage "The best interpretation of scripture is scripture itself" is very true and could give a couple of examples, but don't have the time right now. That is the very reason why my only study bible is a Thompson Chain Referrence (NASB). Don't get me wrong though, I have absolutely no problem reading Christian extrabiblical books as long as I am not depending on them for interpretation of scripture.

As far as 1 Enoch goes, I'm just not yet convinced that it is a reliable source. I do appreciate the added info though.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[No*s]

I am all for Sola Scriptura. I would love to take a skillsaw to most if not all Bible commentaries for the simple fact that most people I see with a study Bible ususally run to their commentary at the bottom of the page before looking at other scripture that have to deal with the very same subject. I have found through past experience that the old addage "The best interpretation of scripture is scripture itself" is very true and could give a couple of examples, but don't have the time right now. That is the very reason why my only study bible is a Thompson Chain Referrence (NASB). Don't get me wrong though, I have absolutely no problem reading Christian extrabiblical books as long as I am not depending on them for interpretation of scripture.

As far as 1 Enoch goes, I'm just not yet convinced that it is a reliable source. I do appreciate the added info though.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

This issue cuts to the heart of Sola Scriptura. I would posit that there is no way to resolve it and maintain the principle. If one accepts the book of Jude as Scripture, then I Enoch becomes an authority by extension. If for some reason Jude is rejected from the accepted canon, the Scripture can no longer be the authority. We have become the authority and define the standards by which Scripture may be admitted or dismissed. In such a situation, Scripture is no longer the sole or even primary authority.

In this instance, you mention reliability tied to pseudapigrapha in this conversation, but Jude isn't the only book people think is pseudapigraphic. Job comes in as another, 2 Peter, Daniel (which gives evidence of being written during the Greek era just like I Enoch and thus pseudapigraphic). If I Enoch must be expunged because of its authorship, other we must also qustion other such books.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

This issue cuts to the heart of Sola Scriptura. I would posit that there is no way to resolve it and maintain the principle. If one accepts the book of Jude as Scripture, then I Enoch becomes an authority by extension. If for some reason Jude is rejected from the accepted canon, the Scripture can no longer be the authority. We have become the authority and define the standards by which Scripture may be admitted or dismissed. In such a situation, Scripture is no longer the sole or even primary authority.

In this instance, you mention reliability tied to pseudapigrapha in this conversation, but Jude isn't the only book people think is pseudapigraphic. Job comes in as another, 2 Peter, Daniel (which gives evidence of being written during the Greek era just like I Enoch and thus pseudapigraphic). If I Enoch must be expunged because of its authorship, other we must also qustion other such books.

I was waiting for you to bring up Job. If you remember right, I stated that I was of the Opinion that Jude should not have been cannonized for the very reasons you stated above. What I like about the Job book being brought up is that while I could use the exact same reasons for throwing Job out of the Bible, whoever decided on the cannonization of the OT & NT chose for certain reasons to cannonize Job and NOT cannonize 1 Enoch. There are obviously more reason behind it than mere pseudapigrapha. If you remember right I also stated that the pseudapigrapha issue was

The first problem I can come up with off the top of my head

In other words, I know that there is more to this than mere pseudapigrapha, I just didn't have the time at that moment to repolish up on 1 Enoch's other questionable facts (mysticism, etc.). The "sola Scriptura" issue that you mentioned above is the exact reason why I am of the "opinion" that Jude probably would've been better off not cannonized for the very reasons listed above. You see, there is much more in the cannonized scriptures about Job than there is about Enoch. Please understand that when I state that I am of the "opinion" that Jude should not have been cannonized, I do not mean that whoever decided on this issuemay not have been outright wrong for cannonizing it since I don't know ALL the facts behind cannonizing it. I DO know, however, that this debate could've been avoided if it weren't cannonized

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[No*s]

I was waiting for you to bring up Job. If you remember right, I stated that I was of the Opinion that Jude should not have been cannonized for the very reasons you stated above.

I remember. That's why I mentioned it: it leads right into the problem of putting Scripture into a secondary place after personal beliefs, which isn't the practice of Sola Scriptura.

What I like about the Job book being brought up is that while I could use the exact same reasons for throwing Job out of the Bible, whoever decided on the cannonization of the OT & NT chose for certain reasons to cannonize Job and NOT cannonize 1 Enoch. There are obviously more reason behind it than mere pseudapigrapha. If you remember right I also stated that the pseudapigrapha issue was In other words, I know that there is more to this than mere pseudapigrapha, I just didn't have the time at that moment to repolish up on 1 Enoch's other questionable facts (mysticism, etc.).

If mysticism is grounds to condemn a book, then you get I Timothy as well. The word "mystic" is simply the Greek word μυστικός, which means "pertaining to the μυστήριον. In its turn μυστήριον is the word "mystery." When Paul says that "Great is the mystery of godliness," he is making assertions about the central mystery of Christianity, and mysticism is simply the personal practice pertaining to the mystery (prayer, silence, the Eucharist) and several others. Paul himself was rather mystical in some of his references. The Gospel of John is mystical. That standard would also condemn a number of books .

Of course, there is no Scriptural condemnation of mysticism. This is a belief that comes before the Sripture, and thus, putting personal beliefs above Scripture again. This also undoes the concept of Sola Scriptura.

The "sola Scriptura" issue that you mentioned above is the exact reason why I am of the "opinion" that Jude probably would've been better off not cannonized for the very reasons listed above. You see, there is much more in the cannonized scriptures about Job than there is about Enoch. Please understand that when I state that I am of the "opinion" that Jude should not have been cannonized, I do not mean that whoever decided on this issuemay not have been outright wrong for cannonizing it since I don't know ALL the facts behind cannonizing it. I DO know, however, that this debate could've been avoided if it weren't cannonized

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I understand that you aren't settled on the book of Jude. My assertion above is that if you have grounds to question or revise the canon, then you cannot be practicing Sola Scriptura. The Scripture there is not the sole, or even the primary authority. If you accept the canon, then you cannot practice Sola Scriptura consistently without accepting Enoch. If you accept the book of Enoch as Scripture, then you revise the biblical canon. If you accept an open canon like that in the Early Church, then there is no closed authority for Sola Scriptura to appeal to. It is a lose-lose situation, and the only way out is to deny Sola Scriptura. Every other solution results in irresolvable doctrinal inconsistencies.

Of course, you're right if Jude hadn't been included in Scripture, then this problem wouldn't come up (the same thing would be true of II Timothy and the Assumption of Moses). However, I think it's this way for a reason .

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I remember. That's why I mentioned it: it leads right into the problem of putting Scripture into a secondary place after personal beliefs, which isn't the practice of Sola Scriptura.

That depends on how you except Sola Scriptura. If you believe that man is finished being revealed to what the true scriptures are in the Bible then I guess that statement would be true. I suppose I better be really carefull how that statement is interpreted though. Please don't take that as I feel that the church is way off when it comes to what they believe is God's revealed word or that we need to start adding the gnostic gospels or stuff like that to the Bible. An example of what I am talking about is how long after(the 19th century) the creedo "Sola Scriptura" was excpetd by the prtestant church, the Apocrypha was taken out of the protestant bible although it had been an issue of debate since the beginning of protestantism. Even Martin Luther had issues with the books of James and Jude. Does that betray the concept of Sola Scriptura? Not if you take into consideration that it was scripture itslef that brought these issues into the light. If scripture was not the basis for these issues, then yes, it would be personal issues or religious tradition, not Sola Scriptura, that determined what has been done so far in these issues.

If mysticism is grounds to condemn a book, then you get I Timothy as well. The word "mystic" is simply the Greek word μυστικός, which means "pertaining to the μυστήριον. In its turn μυστήριον is the word "mystery." When Paul says that "Great is the mystery of godliness," he is making assertions about the central mystery of Christianity, and mysticism is simply the personal practice pertaining to the mystery (prayer, silence, the Eucharist) and several others. Paul himself was rather mystical in some of his references. The Gospel of John is mystical. That standard would also condemn a number of books .

Of course, there is no Scriptural condemnation of mysticism. This is a belief that comes before the Sripture, and thus, putting personal beliefs above Scripture again. This also undoes the concept of Sola Scriptura

Thank you for the lesson in greek and I couldn't agree more. In Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, it also states : " Mysticism can be classed in many ways. In terms of worldviews, it can be divided into christian and nonchristian or theistic and nontheistic. There are also forms of mysticism in most major world religions. Some, such as Zen Buddhism, are mystical as such"

I was assuming that you knew what context I was speaking of when I used the word mysticism. My bad. Ofcourse I would not condemn a book that promotted the same type of "mustikos" that the Bible promotes. If I did, then your accusation of me putting personal beliefs befoer scripture would be correct. As it is, I did not use the philosophical rendering of mysticism which is "refers to someone who believes that intuitive and immediate knowledge of ultimate reality is possible" (IBID), but I guess I should've validated what exactly kind of context I was meaning when I used the word "mysticism".

As far as the Bible condemning mysticism goes, the christian concern is " with the 'mystics' claim of the self-evident truthfullness of their mystical experiences. They insit that they are as basic as sense perceptions, being a kind of spiritual perceptions"(IBID). One good example of this would be fortune telling like what is shown in a show titled "Medium" on NBC, which is definitley condemned in the Bible(ISA.2:6).

It is a lose-lose situation, and the only way out is to deny Sola Scriptura. Every other solution results in irresolvable doctrinal inconsistencies.

While I would like you to refer to mystatement above, I would also like to know what you propose as a possitive solution to this alleged problem, i.e. what should be the final authority in your opinion? Once again, Don't get me wrong, I am not stating that I am soley dependant on letters on a piece of paper since the letters on the pieces of paper I am referring to condemnes that practice also (2 cor.3:6).

However, I think it's this way for a reason .

Now this truly intrigues me. I wonder if you wanted me to as this. Regardless, I will, so if this is what you wanted, here you go( Don't ever say I didn't do anything for you ), What reason are you referring to?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[No*s]

That depends on how you except Sola Scriptura. If you believe that man is finished being revealed to what the true scriptures are in the Bible then I guess that statement would be true. I suppose I better be really carefull how that statement is interpreted though. Please don't take that as I feel that the church is way off when it comes to what they believe is God's revealed word or that we need to start adding the gnostic gospels or stuff like that to the Bible. An example of what I am talking about is how long after(the 19th century) the creedo "Sola Scriptura" was excpetd by the prtestant church, the Apocrypha was taken out of the protestant bible although it had been an issue of debate since the beginning of protestantism. Even Martin Luther had issues with the books of James and Jude. Does that betray the concept of Sola Scriptura? Not if you take into consideration that it was scripture itslef that brought these issues into the light. If scripture was not the basis for these issues, then yes, it would be personal issues or religious tradition, not Sola Scriptura, that determined what has been done so far in these issues.

If you take that definition, you still put the cart before the horse . They are deciding on which books are acceptable based on their theology. He accepted Romans and rejected James solely on his doctrine of what is God's doctrine and rejected Scriptures that he had trouble fitting to it (heck, IIRC, Luther even changed a couple of Scriptures to make them more "clear" lol).

A good example is that the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha as a Roman Catholic innovation, and they justified this on the grounds that it wasn't in the Hebrew canon, and because it taught prayer for the dead. The former is untenable, because it calls for the rejection of the NT also. There was no absolutely set Hebrew Bible at that time, and doing this means accepting their testimony where it is convenient (ie the polemical condemnation of the Apocrypha) but rejecting it where it is not convenient (the New Testament). The second one is simply doctrinal proof-texting akin to "we don't like this doctrine, so we are going to boot the book fromt he Bible."

That in its turn leads me to point out that in order to decide what books belong in Scripture and what don't based on what Scripture teaches, you must have a theology confirmed by certain books. It must be a preconceived notion, and that is banishing the texts that disagree with it. Even here I would consider it a betrayel of the concept. Theology here, not Scripture, is the basis of the canon. Books are accepted and rejected because the person picking them agrees or disagrees with the books. Had Martin Luther been doing something different than proof-texting his views with James and had validly represented the dichotomy between James and Romans, then it should not be accepted. It is accepted because they could not go that far and people realized he was wrong; he was eliminating counter-proofs to his beliefs.

Thank you for the lesson in greek and I couldn't agree more. In Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, it also states : " Mysticism can be classed in many ways. In terms of worldviews, it can be divided into christian and nonchristian or theistic and nontheistic. There are also forms of mysticism in most major world religions. Some, such as Zen Buddhism, are mystical as such"

I was assuming that you knew what context I was speaking of when I used the word mysticism. My bad. Ofcourse I would not condemn a book that promotted the same type of "mustikos" that the Bible promotes. If I did, then your accusation of me putting personal beliefs befoer scripture would be correct. As it is, I did not use the philosophical rendering of mysticism which is "refers to someone who believes that intuitive and immediate knowledge of ultimate reality is possible" (IBID), but I guess I should've validated what exactly kind of context I was meaning when I used the word "mysticism".

As far as the Bible condemning mysticism goes, the christian concern is " with the 'mystics' claim of the self-evident truthfullness of their mystical experiences. They insit that they are as basic as sense perceptions, being a kind of spiritual perceptions"(IBID). One good example of this would be fortune telling like what is shown in a show titled "Medium" on NBC, which is definitley condemned in the Bible(ISA.2:6).

This argument though does away with mysticism as a counter-argument to Paul. The Book of Enoch doesn't contain any sentiment that we can liken to mediums or the like. It is an apocalyptic vision of a man who writes pseudapigraphically as Enoch, and it comes in the exact same tradition as Daniel and Ezekiel. It shares very similar characteristics. Any traits of mysticism you can identify there by your definition will be found in them.

While I would like you to refer to mystatement above, I would also like to know what you propose as a possitive solution to this alleged problem, i.e. what should be the final authority in your opinion? Once again, Don't get me wrong, I am not stating that I am soley dependant on letters on a piece of paper since the letters on the pieces of paper I am referring to condemnes that practice also (2 cor.3:6).

The solution I assumed was a wholesale abandonment of the doctrine, and that eventually led me to the Orthodox Church, because it becomes a free-for-all without some authority. This isn't to say Scripture isn't authoritative, but that it should never be taken as anything resembling the sole authority. Over a period of several hundred years, Christian bishops (Orthodox Catholic bishops to be precise) determined the contents of Scripture in a rather organic process. It took centuries, and the trustworthiness of the canon rests on the trustworthiness of their beliefs: they were Orthodox, and it is an Orthodox book. This settled it for me, because there are no more tensions. The authority of Scripture does not rest in the collection of books, but in the Church which made it.

I know you won't agree with that one .

Now this truly intrigues me. I wonder if you wanted me to as this. Regardless, I will, so if this is what you wanted, here you go( Don't ever say I didn't do anything for you ), What reason are you referring to?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I believe it is in there by God's foresight in order at least in part that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would be untenable. I believe God ordained His Church to be the "pillar and ground of truth" and that it is literally the Body of Christ, and as such the Scripture depends on it not the other way around. This contradiction to Sola Scriptura and the other contradictions to it make it impossible to sustain, and thus, God provided a barrier against the teaching when He fashioned the Scriptures .

I had too many images, so I cut out some smilies :-(.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

If you take that definition, you still put the cart before the horse . They are deciding on which books are acceptable based on their theology. He accepted Romans and rejected James solely on his doctrine of what is God's doctrine and rejected Scriptures that he had trouble fitting to it (heck, IIRC, Luther even changed a couple of Scriptures to make them more "clear" lol).

Even Christian theology has a scriptural basis. If christian theology were left up to anything as a basis for it, Anything could be considered christian. Then again there are those who feel that way anyways . As far as Luther having a problem with the book of James and Romans, I know that he later reconciled those differences. Now I haven't heard anything about Luther changing any verses in the actual Bible but I can imagine him using different words in a sermon or something like that. I would find it very suprising if he was actually able to change the words of the Bible that I am reading today and would love to see some verification of something like that.

A good example is that the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha as a Roman Catholic innovation, and they justified this on the grounds that it wasn't in the Hebrew canon, and because it taught prayer for the dead. The former is untenable, because it calls for the rejection of the NT also. There was no absolutely set Hebrew Bible at that time, and doing this means accepting their testimony where it is convenient (ie the polemical condemnation of the Apocrypha) but rejecting it where it is not convenient (the New Testament). The second one is simply doctrinal proof-texting akin to "we don't like this doctrine, so we are going to boot the book fromt he Bible."

Even the ealiest indications of what the jewish people considered sacred writings before anything was cannonized never mention the appocrapha (Josephus, Jeshua ben Sira ( 180 b.c. ) ("Ecclus" ch. 44-49). Now as far as the Roman Catholic acceptance of the Appocrapha goes, An "infallible" proclamation accepting the Appocrapha was never made until the Council of Trent (1546). The decision at Trent was an obvious polemic against protestantism despite the fact that the Appocrapha had not been taken out of protestant Bibles intil the 19th century. The Council of Florence had proclaimed the Apocrapha inspired to bolster the doctrine of Purgatory that had blossemed. However, the manifestations of the beliefin the sale of indulgences came to full bloom in Luther's day, and Trent's "infallible" proclamation of the Apocrapha was a clear polemical against Luther's teaching. The official "infallible" addition of the books that support prayers for the dead is highly suspect, coming only a few years after Luther protested this doctrine. It has all the appearance of an attempt to provide infallible support for doctrines that lack a real biblical basis. Even Roman catholic scholars through the reformation period distinguished between deuterocanon and canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his "Complutensian Polygot" (1514-17) on the very eve of the reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a "Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old testament (1532) after the Reformation began which did not contain the apocrapha. Luther spoke against the apocrapha in 1543, including it's books at the back of the Bible.

That in its turn leads me to point out that in order to decide what books belong in Scripture and what don't based on what Scripture teaches, you must have a theology confirmed by certain books. It must be a preconceived notion, and that is banishing the texts that disagree with it. Even here I would consider it a betrayel of the concept. Theology here, not Scripture, is the basis of the canon. Books are accepted and rejected because the person picking them agrees or disagrees with the books.

The only way Sola Scriptura is betrayed is if the theology/doctrine does not have a biblical basis at all. That would be like me stating that I have a doctrine that I should never have to work again. If I have no biblical basis for that at all, then Sola Scriptura is betrayed, If I decide to start taking books out of my bible because of this doctrine, then once again, sola scriptura has been betrayed.

Had Martin Luther been doing something different than proof-texting his views with James and had validly represented the dichotomy between James and Romans, then it should not be accepted. It is accepted because they could not go that far and people realized he was wrong; he was eliminating counter-proofs to his beliefs.

Actually, Luther's problem with the Book James and Romans had to do with other creedos, "Sola Gratia" & "Sola Fide" (Eph. 2:8-9), and a misunderstanding that The Book of James might be promoting a works based salvation even though in it's true context the book of James was promoting a salvation evidenced by works not obtained by works which Luther later on acknowledged.

This argument though does away with mysticism as a counter-argument to Paul. The Book of Enoch doesn't contain any sentiment that we can liken to mediums or the like. It is an apocalyptic vision of a man who writes pseudapigraphically as Enoch, and it comes in the exact same tradition as Daniel and Ezekiel. It shares very similar characteristics. Any traits of mysticism you can identify there by your definition will be found in them.

I was never trying to counter argue Paul. I was trying to make a distinction between what Paul truly meant by Godly Mustikos and what is considered unGodly mysticism. I am sure Paul did not agree with gnostic mysticism like that of women having to become men in order to enter into heaven described in the Gospel of Thomas. All the info I have read about Enoch states that it is actullay an apocolyptic vision of several men, not just one, which gives it even less credibility, and The books of Daniel and Ezekeil do not conatain anything resembling sections in the books of Enoch called "The book of Celestial Physics" which are one of the curiosities of ancient pseudo-scientific literature, setting forth contemporary speculations concerning such meteorological and astronnomical phenomena as lightning, hail, snow, the twelve winds, the heavenly luminaries and the like.

The authority of Scripture does not rest in the collection of books, but in the Church which made it.

I know you won't agree with that one .

The only logical conclusion of that statement is that scripture has absolutley no authority in the church and that the only psuedo-authority scripture may have is given to it by the church. If that is the case, what defines what the church is, especially when considering John 1:1,14. It also comes from a misunderstanding that the church is the determiner of the canon rather than the church being the discoverer.

I believe it is in there by God's foresight in order at least in part that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would be untenable. I believe God ordained His Church to be the "pillar and ground of truth" and that it is literally the Body of Christ, and as such the Scripture depends on it not the other way around. This contradiction to Sola Scriptura and the other contradictions to it make it impossible to sustain, and thus, God provided a barrier against the teaching when He fashioned the Scriptures .

I had too many images, so I cut out some smilies :-(.

Once again, this belief is contradicted by John 1:1,14. BTW, I decided to not put so many smileys in my posts so you could smiley freely

.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[No*s]

* No*s enters a dark, smoke-filled room with cauldrons and corpses. He sprinkles a few limbs, eyes of a newt, and reads some ancient incantations, and *poof has used thread necromancy to restore breath to a corpse. *

Even Christian theology has a scriptural basis. If christian theology were left up to anything as a basis for it, Anything could be considered christian. Then again there are those who feel that way anyways. As far as Luther having a problem with the book of James and Romans, I know that he later reconciled those differences. Now I haven't heard anything about Luther changing any verses in the actual Bible but I can imagine him using different words in a sermon or something like that. I would find it very suprising if he was actually able to change the words of the Bible that I am reading today and would love to see some verification of something like that.

I'll have to google for that again. It's been a long time, but he added "alone" before "faith" in his German translation. Later editions removed it, and it has no bearing on today's Protestant Bibles; it's just a revealing detail lol.

Even the ealiest indications of what the jewish people considered sacred writings before anything was cannonized never mention the appocrapha (Josephus, Jeshua ben Sira ( 180 b.c. ) ("Ecclus" ch. 44-49).

There were at least two separate canons. The Palestinian Canon and the Alexandrian Canon. The Palestinian Canon was similar to the modern Jewish canon and eventually became that. The Alexandrian Canon was the LXX. The latter, with the NT, became the universal Bible of Christians (until the Reformation) and the former the Bible of the Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls intermix several different books with the OT books. Who is to say they didn't consider them canon?

Simply the existence of the apocryphal books in a pre-Christian canon gives weight to the idea that there was no set canon at that time yet.

Now as far as the Roman Catholic acceptance of the Appocrapha goes, An "infallible" proclamation accepting the Appocrapha was never made until the Council of Trent (1546). The decision at Trent was an obvious polemic against protestantism despite the fact that the Appocrapha had not been taken out of protestant Bibles intil the 19th century. The Council of Florence had proclaimed the Apocrapha inspired to bolster the doctrine of Purgatory that had blossemed. However, the manifestations of the beliefin the sale of indulgences came to full bloom in Luther's day, and Trent's "infallible" proclamation of the Apocrapha was a clear polemical against Luther's teaching. The official "infallible" addition of the books that support prayers for the dead is highly suspect, coming only a few years after Luther protested this doctrine. It has all the appearance of an attempt to provide infallible support for doctrines that lack a real biblical basis. Even Roman catholic scholars through the reformation period distinguished between deuterocanon and canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his "Complutensian Polygot" (1514-17) on the very eve of the reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a "Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old testament (1532) after the Reformation began which did not contain the apocrapha. Luther spoke against the apocrapha in 1543, including it's books at the back of the Bible.

This oversimplifies things more than a little bit. If, for instance, the RCC had widely accepted the Apocrypha long before the Reformers, then Trent was a clarification in light of the Reformers' rejection of the books, and by extension, several doctrines connected with it (it was a long-lasting council).

The problem, however, arises in that this is the post-schism Roman Catholic Church. It and Orthodoxy have already gone separate ways. Orthodoxy, though, still maintained the Deuterocanonicals. Interestingly, the division of the principle OT and secondary OT predates Trent, and even our NT is arranged along that principle (this is why Revelation is at the end, Hebrews immediately after the other Pauline epistles, etc. It is a hierarchy). This did not need an infallible proclamation; it was already the accepted practice of the Church before the Schism, making Trent a later clarification for the RCs.

The only way Sola Scriptura is betrayed is if the theology/doctrine does not have a biblical basis at all. That would be like me stating that I have a doctrine that I should never have to work again. If I have no biblical basis for that at all, then Sola Scriptura is betrayed, If I decide to start taking books out of my bible because of this doctrine, then once again, sola scriptura has been betrayed.

There are two fundamental problems with this. First, what about those who were still determining the books of Scripture? Why accept 3 John over the Didache? In fact, heretics like Marcion even had authoritative documents like "Paul's" letters they used to establish their doctrines. Since there was yet no canon, they could not even begin to use the principle you cited.

The second one is that most heresies, who would rid themselves of one book or another, bristle with Scriptural quotations; they invariably believe themselves to be Bible-based, and those difficult books that contradict their beliefs (like sacrifice for the dead in 2 Maccabees) could simply be excised or ignored. In their mind, they have biblical basis, and one just as clear as the Reformers.

Actually, Luther's problem with the Book James and Romans had to do with other creedos, "Sola Gratia" & "Sola Fide" (Eph. 2:8-9), and a misunderstanding that The Book of James might be promoting a works based salvation even though in it's true context the book of James was promoting a salvation evidenced by works not obtained by works which Luther later on acknowledged.

His problem, though, was his theology and his reading of the book of James (faith and works are another issue altogether; obviously I subscribe to neither Sola you mentioned). He was still justifying his exclusion of James on the basis of his personal theology. I would even argue that Luthor was reading the book correctly (it does say blatantly that a man is "justified by works and not faith only" Ja. 2.24). The process of omitting books, even if Luthor had misread it, was created by theology, a belief that James contradicted it, and the belief that his understanding was right and not the book of Scripture's. It maintains itself as a breach of Sola Scriptura (I have often joked that Sola Scriptura for Luthor was "I believe in Sola Scriptura...so long as I pick the books).

I was never trying to counter argue Paul. I was trying to make a distinction between what Paul truly meant by Godly Mustikos and what is considered unGodly mysticism. I am sure Paul did not agree with gnostic mysticism like that of women having to become men in order to enter into heaven described in the Gospel of Thomas. All the info I have read about Enoch states that it is actullay an apocolyptic vision of several men, not just one, which gives it even less credibility, and The books of Daniel and Ezekeil do not conatain anything resembling sections in the books of Enoch called "The book of Celestial Physics" which are one of the curiosities of ancient pseudo-scientific literature, setting forth contemporary speculations concerning such meteorological and astronnomical phenomena as lightning, hail, snow, the twelve winds, the heavenly luminaries and the like.

That I have to grant you. One or more of its sources was concerned with that...but with some restraint. As you say, it is indeed an amalgamation of several men, and well, what one interpolation to the text says does not necessarily have much bearing on another. This has occurred in Daniel, for isntance. There are Hebrew portions, some small Aramaic portions, and Greek portions. No doubt in not accepting the Deuterocanonicals, you reject the Greek additions, but it is still an amalgam piece written two languages still. One interpolation is good, two aren't. Enoch can still stand if some of the interpolations do not.

The only logical conclusion of that statement is that scripture has absolutley no authority in the church and that the only psuedo-authority scripture may have is given to it by the church. If that is the case, what defines what the church is, especially when considering John 1:1,14. It also comes from a misunderstanding that the church is the determiner of the canon rather than the church being the discoverer.

*blinks*

You do realize what this does, right? It elevates the Bible, partly a creation of men, to the status of God. If the Bible is the Logos, then God is partly the product of the human imagination. As divinely inspired as the Bible is, it always uses the vocabulary of its authors, their worldview, etc.

I don't know how to put it mildly, so I'll put it bluntly. That theology is idolatrous. It places a book where God alone belongs. The Word in John is not the Bible, but the preexistant and uncreated Reason and Revelation of God, the Christ.

The Scriptures were created as holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit, but they were still created, and the Bible is a product of this union of the Spirit with men. The Church thus predates the NT writings. It made them. Its bishops told its congregations which ones were binding and which weren't, which would be read in services and which weren't, and this process ended with the closed canon. This isn't discovery, it is creation.

*thread resurrected*

 

[No*s]

Solio, the thread has been resurrected as requested .