- Aug 11, 2019
- 158
- 55
- 24
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
What’s your opinion on the Apocrypha?
- Thread starter Tyler52
- Start date
HTacianas
Well-Known Member
- Jul 9, 2018
- 8,505
- 9,010
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
If you mean what protestants refer to as the apocrypha, meaning those books removed from protestant bibles, they are fully part of the canon of Christianity and always have been.
Upvote
0
- Aug 6, 2007
- 8,191
- 2,450
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
They are good and worth reading. Also very ancient Christian texts such as the shepherd of hermas are very good. First Enoch is also good. They all edified me and helped me along my path.
Upvote
0
- Mar 10, 2017
- 8,278
- 4,678
- 68
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
It is not in my Bible so it is not relevent to me.
I understand from those who have studied the matter, that the early church elders/father's etc did not consider the books that make up the apocrypha to be scripture.
If you are going to read it, keep in mind one question.
What does this teach me about Jesus and how is that confirmed by scripture.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
True enough, but we still can say something about the Apocrypha.
It is a collection of morality tales. Such tales (not just the Apocrypha's particular entries) do tell a story and a moral is to be learned from them. In no way does that in itself make the Apocryphal books be divine revelation or "God's word."
The nature of these books is different; the historical record such as it can be found in them is unlike the Old Testament which came before these books in time; and no Christian doctrine is based upon anything found in the Apocrypha.
Upvote
0
plain jayne
Active Member
- Aug 11, 2020
- 253
- 366
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Enoch [or 1 Enoch as you call it] says that the angels built the ark and that God sent word for Noah to hide. The Bible says otherwise. The Bible says that Noah built the ark.
Enoch says that when Noah was born - his eyes shot out rays of light, he spoke out loud with God from exiting the birth canal, he had long curly stark white hair and that his father, Lamech, thought him to be more of angel than human. It also says Lamech was terrified and sought out his own father, Methuselah, and then Methuselah looked for and found HIS father, Enoch, to discuss these things with him. The Bible says that Enoch was long "taken" by God was never found again.
Enoch say that the angel Michael and a few of his fellow angels were the ones who saw the wickedness of man before the Flood and that God was unaware and that they had to tell him. It also says that God's first reaction was to send Michael to the earth to "cleanse it from sin". Angels do not have that authority to cleanse anyone or anything from sin. That's the job ONLY of Jesus Christ.
And Enoch, himself? The Bible says that that Enoch, preaching repentance, pleased God and God took him away to walk with Him. And that he was NEVER found again.
The book of Enoch [not written BY Enoch] says that Enoch went to live with the fallen angels - whom the Bible says God has locked away in chains and darkness awaiting judgment day.
The book of Enoch says that "Enoch" was the lawyer for these fallen angels and that he lived with them a very long time and that's where Methuselah found him. It says that those fallen angels who left heaven wanted God to forgive them and asked Enoch to write a document protesting their desire to be forgiven and for Enoch to present it to God on their behalf as their mediator.
I could go on and on and on.
The book of Enoch is not scripture. It contradicts the Bible over and over. It give angels the powers that only God has. It was NEVER considered scripture. It was NEVER in the Apocrypha and it is deceiving people a millions times over today.
Upvote
0
- Aug 6, 2007
- 8,191
- 2,450
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
And yet in God's infinite wisdom he had Jude quote it to us in his short letter. We don't need 1 Enoch though I could probably explain to you truth in it all day long since I have the Holy Spirit which leads me in all truth, but there's no point in that.
what people should know most of all is that people view the Bible the way that you do these things that you believe are not from God. it's easy to condemn just as much as it is to defend it and find truth in it. God did not want 1 Enoch to be part of the Canon for reasons that he knows best. I would recommend the Apocrypha and especially the shepherd of hermas to someone before I recommended 1 Enoch, but it doesn't mean that I am incapable of properly interpreting Enoch in a way that I can derive use from it. And yes I'm aware that the other things I recommend can be criticized too, but I'm also keenly aware of how much the Bible itself can be criticized.
Upvote
0
plain jayne
Active Member
- Aug 11, 2020
- 253
- 366
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Did Jude quote the author or authors of Enoch? Or did both Jude AND the author/authors of Enoch quote Jewish oral traditions handed down from the real Enoch?
I'll leave you to it. For people who swear by the book of Enoch - I've never been able to convince them or move them from their belief that it is the truth. I simply post so that others will know.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
UnpopularOpinion
Active Member
There are some NT gnostic books made to deceive people ( other gospels than the 4 we accept )
There are some OT books quoted by Bible as source to read if you wanted more informations
There are some OT books quoted by Bible that they just exist ( for historical value )
There are some OT books which have prophecy in them but they were not to be added to canon of Bible
on top of these there are commentaries by prophets / teachers , testaments and just historical books
After reading Bible , you can easily discern what is fake and what is not , there are good informations in them
Upvote
0
- Aug 6, 2007
- 8,191
- 2,450
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
It can distract people with things that may not have any benefit for them. It's been years since I've read the book, but if you can't even understand how his angels help to build his church just like the Angels helped to build the ark then I can't help you. I'm not obsessed enough to try to prove that 1 Enoch is good enough for everyone, others have already done the work in trying to show how much the scriptures allude to the book. So your perspective and theirs are available to any who look for it.
If you have not read The Shepherd of hermas you could give it a try though I'm certain you can find something that seems astray. It is among the earliest of Christian works.
Upvote
0
plain jayne
Active Member
- Aug 11, 2020
- 253
- 366
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I agree - you cannot recognize a lie until you know the truth first
Upvote
0
plain jayne
Active Member
- Aug 11, 2020
- 253
- 366
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Firstly = Enoch does not say the angels "helped" build the ark. It says they did it ALONE. Why? Because Noah was hiding. Chapter 10 of Enoch says that God sent an angel named Uriel to tell Lamech to tell Noah to "Hide Thyself!" that the world would be flooded.
Chapter 67 of the book of Noah, inside the book of Enoch, says that God told Noah that the angels were building an ark and when they were finished, God would preserve it so that after the flood that life could come out of it.
The Bible says Noah alone built the ark at God's direct instruction.
Either Noah built the ark at God' instructions or Noah hid at God's instructions while angels alone built it.
Either the Bible is lying or the book of Enoch is lying. One of them is lying and just plainly made up the details.
Secondly - angels do NOT build the church. That's the job alone of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Angels CAN'T build up the church - it's too much of a mystery to them.
1 Peter says that angels "long to look into the things" preached by the gospel and sent by the Holy Spirit from heaven. 1 Corinthians says that angels learn from the church about order and it's "because of the angels" that women should wear a head covering when praying and prophesying in church. Angels are curious about God' great plans for his people.
They are like one who peers over the shoulder of others to see and understand better.
Angels BUILD nothing. Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit build the church. Noah built the ark. To say that the angels have authority in building the church gives them the power of God - they don't have that.
Angels serve God and are ministering spirits to people. They, at God's command, watch over people and nations and fight demonic forces. That's spelled out in the Bible.
Upvote
0
grasping the after wind
That's grasping after the wind
- Jan 18, 2010
- 19,458
- 6,354
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for training in righteousness; ...
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for training in righteousness; ...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 6, 2007
- 8,191
- 2,450
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,451
- 26,881
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
It depends on what is meant by "the Apocrypha". The term "apocrypha" gets used in two different ways:
1) All non-canonical Jewish or Christian (or at least Christian-adjacent, i.e. heretical) works. It covers everything from ancient respected works, but which just don't happen to be canonical, to what might be described as religious romances (works of pious fiction), and also heretical works.
2) As another name for the Deuterocanonical books, i.e. those books which are included in the ancient Septuagint, but which ultimately were not accepted into the later Jewish Canon known as the Tanakh. And which are books which there had been some dispute in antiquity, and which gained a kind of generalized acceptance but which were then called into question by Martin Luther and subsequently not accepted by most Protestant groups.
The Deuterocanonical books are good, of course, but there are disagreements among Christians regarding their canonical status. Specifically Catholics and Orthodox accept them as Canonical Scripture, but most Protestants don't. But whether canonical or not, they have always been accepted as good to be read.
As far as the older definition of "apocrypha", that is as a general term describing a diverse manner of ancient written works, my opinion is going to change dramatically depending on exactly the sorts of books we're talking about. Some ancient apocryphal works have some value, if only historically so. Offering us insight into the thoughts and ideas that existed in the ancient world, and which can in some cases help provide us context. In other cases I think some works have value in recording some traditions and legends that existed among early Christians, with varying levels of value. However heretical works are, well, heretical.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
- Dec 27, 2015
- 3,055
- 1,894
- 69
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Christ often referred to Apocryphal (Deutero-Canonical) quotes when He was speaking.
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic
Jerome Kodell OSB had this to say in his book "The Catholic Bible Study Handbook".
Anyone who thinks they can point to an apocryphal book in the Catholic Bible as uninspired would have a hard time trying to justify their opinion to the Greek speaking Jews of Christ's time, or for that matter, Christ Himself, since He often referred to quotes in those books.
The development of the OT canon was not a straight forward process. Attempts to pin it down to a neat and tidy formula are dishonest.
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic
Jerome Kodell OSB had this to say in his book "The Catholic Bible Study Handbook".
Anyone who thinks they can point to an apocryphal book in the Catholic Bible as uninspired would have a hard time trying to justify their opinion to the Greek speaking Jews of Christ's time, or for that matter, Christ Himself, since He often referred to quotes in those books.
The development of the OT canon was not a straight forward process. Attempts to pin it down to a neat and tidy formula are dishonest.
Upvote
0
Best to think of this question as not Protestant v Catholic but the intrinsic worth of the Apocrypha. For instance Sirach is quite similar to canonical wisdom literature. Many Protestants don't have a problem with reading Christian books and calling them profitable so maybe the Apocrypha can be regarded in that way by Protestants - not canonical but potentially profitable.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
GreekOrthodox
Psalti Chrysostom
- Oct 25, 2010
- 4,121
- 4,191
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
This is the Orthodox POV as the LXX is our official OT, not the Masoretic texts. So our OT is actually a little longer than the Catholic one.
While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the “seventy interpreters” made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the “Masoretic,” was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that “in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions” (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, [New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012] p. 33f).
While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the “seventy interpreters” made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the “Masoretic,” was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that “in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions” (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, [New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012] p. 33f).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
