Bible Under Fire

[prisonchaplain]

So you claim that the author of Timothy (maybe Paul and maybe not) knew everything that was ever written that was scriptural and could legitimately give God's opinion on it?

I'm claiming that Timothy certainly had in mind, at minimum, what we now call the Old Testament. I'm not quite certain which of the New Testament writings would have been included in what he called Scriptures at that point--most likely at least Mark, if not Luke and Matthew as well.

See the following response to the question, "What Bible did Jesus use?"

What Old Testament did Jesus use? Since Christianity is based on the identity of Jesus, the Old Testament Jesus used is the Old Testament his church should use. There is internal evidence that reveal the Old Testament used by Jesus is composed of the same books used in the Jewish Bible today. This would exclude seven books known as the Apocrypha to Protestants and Jews and the Deuterocanonical books to the Catholics.

Other than faith, and nothing but faith, how could you make sure a claim?

See the following article for a reasonable explication as to how the Bible came into existence. It explains how the Old Testament canon was developed, based largely on prophets "passing the test." The process of Old Testament canonization would obviously set the stage for a similar process for the New Testament.

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apolo...ebiblefromGod7/

Besides the prime facie unlikelihood of such a notion there is ample evidence that the Old Testament that we know now was not all the writing that the Jews or some Jews considered scripture (not that I believe that the Jews were the only ones to whom God revealed himself). When the New Testament quoted scripture, it didn't quote the Hebrew Bible, it quoted the Septuagint. The Septuagint contained the apocrapha. Some Jews considered the canon as settled on by the Council of Jamnia to be authoritive but not all the Jews; certainly not the Ethopian Jews. Our Bible itself quotes or refers to much missing scripture in a way that makes clear that it was considered authentic and valuable.

The fact that New Testament writers refer to extrabiblical literature does not mean that the entire reference should therefore be considered Holy Scripture. Likewise, just because the LXX was the source of Scripture for New Testament writers, does not mean that the Apocrapha (which neither Jews nor Protestants accept) must be deemed Holy Scripture.

No - 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is stating some of the charateristics of scripture, not giving a comprehensive of what "inspired" means. Does it mean, for example, historically accurate, literally true, and error free? If so then a good deal of the Bible, as it exists in it's current state, is not inspired. Or, does it mean influenced by God but not necessarily perfect?

This we know for certain: The writer of Timothy is claiming that Scripture is good enough for:

1. Doctrine 2. Reproof 3. Correction 4. Instruction in righteousness 5. Preparing the man of God to be perfect 6. Throughly furnishing us unto all good works.

Those are some powerful claims, if inspiration simply means that the writers felt a warmth they attributed to God as they wrote their own opinions and recollections. If it's good enough to teach from, and it truly is "God-breathed," then 'inspiration' has to mean more than that it is inspirational.

We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent. Paul may have assumed that donkey's talked but that doesn't mean donkey's really do talk.

In the sense you are speaking, I suppose you're right. Your standard for saying "God spoke" is that you literally hear his audible voice. And indeed, such a hearing would have to be irrefutable, because you'd have to be certain you were not hearing something that could otherwise be explained.

Nevertheless, many people claim to have heard from God--some literally. We hear the claims, do some rationale discerning, do some spiritual discerning, and ultimately buy into the claims--or not.

[Snow]

I'm claiming that Timothy certainly had in mind, at minimum, what we now call the Old Testament. I'm not quite certain which of the New Testament writings would have been included in what he called Scriptures at that point--most likely at least Mark, if not Luke and Matthew as well.

See the following response to the question, "What Bible did Jesus use?"

What Old Testament did Jesus use? Since Christianity is based on the identity of Jesus, the Old Testament Jesus used is the Old Testament his church should use. There is internal evidence that reveal the Old Testament used by Jesus is composed of the same books used in the Jewish Bible today. This would exclude seven books known as the Apocrypha to Protestants and Jews and the Deuterocanonical books to the Catholics.

See the following article for a reasonable explication as to how the Bible came into existence. It explains how the Old Testament canon was developed, based largely on prophets "passing the test." The process of Old Testament canonization would obviously set the stage for a similar process for the New Testament.

I won't even bother with that website. Beside being apologetic and thus trying to prove a religious belief, it has or links to anti-Mormon propaganda. I prefer to get my material from reputable sources, preferably disinterested. Besides you left my arguments unanswered.

The fact that New Testament writers refer to extrabiblical literature does not mean that the entire reference should therefore be considered Holy Scripture. Likewise, just because the LXX was the source of Scripture for New Testament writers, does not mean that the Apocrapha (which neither Jews nor Protestants accept) must be deemed Holy Scripture.

Agreed that it doesn't "mean" that it is, it is however strongly suggested that it is. Unless you have a likely argument what it shouldn't mean that....

[prisonchaplain]

I am going to respond to this post over again. In my previous efforts I used hyperlinks with references. Frankly, I don't like being forced to wade through material not by posters either. So, I'll answer these myself.

That says nothing about what exactly constitues scripture.

We've grappled in other strings about what constitutes the canon of Scriptures, and whether said canon is open or not. I've come to an interesting conclusion in my recent studies: Protestants do, in fact, largely rely on the early Catholic church's authority in declaring the 66 books of the Bible to be canon. Furthermore, we implicitly rely on the Hebrew religious leaders for the Old Testament canon. Three points here:

1. We see the Christian church as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and so continue to respect our Judeo-Christian heritage.

2. We do not condemn all that is Catholic, nor do we believe that the Church was apostate for 1400 years. Rather, we believe the Catholic system became corrupt to the point that Luther's reform efforts, and the Reformation that followed, were justified.

3. Since God clearly inspired Scriptures, it is not so hard for us to believe that there would be finite set of writings that He would reveal as his message to us, nor that God would use religious leadership to build a consensus as to what that would be.

So you claim that the author of Timothy (maybe Paul and maybe not) knew everything that was ever written that was scriptural and could legitimately give God's opinion on it?

I am claiming that when he said Scripture was given by inspiration of God, he did so under the inspiration of God. It is quite reasonable to assume that he was referring to the Old Testament Scripture accepted by the Jews of that era, plus any New Testament writings that might already have been accepted, however informally.

Other than faith, and nothing but faith, how could you make sure a claim?

I'm not claiming that Paul knew how the Bible would finally look, since it was still being written in his day. It does not take much faith to believe that Paul had in mind the Old Testament, and whatever New Testament writings were accepted at the time.

Besides the prime facie unlikelihood of such a notion there is ample evidence that the Old Testament that we know now was not all the writing that the Jews or some Jews considered scripture (not that I believe that the Jews were the only ones to whom God revealed himself). When the New Testament quoted scripture, it didn't quote the Hebrew Bible, it quoted the Septuagint. The Septuagint contained the apocrapha. Some Jews considered the canon as settled on by the Council of Jamnia to be authoritive but not all the Jews; certainly not the Ethopian Jews. Our Bible itself quotes or refers to much missing scripture in a way that makes clear that it was considered authentic and valuable.

That Jesus, or other New Testament writers, or even some Old Testament writers, make reference to extrabiblical literature, does not indicate that the entire document referenced was considered inspired of God. Those readers who have done academic writing are well aware that information is sometimes found "diamond in the rough" style. A particular book or report might be quite mediocre over all, but have an important nugget of information. So, we cite the information, and reference it.

It says nothing about what "inspired" means. The Bible is riddled with mistakes yet I believe it is inspired. No - 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is stating some of the charateristics of scripture, not giving a comprehensive of what "inspired" means. Does it mean, for example, historically accurate, literally true, and error free? If so then a good deal of the Bible, as it exists in it's current state, is not inspired. Or, does it mean influenced by God but not necessarily perfect?

The "characteristics" in 2 Timothy are indicative of writing that is likely to be accurate in its quote, in the accounts it gives, and in the truths it teaches. Furthermore, to say God inspired something--you'd think it would be without fabrications, at minimum.

We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent.

So, you don't believe God spoke to Paul. Or, are you saying that because you can't prove it, you can't say it? We're Christians. Yes, by faith I believe God spoke to Paul, and that He speaks to us through the Bible.

Paul may have assumed that donkey's talked but that doesn't mean donkey's really do talk.

Well, you've obviously never been to Capital Hill, or heard a politician speak. Seriously, why wouldn't God speak through a donkey. Why wouldn't he thoroughly embarrass the prophet--who was suppose to be the mouthpiece of God--by speaking his truth through a donkey?

Sure I do - though obviously many times what people claims is God supernatural intervention certainly is not.

Well, we might question or test some modern-day claims, but I generally assume that when Scripture recounts a supernatural intervention by God, then God supernaturally intervened.

Nevertheless - God is saying nothing about the Bible. No videotape, no interviews, no written opinions. Yeah, maybe he reveals his will to his followings though the personal whisperings of the Spirit but we can hardly count on that publically, outside the individual, since so many people believe so many diametically opposed things, all claiming that God reveals it to them.

Your view of the Bible seems awfully uninspiring, imho.

God - rather than speaking up and clearing up the confusion, remains silent on the matter.

[Snow]

Your view of the Bible seems awfully uninspiring, imho.

Just the opposite I think. My view of the Bible is much more reasonable/rational than yours. To accept your view, one must believe that donkey's can or did talk (they don't) the God commands rape and that God makes bets with satan to kill the family of righteous men, etc, etc.

Your view (about the flood) is disputed by virtually 100% of real (non-apologetic) scientists. My view (that there was no flood exactly as described in the bible) is accepted by 100% of real scientists.

I can't get inspired by pretending what seems obivious mythology is true. What is inspiring to me is that through the foolishness of man, God's grandeur and divine plan shines through.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

So you claim that the author of Timothy (maybe Paul and maybe not) knew everything that was ever written that was scriptural and could legitimately give God's opinion on it?

I am claiming that when he said Scripture was given by inspiration of God, he did so under the inspiration of God.

How do you know that? And if so, what’s to stop someone else from writing more scripture while under the inspiration of God?

<div class='quotemain'>

Other than by faith, and nothing but faith, how could you make such a claim?

I'm not claiming that Paul knew how the Bible would finally look, since it was still being written in his day.

But you are claiming to know that what Paul wrote was scripture, and without Faith you can’t know that.

Or in other words, without Faith, you’re liable to believe anything that other people have told you.

And btw, do you really believe scripture can no longer be written simply because some other people bound a collection of books under the title “Holy Bible” and then said, “Okay, that’s it”.???

<div class='quotemain'>

2 Tim. 3:16-17 is stating some of the characteristics of scripture, not giving a comprehensive of what "inspired" means. Does it mean, for example, historically accurate, literally true, and error free? If so then a good deal of the Bible, as it exists in its current state, is not inspired. Or, does it mean influenced by God but not necessarily perfect?

The "characteristics" in 2 Timothy are indicative of writing that is likely to be accurate in its quote, in the accounts it gives, and in the truths it teaches. Furthermore, to say God inspired something--you'd think it would be without fabrications, at minimum.

Yes, but that says nothing about whether or not you truly understand what those prophets have written. And it also says nothing about whether or not all the scribes and translators accurately understood and reflected all of the thoughts the original writers had in mind when writing their words… even despite the best of intentions.

For instance, the people who translated the Holy Bible for King James made a few mistakes in their translation, and if you know something about that translation process you should be able to see the complications with the task of translation and how they could easily make those mistakes… yet if you don’t know about those mistakes, and how they could easily happen, you could decide to believe everything they wrote based upon a belief or understanding of them as being perfect and infallible translators.

And btw, if you don’t know it, millions of people have relied and continue to rely on the KJV of the Bible.

<div class='quotemain'>

We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent.

So, you don't believe God spoke to Paul. Or, are you saying that because you can't prove it, you can't say it? We're Christians. Yes, by faith I believe God spoke to Paul, and that He speaks to us through the Bible.

I’ll second that thought while saying that God is not completely silent about the Bible, and if you really want to know that God thinks about it, all you have to do is Ask Him, with a sincere desire to know Him better.

<div class='quotemain'>

Nevertheless - God is saying nothing about the Bible. No videotape, no interviews, no written opinions. Yeah, maybe he reveals his will to his followers though the personal whisperings of the Spirit but we can hardly count on that publicly, outside the individual, since so many people believe so many diametrically opposed things, all claiming that God reveals it to them.

Your view of the Bible seems awfully uninspiring, imho.

God - rather than speaking up and clearing up the confusion, remains silent on the matter.

As I said, God is not silent, and He will reveal Himself and His will to everyone who truly wants to know Him… whether or not they have ever read the “Bible”

And btw, God never intended for all people to come to a knowledge of Him only after He makes a public physical appearance to all people who live and ever have lived on this Earth, and if that is what it will take for YOU to know Him, personally, you can count on remaining among the least of people in His kingdom... far, far behind all of the many, many people who have come to know Him personally through the Faith He has given them.

Heh, the silly insolence of people who think the King of the Universe should make a public physical appearance to each and every person before He can truly reveal Himself.

[Red]

Traveler--

The point is this - as soon as you say the Bible is Cannon you put words in the mouth of G-d that he never spoke or if he did you have no record of it. If I am wrong then please show me the scripture in your cannon.

Red--

I'll make a list as soon as I can to answer your question. But basically, scripture does testify of itself as being scripture in many places, and if truly scripture it should be preserved, and we happen to call that canonized.

Well, kickboxing was cancelled tonight so I thought snatch an opportunity to post here and keep my promise. I just hope the topic hasn't gone cold or that I'll simply restate something others have said, because I haven't had enough time to read the latest posts. So I'll be briefe.

First off, canonizing is the proccess of discovering which books are inspired, not deciding. Sure, accuse me of playing semantics, but really, if God spoke it, it is scripture, it is we who must respect Him and recognize His voice. And if we are truly His sheep that shouldn't be too hard to do, because "the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5). On a side note, this is really the main reason why I reject the book of Mormon--that is just not my Lord speaking in those words.

Now if any Book makes the claim that it is God's word, with a phrase like: "Thus saith the LORD," "The LORD said," or "The word of the LORD came to..." then we have a definite contender. This covers the Pentateuch, the historical literarture from Josuah to Ezra, Job, Psalms and all of the prophets as far as I could tell. I did not find any phrase like this in Ruth, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or Nehemiah. Arguments can be made for the inspiration/canonicity of these books, but for now Jesus seemed to hold up the authority of the entire OT as it existed then, so I'll leave it there.

As for the ones where the LORD speaks we must bear in mind that God cannot lie, so of course He won't contradict himself. If any book comes out that has God speaking but contradicts what He has spoken before then it cannot be accepted. So when the Bible says that God spoke, inspiration/canocity is implied, and since we are His creation we ought to respect our creator, and take Him at His word. Really, what have we got to loose?

"man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live" (Deuteronomy 8:3).

This verse implies the doctrine of canonicity. Does it say man can live on any true words? No, it says that God's word is our lifeline, we cannot live one any other word but His, so it follows that we kinda need to know exactly what is His word and what is not. So if you want a single verse for the doctrine of canonicity in the Bible, I would suggest this one, but really I think the whole Bible demands such a doctrine.

There also many good verses to use in the NT, but I'm sure most of us know them, or have cited them in this discussion.

[Traveler]

First off, canonizing is the proccess of discovering which books are inspired, not deciding. Sure, accuse me of playing semantics, but really, if God spoke it, it is scripture, it is we who must respect Him and recognize His voice. And if we are truly His sheep that shouldn't be too hard to do, because "the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5). On a side note, this is really the main reason why I reject the book of Mormon--that is just not my Lord speaking in those words.

Now if any Book makes the claim that it is God's word, with a phrase like: "Thus saith the LORD," "The LORD said," or "The word of the LORD came to..." then we have a definite contender. This covers the Pentateuch, the historical literarture from Josuah to Ezra, Job, Psalms and all of the prophets as far as I could tell. I did not find any phrase like this in Ruth, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or Nehemiah. Arguments can be made for the inspiration/canonicity of these books, but for now Jesus seemed to hold up the authority of the entire OT as it existed then, so I'll leave it there.

I am concerned where this doctrine of canonizing is defined in scripture. Is it a doctrine from G-d or one made convenient by man? Is it possible that the Bible does not contain all doctrines given to man from G-d? If the doctrine of canonization is scripture then what is the scripture? Where exactly did you get the idea that canonization should be the way it was done? Or the way you say it ought to be done? If the doctrine of canonizing is not scripture (from G-d) then the Bible is missing at least one doctrine that you teach is both important and necessary. Is it possible that since G-d did not tell anyone to consider canonization that maybe it is not his will?

What is claimed to be canon has changed in place and time and there is no consistency. The other interesting thing to me is there is not a single book in any Bible that came from a single manuscript source. In other words what we now call the Bible has never existed in any of its parts or as a whole – by anyone within hundreds of years of when they were really written.

My next question is why is the scripture most quoted by Christ is not accepted as Biblical cannon scripture by you? Why is it not in the cannon? I would think if Jesus himself used a scripture more than any other single scripture it ought to be accepted by Christians. (This is not a voce question – if Jesus used it he accepted it what more compelling reason to accept any scripture is there? Also I would note that the Book of Enoch is the most quoted scripture by all the writers used to compile the New Testament) How is it that the only manuscripts of this book are incomplete and corrupted?

Another question concerns the Nestorian Christians that have a scripture called the epistle of Christ that is claimed to be written by Jesus himself. Testing of this document indicates it was written on material from Jerusalem during the life time of Jesus (far more validation than any scripture currently canonized in the Bible). At least the cannon types ought to say why they do not accept (or at least read) a document that was likely personally written by Christ.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

How do you know that? And if so, what’s to stop someone else from writing more scripture while under the inspiration of God?

Ultimately, my faith in the veracity of the Bible stems from my faith in God. It is writing that He commissioned. 66 books written over 1500 years, by 40+ authors, all coming together to present God's love relationship with his creation. The books mesh, they flow together, and yes, part of my faith stems from what Mormons call "testimony"--by the Holy Ghost--and partly through authority--in that we Protestant do not disown the 1500 years of the church that were almost exclusively Catholic.

But you are claiming to know that what Paul wrote was scripture, and without Faith you can’t know that. Or in other words, without Faith, you’re liable to believe anything that other people have told you.

And btw, do you really believe scripture can no longer be written simply because some other people bound a collection of books under the title “Holy Bible” and then said, “Okay, that’s it”.???

I concur with Prof. Blomberg (How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation)--he's the evangelical representative--that the canon cannot be declared definitively closed, soley by use of Scripture. Nevertheless, the Bible does seem to be a complete presentation of the story of God, his people, Jesus, his Church, and the end of times--with final redemption. The Sacred Works--or more specifically, the Triad, present a different stream--one to which I'm not qualified to comment too deeply, not having completely read, much less studied them.

Yes, but that says nothing about whether or not you truly understand what those prophets have written. And it also says nothing about whether or not all the scribes and translators accurately understood and reflected all of the thoughts the original writers had in mind when writing their words… even despite the best of intentions. For instance, the people who translated the Holy Bible for King James made a few mistakes in their translation, and if you know something about that translation process you should be able to see the complications with the task of translation and how they could easily make those mistakes… yet if you don’t know about those mistakes, and how they could easily happen, you could decide to believe everything they wrote based upon a belief or understanding of them as being perfect and infallible translators.

And btw, if you don’t know it, millions of people have relied and continue to rely on the KJV of the Bible.

Ultimately, I am convinced that if God declared his written word to be of such import to the biblical generation, and he says his word shall not pass away, then He would have kept it preserved for our generation. The KJV, and indeed all translations, might have occasional misprints. There may be subtle nuances that could not be precisely translated. This is why God has also raised up teachers, scholars, bishops, etc. to explicate the word to his people. However, YES, I have confidence in modern translations. The more manuscripts archeaologists dig up, the more we find confirmation of what is already done. The areas of dispute amongst translators are so few and so insignficant, that we can confidently say that with our KJV, NIV, NASB, etc. we have the word of the God, preserved.

I’ll second that thought while saying that God is not completely silent about the Bible, and if you really want to know that God thinks about it, all you have to do is Ask Him, with a sincere desire to know Him better.

Ultimately, the word of God is a spiritual book (inspired by the Holy Ghost), so it is understood fully, only by the anointing of the Spirit. My one caution--beware the excitement or passion of the flesh. Sometimes, our desire to be "on fire for God," can be misdirected. I recall a very sad period for the church from about 1990 to 1992, when there was a widespread heresy spreading that Jesus would return in Oct. 1992. A lot of well-meaning believers got caught up in the fervor, claiming to have "heard from God." We need spiritual testimonies, but we must also use reason, and yes, rely on our spiritual authorities to guide us.

As I said, God is not silent, and He will reveal Himself and His will to everyone who truly wants to know Him… whether or not they have ever read the "Bible"

Heh, the silly insolence of people who think the King of the Universe should make a public physical appearance to each and every person before He can truly reveal Himself.

I'm a little confused here. The second-coming will be for judgement. Those who are ready will rejoice. Those who are not, will mourn. Nevertheless, whether in joy or terror, the Bible says every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! Amen.

[prisonchaplain]

I am concerned where this doctrine of canonizing is defined in scripture. Is it a doctrine from G-d or one made convenient by man? Is it possible that the Bible does not contain all doctrines given to man from G-d? If the doctrine of canonization is scripture then what is the scripture? Where exactly did you get the idea that canonization should be the way it was done? Or the way you say it ought to be done? If the doctrine of canonizing is not scripture (from G-d) then the Bible is missing at least one doctrine that you teach is both important and necessary. Is it possible that since G-d did not tell anyone to consider canonization that maybe it is not his will?

Okay, let's get to the bottom-line. There is no verse that says, "Thou shalt convene councils to determine which religious books are inspired by me, your Creator, and which are not." Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious. So, who would God use to dilineate what is and is not Scripture. The Old Testament stems from the Books of Moses. The spiritual leaders were judges early on, then prophets, priests and teachers (who became rabbis). That God would use these leaders to pray over and discern which writings are anointed of God, and succeed in explicating God's plan and how his people should carry out the Law. In the New Testament, we have the original disciples, then Paul, then those appointed as bishops and deacons. Once again, God primarily used the original apostles (plus Paul) to produce the New Testament, and church leaders to discern what fits and does not fit in.

If you need a didactic verse to justify canon, you'll not find it. But, so many of the processes and practices we take for granted developed, rather than being specifically, in a single passage of Scripture, perscribed.

What is claimed to be canon has changed in place and time and there is no consistency. The other interesting thing to me is there is not a single book in any Bible that came from a single manuscript source. In other words what we now call the Bible has never existed in any of its parts or as a whole – by anyone within hundreds of years of when they were really written.

Actually, this lack of a single author and single manuscript help me to embrace the Bible, verses the writings of other religions. It would be fairly easy for one person to develop a spiritual system, and write a cogent book about it. That the Bible developed over 1500 years, by 40+ writers, and that they come together to tell a single story that flows naturally, actually confirms that it was ultimately God who was behind it.

My next question is why is the scripture most quoted by Christ is not accepted as Biblical cannon scripture by you? Why is it not in the cannon? I would think if Jesus himself used a scripture more than any other single scripture it ought to be accepted by Christians. (This is not a voce question – if Jesus used it he accepted it what more compelling reason to accept any scripture is there? Also I would note that the Book of Enoch is the most quoted scripture by all the writers used to compile the New Testament) How is it that the only manuscripts of this book are incomplete and corrupted?

If Jesus quotes a passage in the New Testament, that passage becomes part of the canon. Jesus was not speaking to canonization when he sites a passage. How many of us have cited the "Power corrupts absolutely," citation, without having any notion of all the writings that Lord Acton produced--or even that he was the author? In the end, we accept what the Jewish leaders of old, and the church leaders of the patristic area formulated, as God's will for us to have a Scripture.

Another question concerns the Nestorian Christians that have a scripture called the epistle of Christ that is claimed to be written by Jesus himself. Testing of this document indicates it was written on material from Jerusalem during the life time of Jesus (far more validation than any scripture currently canonized in the Bible). At least the cannon types ought to say why they do not accept (or at least read) a document that was likely personally written by Christ.

Personally, I doubt Jesus wrote anything. If he did, who would read anything else? We'd have the words of the Savior. However, it is not impossible that scholars will continue to evaluate it, and ultimately accept it. If so, praise God for the addition. My guess is that this writing probably contains little that is revolutionary to church practice.

[Traveler]

Okay, let's get to the bottom-line. There is no verse that says, "Thou shalt convene councils to determine which religious books are inspired by me, your Creator, and which are not." Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious. So, who would God use to dilineate what is and is not Scripture. The Old Testament stems from the Books of Moses. The spiritual leaders were judges early on, then prophets, priests and teachers (who became rabbis). That God would use these leaders to pray over and discern which writings are anointed of God, and succeed in explicating God's plan and how his people should carry out the Law. In the New Testament, we have the original disciples, then Paul, then those appointed as bishops and deacons. Once again, God primarily used the original apostles (plus Paul) to produce the New Testament, and church leaders to discern what fits and does not fit in.

If you need a didactic verse to justify canon, you'll not find it. But, so many of the processes and practices we take for granted developed, rather than being specifically, in a single passage of Scripture, perscribed.

The doctrine of convening a council to determine which religious books are inspired and which are not (or any doctrine for that matter); is not a doctrine, concept or example found in Biblical scripture. The need as you say - “Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious” -is nothing more than human thinking – not divine thinking and this has been my point all along. It is not an idea G-d thought was needful enough to even hint to or mention in any scripture anywhere ever. 1Cor2:11 tells us that it is impossible for man to know G-d’s thinking unless G-d helps every man in the understanding process. In fact G-d’s thinking will look foolish to man. If G-d has told a council to convene to determine anything ever – why is such a revelation or example not in the Bible? Why is it not canon scripture? I believe it is because that is not how the L-rd does things. Hint - Moses was not a convening council.

Actually, this lack of a single author and single manuscript help me to embrace the Bible, verses the writings of other religions. It would be fairly easy for one person to develop a spiritual system, and write a cogent book about it. That the Bible developed over 1500 years, by 40+ writers, and that they come together to tell a single story that flows naturally, actually confirms that it was ultimately God who was behind it.

I submit that the natural flow you are holding such high esteem comes more from the convening councils with their own agenda and creating their own text, than from the sacred ancient manuscripts available. As in Luke 4, Satan can make the scriptures flow quite well with his agenda. I just wonder why we do not have any real translations from even one real single ancient manuscript in the Bible. I just do not understand the notion of thinking all the ancient documents are not to be considered sacred until some convening council(s) has had their chance pick just what they want from thousands of documents and pronounce their one worked-over output as canon.

BTW did I mention that every time a council has seen fit to convene on this matter in different times and different places they have produced different versions of the Bible and what ought to be in the Bible?

If Jesus quotes a passage in the New Testament, that passage becomes part of the canon. Jesus was not speaking to canonization when he sites a passage. How many of us have cited the "Power corrupts absolutely," citation, without having any notion of all the writings that Lord Acton produced--or even that he was the author? In the end, we accept what the Jewish leaders of old, and the church leaders of the patristic area formulated, as God's will for us to have a Scripture.

I see – What Jesus used for scripture is not good enough for you. I find this very telling – Jesus did not speak to canonization but you believe in canon that he never spoke about but then you do not believe in canonizing the very scripture he and his apostles (and any other NT writer) used? But if some convening convening council says “Believe this without any question and do not doubt anything we have done and doubt everything we do not do.” You swallow that hook line and sinker – even though G-d provides a preponderance of evidence to the contrary with such discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Personally, I doubt Jesus wrote anything. If he did, who would read anything else? We'd have the words of the Savior. However, it is not impossible that scholars will continue to evaluate it, and ultimately accept it. If so, praise God for the addition. My guess is that this writing probably contains little that is revolutionary to church practice.

WOW! your attitude is way different than mine – We know Jesus was literate, he could read which means that he could also write. Why do you doubt he ever wrote anything? Do you not remember that he once wrote in the sand? If there was only one chance in ten thousand, I would check it out and no way would I leave such a thing to so called scholars to evaluate and tell me if I should accept it or not. Jesus and what he says if far too important to me. Did you not say once that any real Christian could recognize the words (voce) of Jesus on their own without scholars telling them it is okay?

Since I have read a translation (I have my own copy) I can tell you that the epistle is short (about two paragraphs) and it does speak directly to the issue of authority and who is sent to teach by Christ and how to identify them - you and I have talked about this in length. To be honest I am quite concerned that you would not go to the ends of the earth to check out something this important and life changing. I will say that, although the doctrine is only slightly referred to in the Bible (and can be explained away as per your example), it is spelled out in detail both in his epistle and what we LDS have in our D&C., which could have an impact on Evangelicals and LDS finding some solid common ground. But if you are not interested – you are not interested. Sorry for all the distractions.

I will be traveling and away for a while

The Traveler

[Snow]

WOW! your attitude is way different than mine – We know Jesus was literate, he could read which means that he could also write. Why do you doubt he ever wrote anything? Do you not remember that he once wrote in the sand? If there was only one chance in ten thousand, I would check it out and no way would I leave such a thing to so called scholars to evaluate and tell me if I should accept it or not. Jesus and what he says if far too important to me. Did you not say once that any real Christian could recognize the words (voce) of Jesus on their own without scholars telling them it is okay?

Let's put it this way. There is zero evidence that Christ ever wrote anything. What is an undeniable fact is that he never wrote anything that God wanted preserved.

Socrates never wrote anything. Being literate doesn't mean you leave behind a written legacy.

[prisonchaplain]

The doctrine of convening a council to determine which religious books are inspired and which are not (or any doctrine for that matter); is not a doctrine, concept or example found in Biblical scripture. ... If G-d has told a council to convene to determine anything ever – why is such a revelation or example not in the Bible? Why is it not canon scripture?

They did so to find out who should replace Judas. They did so to determine what regulations Greek Christians would be under (Acts 15 for that one). The idea that church leaders would get together to discuss concerns is well established in both Scripture and human history.

The need as you say - “Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious” -is nothing more than human thinking – not divine thinking and this has been my point all along. It is not an idea G-d thought was needful enough to even hint to or mention in any scripture anywhere ever.

You seriously do not believe it is important, or that God had no interest, is Christians being able to quickly know whether a spiritual writing was to be considered Holy Scripture or not?

I submit that the natural flow you are holding such high esteem comes more from the convening councils with their own agenda and creating their own text, than from the sacred ancient manuscripts available. As in Luke 4, Satan can make the scriptures flow quite well with his agenda. I just wonder why we do not have any real translations from even one real single ancient manuscript in the Bible. I just do not understand the notion of thinking all the ancient documents are not to be considered sacred until some convening council(s) has had their chance pick just what they want from thousands of documents and pronounce their one worked-over output as canon.

You do not accept the canon that the LDS Church has? The Quad is not your base point for religious writings?

I see – What Jesus used for scripture is not good enough for you.

Traveler, you are better than this! You know full well that what I said was that whatever Jesus quoted--that quotation becomes Scripture. However, we cannot conclude that the entire book the passage came out of should likewise become Scripture. To repeat my example, most people know the "Power corrupts" quotation, but few know that Lord Acton said it, nor are they familiar with all his writings. Likewise, everytime you quote an individual, you are not, necessarily, endorsing everything that person ever said or published.

I find this very telling – Jesus did not speak to canonization but you believe in canon that he never spoke about but then you do not believe in canonizing the very scripture he and his apostles (and any other NT writer) used?

You've abandoned the normal practices of dialogue, and switched to a debating style. Jesus did not address canon, because people took canon for granted. It was well established. And, again, Jesus repeating a common saying or passage, is no indication that he endorsed everything the author of the passage wrote.

But if some convening convening council says “Believe this without any question and do not doubt anything we have done and doubt everything we do not do.” You swallow that hook line and sinker – even though G-d provides a preponderance of evidence to the contrary with such discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You have a preponderance of evidence that 2 billion Christians are wrong? That your church is wrong?

WOW! your attitude is way different than mine – We know Jesus was literate, he could read which means that he could also write. Why do you doubt he ever wrote anything? Do you not remember that he once wrote in the sand?

OK, Traveler--of course Jesus wrote in the sand. It's possible he wrote other things too. However, he did not write anything he intended to be included in the Bible. There is nothing in the gospels, or other New Testament writings that even hints at Jesus having wrote down his thoughts for the church.

If there was only one chance in ten thousand, I would check it out and no way would I leave such a thing to so called scholars to evaluate and tell me if I should accept it or not. Jesus and what he says if far too important to me. Did you not say once that any real Christian could recognize the words (voce) of Jesus on their own without scholars telling them it is okay?

Why do you keep chasing after new things? Far better to master the old things that have stood for 2000+ years.

But if you are not interested – you are not interested. Sorry for all the distractions.

I will be traveling and away for a while.

I'm not sure how to respond. Your tone has turned rather tense of late. I hope the journeying does you good. B)

[Red]

I don't have any doubt that God can reveal or do whatever he wants to do or reveal. What I doubt is that God did or said or cause some of the things that certain unknown authors said to did or revealed, at least in the way the Bible described them.

For example: The all-good God that I beleive in would not kill 42 children for calling someone "bald head." Nor do I think donkey's talk. Nor do I think God commands the murder of married women and kidnapping and rape of virgins.

Yet your kind of all-good God can't keep evil out of the world, and generally doesn't do anything that seems strange to you--he fits nicely in your pocket.

You fail to understand the seriousness of that "bald head" comment to Elija or what really went on when Israel marched against Moab in Numbers 31.

Also, a God who can't or won't talk through a donkey (like a little finger puppet show), probably can't or won't stick his neck out for you.

But then we've hashed all this out before. You are judging God and his word, good luck with that.

The Bible is riddled with mistakes yet I believe it is inspired.

Nonesense - be rational!

[Red]

I won't even bother with that website. Beside being apologetic and thus trying to prove a religious belief, it has or links to anti-Mormon propaganda. I prefer to get my material from reputable sources, preferably disinterested.

There is no such thing as a "disinterested" source. Those who are disinterested are that way for a reason and therefore they have a bias. No matter how much we love to talk big and say, "I try to be fair and unbiased" we cannot actually do that.

Instead, I say embrace your bias! Take hold of it and defend it tooth and nail! Maybe you'll walk out of the arena intact or defeated, at least then you'll knowv first hand whether you were standing on good ground. Opinionated crusaders of the world unite!

[Snow]

Yet your kind of all-good God can't keep evil out of the world

False - I believe God can do anything God chooses to do.

and generally doesn't do anything that seems strange to you--

False - I accept that God has done a great many things that seem strange to me. It seems strange to me that God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, it seems strange to me God allowed his Son to be killed. It seems strange to me that God choose JS to restore his gospel.

You fail to understand the seriousness of that "bald head" comment to Elija or what really went on when Israel marched against Moab in Numbers 31.

And you fail to understand that saying I fail to understand is hardly a rebuttal.

How long have you thought that mass murder was an appropriate response to name calling?

Also, a God who can't or won't talk through a donkey (like a little finger puppet show), probably can't or won't stick his neck out for you.

A benvolent, courageous, powerful God = a deity that make bardyard animals talk.

You should have ended your post before you came up with that little pearl of wisdom.

You are judging God and his word, good luck with that.

False. I am critiquing your understanding of what you think is the word of God.

There is no such thing as a "disinterested" source. Those who are disinterested are that way for a reason and therefore they have a bias. No matter how much we love to talk big and say, "I try to be fair and unbiased" we cannot actually do that.

I think you know full well that I use the word "disinterested" to me someone who is not trying to pump up an already believed relgious or philosophical position.

Let me rephrase it for you... I'd rather use an honest and scholarly source.

[prisonchaplain]

False - I accept that God has done a great many things that seem strange to me. It seems strange to me that God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, it seems strange to me God allowed his Son to be killed. It seems strange to me that God choose JS to restore his gospel.

I really like this particular answer. It is so healthy to read Scripture and think like this. "That's odd. Why would God do that? Did it really happen that way, literally, or is there an even deeper point here?" All such thinking leads to very healthy, useful study and devotional reading.

My own immediate reactions: God wanted to forbid Adam and Eve to do something. The fact that it was eating a certain fruit is, perhaps, ironic, in a garden full of fruit. The key is that the fruit represented a choice: disobey God and learn what good and evil are (by learning the contrast). Additionally, that the Serpent told them that if they eat the fruit they'll be like God, suggests to me that the disobedience was not out of mere curiosity, but out of a desire to, in essence, divorce God, and be on their own.

The crucifixion is something I understand theologically and perhaps even intellectually. However, on a gut-level, it will always strike me as strange. Ditto the requirement for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

The last one puts me in the odd position of saying, "Why?" Why wouldn't God choose someone like Joseph Smith? Perhaps he follows the line of Noah and Abram? Non-LDS Christians question veracity of the message of JS, and only examine his life in search of fodder for their skepticism. So, I'm curious as to what it is about the choice of the LDS prophet and founder that you find curious.

How long have you thought that mass murder was an appropriate response to name calling?

Mass execution--yes. There are many examples of God bringing destruction upon his rebellious creation. Youth mocking the prophet of God would fit right into the pattern. The act would be more akin to you deleting a post (hey, it's your creation), than to you killing Red for questioning your wisdom.

Snow finds it ridiculous that God would literally speak through a barnyard animal.

I think it's hilarious that God would humiliate a prophet--one who was supposed to speak for God--by using a donkey to speak to him! You don't think God has the keenest sense of irony in the universe?

[Red]

Lets take a look at some of the quotes in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament from that portion of the Book of Enoch that has been recovered.

Matt 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”

Matt 13:43 “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

Matt 14:28 “Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Matt 26:24 “Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.”

Matt 24:7, 21, 22, 29, 30 “There shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places...great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.... Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven.... Then shall the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with, power and great glory.”

Matt25:31, 32 “Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another.”

Matt 25:41 “Depart from me, ye cursed, unto everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Is anyone surprised? Jesus himself quoted from the Book of Enoch

As he said, Traveler is aparrently at large somewhere else in the world right now, but did I some digging in response his claims here. Now that I'm on Spring break I have some time...

Just because a New Testament writer says something that sounds a lot like something else my fictional aunt Josephine wrote last week, does not automatically mean that they are quoting her or that her words are scripture.

Now when Jesus says something that sounds a lot like something the writer of Enoch said, how can we can that both Jesus and the Book of Enoch weren't refering to the same OT source? This is what I will show in this post (now that I've read everything up to this point and got my pithy comments out of my system) that Jesus was quoting or alluding to the OT in the above passages from Matthew, not Enoch.

However this discussion is hampered by one thing: traveler showed us a bunch of verses from Matthew but never pointed us to any place in Enoch. I recently downloaded a copy of the book of Enoch but what good will that do me? So if it does turn out that Jesus actually did "quote" Enoch, then this post will still show that the the writer of Enoch also barrowed from the OT

Matt 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”

...quote from Psalm 37:11: "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

Matt 13:43 “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

...allusion to Daniel 12:3: "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (these "wise" who lead others to righteousness must themsleves be righteous).

Matt 19:28 (not 14:28) “Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

...no similar phrase was found in the OT, and of course we can't see where these words are supposed to be in Enoch. But even if these words are found in Enoch, the context in Matthew seems to have nothing to do with quoting any source, but Jesus giving a promise to His 12 apostles.

Matt 26:24 “Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.”

...fulfillment of Psalm 41:9: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (again, whether Jesus quoted Enoch or not, He's definitely forshadowing Judas' fate which fits well with the rest of the narrative. Yes, not being born would be a lot better than hanging myself and having my guts spill out).

Matt 24:7 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places."

...allusion to Haggai 2:22: "And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother." (warfare has a funny way of begetting famines and pestilence. I don't know where OT prophets might speak of earthquakes in the end times).

Matt 24:21-22 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

...allusion to Isaiah 65:8-9: "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there."

Matt 24:29-30 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

...allusion to Daniel 7:11 and quote from Daniel 7:13-14: "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame...I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Matt 25:31-32 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats"

...allusion to Ezekiel 20:38: "And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD."

Matt 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

...perhaps Jesus quoted Himself fropm Mattew 7:23 "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." and this traces back to Psalm 6:8, "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping."

So can we tiumphantly declare that Jesus thought the Book of Enoch was authoratative scripture? No, we cannot.

[Red]

Is anyone surprised? Jesus himself quoted from the Book of Enoch - and what was the reaction of the experts that touted the doctrine of scripture cannon?

John 7:Verse 45-49

45 ¶ Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?

46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?

49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

The Pharisees clearly believed the law was their cannon and Jesus taught and quoted from their non-cannon.

In light of these things now consider this quote

<div class='quotemain'>

God only saw fit that Moses know the Pentateuch, but today He desires that we have the whole OT and NT. Anything outside of that is rejected if it negates the original in any way. So when you say that our canon is leaving out scripture, I respond that there is no other true scripture out there.

I sorrow and regret that the Bible has resulted in this kind of thinking - Why then does G-d allow a cannon as a means that sincere people be deceived? Let us look at Ecclesiastes 1:9-10:

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.”

I submit that the doctrine of cannon which allows man to determine what is scripture and what is not acceptable scripture is a doctrine that began with the Pharisees in the days of Jesus.

The Traveler

Traveler is reading way deep into this passage from John 7.

Consider v.46, "The officers answered, Never man spake like this man." i.e. that Jesus spoke with authority, not that he spoke with anyone else's, let alone Enoch's.

Also, read v.49, "But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." Notice that it does NOT say: "But this people who knoweth not the law, but are obsessed with that dang Enoch book, are cursed."

Traveler said: "The Pharisees clearly believed the law was their cannon and Jesus taught and quoted from their non-cannon."

No, Jesus clearly did have the Pharisee's canon in mind as He spoke. Really, what good would it have done to go quoted from some source that wasn't seen as canonicle to the ruling authorities? Jesus, especially in Matthew, appears as a "stick it to the man" type when it comes to the Pharisees, but deriving His authority from a book like Enoch would not have convicted them like a refernce to Moses, Daniel or the Psalms.

"I submit..." (geez, next time I use that phrase I should wear a tie...) that whaile the word "canon" is used nowhere in the Bible that I know of, the doctrine itself is implicit throughout:

1. God's word is true and pure.

2. Not everything is written from God, so it is necesarry to recognize was is and what is not His word.

3. God does not contradict Himself, so any so-called scripture that contradict what God has previously said cannot be from God.

4. God apoints and guides leaders to sheppard His people--part of shepparding is knowing which writings are good for doctrine, reproof, etc...

All these principles I see at work in the Bible. Lastly, the verses have been quoted already, or the y will be quoted real soon, so I won't here, but Jesus only ever explicitly stated that the OT was authoritative. He never said anything like that about any other writings. Should we exceed what the Lord taught?

[Traveler]

I see the debate continues. I am grateful that there is a beginning of research concerning Enoch. However, there seems to be an effort to create a case for the Bible that just does not stand up to any real scrutiny. What I do not want to do is cast misunderstanding concerning sacred revelation nor am I trying to convince anyone of something they do not want to believe (cast pearls before swine). Basically I have attempted to respond with my personal concerns concerning the Bible. I summarize below

1. That the Bible contains all truth from G-d or that all truth should be measured with the Bible. I hope this is not a continuing issue because I thought it settled. As far as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and a host of other truths known among man – I submit that the Bible is both primitive and lacks credibility in a vast array of truth known to man even when compared to other documents of the same era. I see this issue as settled so far as the threads on the forum are concerned. In short I do not believe that reading the Bible will help at all in preparing for an Algebra, or quantum mechanics course final. I do believe all truth comes from G-d and I believe G-d wants man to understand and know truth. I therefore conclude that G-d intends and wants man to master truths other than what is found in the Bible. I would also submit that the better one understands truth, the better they can understand G-d – which kind of goes along with something I think Jesus the Christ said.

2. That the “Convening Councils” that defined, cataloged, ranked, edited and translated the ancient sacred text were divinely commissioned and made no errors at any place or time and can be completely trusted to define anything and everything ever known about G-d or his work and kingdom among man and that this is uniquely and only manifested in the 66 books that currently comprise the Bible. I do not believe the 66 books of the Bible have any such divine commission or approval.

Concerning the “Convening Councils” I have presented the Book of Enoch as scripture text recognized anciently as sacred scripture. I have suggested that such ancient text was likely used by Jesus and his disciples. It has been argued that Jesus could have obtained the same concepts from many other sources – Oh? I say this is an argument that the Book of Enoch is indeed sacred text. The Enoch text is subject to much interesting debate but those that oppose the Enoch text fail to respond to the argument that the ancient context of use in the New Testament favors Enoch over other sources for the same doctrine. Did Jesus and his followers ever read, study, and use Enoch in teaching sacred and true doctrines? I think Jesus did and I am appalled at the efforts to discredit Jesus and many of his disciples as being ignorant of Enoch – especially in light of Jude that comes right out and says his doctrine came from the Book of Enoch.

The first “Convening Council” to make effort to define a Bible cannon was not the council of Apostles that appears in scripture. This non Apostolic Council gathered in 325 AD and issued several doctrinal edicts including the claim they were the first true convening council – apparently they did not believe the apostles constituted the same authority or power to determine doctrine? Although this inspired council could not agree on a Bible cannon at that time they did present and publish some 100 + points of doctrine they claimed to be inadequately explained in scripture. Those that argue for the inspiration of such a council have some explaining to do in my mind when they then claim the bible is the authority on doctrine because of inspired convening councils. Plus I have already presented some ideas and the supporters of the Bible as cannon have rejected such additional ideas as uninspired. My conclusion here is that most are ignorant concerning these convening councils.

The next problem with these councils is they left a clear “foot print” of how they determined valid scriptures and which ancient text they used as being most suitable. If this was truly inspired then from what we now know (especially from the Dead Sea Scrolls) is that they did indeed leave out some text but even worse they selected the wrong group or family of text as being the most accurate. In other words they said they would use specific text because they were more accurate and then gave the reasons. The problem is that they were wrong – they selected the wrong text even based on their own criteria. This does not bode well in convincing me they were inspired and commissioned by G-d. I also find the excuses presented for these flaws appalling and uninspired.

The final question I raised concerned a document written by Christ. Why is this not in the 100% complete Bible? Once again the reasons given I find appalling and uninspired. If the posters had said with any authority (ie. in Jesus’ name) that it was false or that it was false for specific reason(s); that would be something to ponder but the attitude was that they did not even want to know about it or consider it. I think they implied they are too busy for such a thing. Really? And this was without knowing anything about or concerning such a sacred text. Yet this scripture has been “Cannon” longer than any New Testament scripture in the current 66 book Bible used in Western Christianity and there are good reasons to consider it (an Eastern connection to Wise Men) in the Bible. They want their cannon accepted world wide but they will not consider any other Christian’s cannon? Is this what Jesus taught when he said to treat others as you would be treated? Without even honestly considering it? I think not!!! I am concerned that they can recognize his “voice” as claimed – if there is a better reason for not considering something, I would consider it.

Again I am not posting this because I want to debate the issue or force my view – though I would welcome real and honest input on my questions based on verifiable truths. I post because the question of Bible only cannon was raised and I have given as much of my pearls to be consider as I will in this issue – and I do not think my concerns have been well addressed at all, only rather poor excuses. You are all welcome to your beliefs – But for those that wonder – I submit that there is much more worth seeking, knocking, and asking than what is left to us from convening councils I believe more fit for “Dark Ages”. If you are through seeking, knocking and asking – I wish you well and I am sure G-d will reward you as you expect to be rewarded. As for me I have only begun my seeking, knocking and asking but I did not just fall off a turnip wagon, thank you.

The Traveler

[Ray]

If I understand you correctly, Traveler, you are saying that while you do find truth in all of the sacred texts within what we now know as the “Holy Bible”, you also find truth in many other sacred texts which were and are not included within the collection of texts we know as the “Holy Bible”.

Or in other words, you have no problem with the truth in the texts within the “Holy Bible”, and simply know and claim that there is and will be more.

And if that is what you are saying, I totally agree with you, although you and I may still disagree on what we believe to be true scripture.

[prisonchaplain]

First, welcome back Traveler!

I'd like to briefly deal with a few issues you raised.

1. The Bible is true, but is not the best source for "secular" studies, such as science. Response: Well, sure. Yet, properly understood, there should be no conflicts either. Those who get so focused on "the Bible is true!" that the end up looking foolish defending unncessary interpretations do little good for the kingdom.

2. The Book of Enoch is true because Jesus appears to have quoted from it. Response: Quoting from a book is not the same as endorsing it. We have sayings we quote all the time, and usually don't know the original source, nor do we necessarily endorse all that the author said, wrote, or did. What is clearly Scripture are he words Jesus quoted--not the original source.

3. The alleged writings of Jesus--they'll have to be proven, before they are embraced by Christianity at large. This is not a "debate" each individual decides. Yes, believers do place some trust in their leaders on these matters--as it has always been.

4. The validity of the councils that canonized the Holy Bible. Even the LDS Church accepts the current 66 books. Beyond that, the fact that the Catholic Church, and most other non-LDS Christian groups did not consider the Church from 100-1490 to be in total apostasy, and thus all they did or taught is not so easily dismissed.

I hope I've summarized your points and my responses in a manageable manner. We may have gone over most of this already, but like you, sometimes sense that we inadvertantly talk past each other. B)

[Red]

I see the debate continues. I am grateful that there is a beginning of research concerning Enoch. . . .What I do not want to do is cast misunderstanding concerning sacred revelation nor am I trying to convince anyone of something they do not want to believe (cast pearls before swine). . .

1. That the Bible contains all truth from G-d or that all truth should be measured with the Bible. . . . I therefore conclude that G-d intends and wants man to master truths other than what is found in the Bible. I would also submit that the better one understands truth, the better they can understand G-d – which kind of goes along with something I think Jesus the Christ said.

oink!

c'mon PC let's get out of our chairs and shake those curly-cue's. How about a joke with the phrase "by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin"...mmmm, nah, nothin' came to me. Anyhoo....swine, wow... I suddemly feel safer knowing that I'm not kosher (sp?), i.e. that there's about 11 or so million LESS people out there would like to fry my bacon.

Yes, Jesus did say that that knowing God the Father = eternal life. He also said that to know Jesus = knowing God the Father, not by a pursuit of truth. Don't confuse the creation with the creator--even truth itself. If you are seeking knowledge in order to know God and gain eternal life then you are not following what Jesus instructed, and dancing with something like a works/salvation doctrine.

[Red]

2. That the “Convening Councils” that defined, cataloged, ranked, edited and translated the ancient sacred text were divinely commissioned and made no errors at any place or time and can be completely trusted to define anything and everything ever known about G-d or his work and kingdom among man and that this is uniquely and only manifested in the 66 books that currently comprise the Bible. I do not believe the 66 books of the Bible have any such divine commission or approval.

You misrepresent our position by saying that "the councils" were "divinley commisioned" and "inspired." No, these councils, namely the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., merely officially recognized what had always been recognized.

To my knowledge, the Apostolic Fathers, guys like Polycarp and Clement of Rome, quoted the entire NT in their combined writings except 2 about verses. This shows that our present NT was recognized by Christians at large by the early A.D. 100's. (Tertullian who came later, 155-230 A.D., actually called the Book of Enoch scripture, but he's the only one I know of--he also got wrapped in that Montanist movement, so...).

Also, Jesus never expressly condoned the book of Enoch, or any "sacred' writing outside the OT: "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

This a way of declaring the entire OT as authoritative because it is the OT that records all this bloodshed (though Malachi is last in our OT, Zechariah was actually the last to prophesy). If the OT were not authoritative then how could anyone be held accountable to it? I think that the underlying issue in the passage, the issue that drives the whole context, is the lawyers and Pharisees had in effect rejected the word of God--the very thing they claimed to be holy.

Now does Jesus ever say anything like this about Enoch? I go with PC on this that if God whats to use the wording of some other writer to express His truth then He can do that, but it does not make the source inspired.

Dare I borrow your wording?...sure: I am "appalled" at the tendency of so many to resort to conspiracy theories when it comes to doctrine and canon issues. Really, the argument is based on lack of evidence and that's no argument at all, continually claiming that things were left out when those things cannot be produced except by what you consider to be modern revelation.

And I'll echo PC again, your church, who as far as I know claim to have the authority of God on earth condone the 66 books of the bible!!! Wouldn't it be fair to say that your church leaders actually do approve of the bible and consider themselves to be divinely commissioned? Then why don't you? I do not recall you ever owning up to this inconsistency.

[Red]

The next problem with these councils is they left a clear “foot print” of how they determined valid scriptures and which ancient text they used as being most suitable. If this was truly inspired then from what we now know (especially from the Dead Sea Scrolls) is that they did indeed leave out some text but even worse they selected the wrong group or family of text as being the most accurate. In other words they said they would use specific text because they were more accurate and then gave the reasons. The problem is that they were wrong – they selected the wrong text even based on their own criteria. This does not bode well in convincing me they were inspired and commissioned by G-d. I also find the excuses presented for these flaws appalling and uninspired.

The final question I raised concerned a document written by Christ. Why is this not in the 100% complete Bible?. . . . They [the Nestorian Christians] want their cannon accepted world wide but they will not consider any other Christian’s cannon? Is this what Jesus taught when he said to treat others as you would be treated? Without even honestly considering it? I think not!!! I am concerned that they can recognize his “voice” as claimed – if there is a better reason for not considering something, I would consider it.

That first paragraph feels like something out of Harry Potter: "you know who did you know what," but I'm not sure I do know...elaborate please.

As for the Epistle of Christ you mentioned, I actually did track that one down too. Is this it?...

"ABGARUS, king of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, who appears at Jerusalem, greeting.

2 I have been informed concerning you and your cures, which are performed without the use of medicines and herbs,

3 For it is reported, that you cause the blind to see, the lame to walk, do both cleanse lepers,

and cast out unclean spirits and devils, and restore them to health who have been long diseased, and raisest up the dead;

4 All which when I heard, I was persuaded of one of these two, viz: either that you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these things, or the son of God.

5 On this account therefore I have wrote to you, earnestly to desire you would take the trouble of a journey hither, and cure a disease which I am under.

6 For I hear the Jews ridicule you, and intend you mischief.

7 My city is indeed small, but neat, and large enough for us both.

(The answer of Jesus by Ananias the footman to Abgarus the king, 3 declining to visit Edessa.)

ABGARUS, you are happy, forasmuch as you have believed on me, whom ye have not seen.

2 For it is written concerning me, that those who have seen me should not believe on me,

that they who have not seen might believe and live.

3 As to that part of your letter, which relates to my giving you a visit, I must inform you,

that I must fulfil all the ends of my mission in this country, and

after that be received up again to him who sent me.

4 But after my ascension I will send one of my disciples, who will cure your disease,

and give life to you, and all that are with you. "

At a glance it seems to be good. But as a sheep, I am not hearing my Sheppard here. Off hand I can see why this may have been rejected as a fraud for several reasons:

1. The phrase "you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these things, or the son of God" seems to draw a non-biblical distinction between God and the son of God, as if they were two separate beings...but we know that "Jesus is the image of the invisible God," "to see the Son is to see the Father," and so on. Jesus never addresses this in the letter, so I can see the potrential for deriving a heresy similar to Aryanism, Nestorianism, or maybe even Gnosticism from this text.

2. Another problem arises with: "it is written concerning me, that those who have seen me [Jesus] should not believe on me, that they who have not seen might believe and live." Obviously, there were many who did see, did believe in Jesus and did recieve eternal life. For example: Thomas and the 500 disciples who saw Him ascend. Rather it is those who have not seen who merely recieve a greater blessing. This verse seems to be a sloppy allusion to the prophesy: "having eyes they do not see, having ears they do not hear," which was fulfilled by Jesus' speaking parrables, not being physically seen.

The letter offers no teaching that can't be found more clearly in the Gospels, but also opens the door for heresy. As I understand, it was Eusebius who found this in the archives of Edessa in the 300's A.D. Whether he endorsed it as Holy Scripture I didn't see, but wasn't it the Nestorians who pushed this as scripture? Consider the source: the Nestorians were heretics who believed that Jesus was two persons; the man Jesus and the son of God; that the Son basically indewlt the man. But we know that Jesus the man and Jesus the Son are both one person; two natures in one person: fully man, fully God. We can understand this in terms of the verse: "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

Now yes, I'm throwing around Trinitarian language which the LDS churdch does not buy into, but I know for sure that it does not accept the Nestorian veiw either. And if the LDS leadership is commissioned by God why haven't they sought out all His words like you do, and why haven't they canonized it? Do you know more about what ought to be God's word than they do? Or if you don't, who are you to exceed the limits of what they recognize?

[Traveler]

If I understand you correctly, Traveler, you are saying that while you do find truth in all of the sacred texts within what we now know as the “Holy Bible”, you also find truth in many other sacred texts which were and are not included within the collection of texts we know as the “Holy Bible”.

Or in other words, you have no problem with the truth in the texts within the “Holy Bible”, and simply know and claim that there is and will be more.

And if that is what you are saying, I totally agree with you, although you and I may still disagree on what we believe to be true scripture.

We may indeed agree but I would take some of what I have been attempting to express to the next level. I will use for my example the Old Testament Book of Isaiah. Isaiah as it exists has been translated and modified into plain modern English text with indications of Chapters and verses – as has all Biblical text. The question is, “Is this presentation of Isaiah {The “accurate” Word of G-d}”?

I have book was translated directly from the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll which goes beyond presenting Isaiah with Chapter and verses but also includes several methods to tie together the poetic structure of the original text.

As it turns out Isaiah is the most complex literary form of Hebrew poetry known to exist and the standard chapter and verses and translation hide the complex relationship of what appears to me to be the most complex literary poetic verse of all history. In short with my new translation I can cross reference by poetic literary form and experience more of the rich depth of Isaiah and its divinely inspired poetic meaning. The best comparison I can think of would be to read in plain text Handel’s “Messiah” as opposed to attending a concert where it is presented with full orchestra and 100 voice full part choir.

When someone tells me that the Bible is G-d’s complete inspired word as it was breathed to mankind and that nothing beside the Bible scriptures should ever be considered as pure… I begin to wonder if I am dealing with a nut case set lose or something. I try to inspire them to consider some of the wonderful discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scriptures which have added to our knowledge and understanding of scripture. But if they have their Bible and will not have anything to help them understand their Bible saying stuff like “If it is not in the Bible I do not care or we can’t say it is divinely inspired”. Then that is fine – They just do not have the ears to hear Handel’s Messiah as it was meant to be heard – At least they have the text in the Bible but is that Biblical Isaiah text, G-d’s word as pure as when Isaiah wrote it?

The Traveler

First, welcome back Traveler!

I'd like to briefly deal with a few issues you raised.

1. The Bible is true, but is not the best source for "secular" studies, such as science. Response: Well, sure. Yet, properly understood, there should be no conflicts either. Those who get so focused on "the Bible is true!" that the end up looking foolish defending unncessary interpretations do little good for the kingdom.

2. The Book of Enoch is true because Jesus appears to have quoted from it. Response: Quoting from a book is not the same as endorsing it. We have sayings we quote all the time, and usually don't know the original source, nor do we necessarily endorse all that the author said, wrote, or did. What is clearly Scripture are he words Jesus quoted--not the original source.

3. The alleged writings of Jesus--they'll have to be proven, before they are embraced by Christianity at large. This is not a "debate" each individual decides. Yes, believers do place some trust in their leaders on these matters--as it has always been.

4. The validity of the councils that canonized the Holy Bible. Even the LDS Church accepts the current 66 books. Beyond that, the fact that the Catholic Church, and most other non-LDS Christian groups did not consider the Church from 100-1490 to be in total apostasy, and thus all they did or taught is not so easily dismissed.

I hope I've summarized your points and my responses in a manageable manner. We may have gone over most of this already, but like you, sometimes sense that we inadvertantly talk past each other. B)

We seem to be at an impasse concerning our separate understanding of convening councils and their method of selection of scriptures that comprise what is now the Christian Bible canon and how that relates to what is important scripture. May I summarize our views according to my prejudice as follows?:

Your view => Man shall not live by bread alone but by every decision brought about and edited by a convening council.

My view => Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of G-d. (note the emphasis and importance of the phrase “every word and the source”)

This is not really intended to sound rude but I do not know how else to express it. It appears to me that you lack the means to determine what are in totality the words that proceed forth from the mouth of G-d and therefore you require a convening council to define that for you. On the other hand I demand the right to do it for myself and within the context of the faith I espouse I find no support from traditional Christianity to my point of view.

The basic difference between the LDS attitude of our standard works is that LDS have the attitude that the “Standards Works” (not complete canon) give understanding of eternal covenants and that loyalty to covenants and only through loyalty to covenants, G-d’s word (any and all truth) can be identified and understood (which includes eternalized). It appears to me that the Bible canon as defined is the extent of your (traditional Christian) definition of the word of G-d. Because you believe in canon as being complete (I do not understand an incomplete canon??) therefore it is impossible that even a single word of G-d could exist independently outside the canon. This is why I have brought up others truths such as math and physics. How can there be canon of truth that does not incorporate a vast amount of truth? Or all truth (including what should be canon). If the Bible is not the canon for all Truth from G-d – Then of what is it canon of? If it is not scientific canon what is the purpose of “Intelligent Design”? if not an effort to make the Bible canon of Science? Why call it canon if it is not complete or even close to complete? And why pretend it is complete for religious purposes and rely instead on convening councils that by their published edict teach the Bible is not a complete canon. (case in point the 100 + doctrinal additions published by the first convening council in 325 AD because of their proclaimed alleged errors in scripture.)

The Traveler