Deuterocanonical books.

[Erose]

You mis-spoke I believe...

Let me help you, you saidYou meant to sayThere. Better?

It kinda depends on which Enoch doesn't?

 

[SummaScriptura]

It kinda depends on which Enoch doesn't?

Not really. There's only one which is disputed among Christians. For some 1 Enoch (aka Ethiopic Enoch, DSS Enoch, The Book of Enoch) is pseudepigrapha, for others it is apocryphal and for other it is Scripture. There is no other book which fits that bill.

 

[Erose]

Not really. There's only one which is disputed among Christians. For some 1 Enoch (aka Ethiopic Enoch, DSS Enoch, The Book of Enoch) is pseudepigrapha, for others it is apocryphal and for other it is Scripture. There is no other book which fits that bill.

I know that the Ethiopian church views that their version of 2 Enoch has some canonicity; but which Christian Church views 1Enoch as Scripture?

Note looked it up. They see 1Enoch as canonical, so I revise my question and ask who sees 2Enoch or 3Enoch as canonical?

 

[single eye]

Squint, please stop changing the subject. We were not discussing the AOJ, the topic is who was qualified to write scripture. This was established and demonstrated by Jesus, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with Him.

 

[single eye]

to MoreCoffee, here is what we know about the ten commandments. We are told that a list of commandments in ex. 20:1-17 are the ten commandments. Then we are told that another list in ex. 34:12-36 are the ten commandments. It is clear that these 2 lists are very different, thus making them contradictory. Here is what we know about contradictions, they are not permitted in scripture. Therefore, exodus cannot possibly be scripture and there is no such thing as a ten commandments.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I know that the Ethiopian church views that their version of 2 Enoch has some canonicity; but which Christian Church views 1Enoch as Scripture?

Note looked it up. They see 1Enoch as canonical, so I revise my question and ask who sees 2Enoch or 3Enoch as canonical?

I am officially confuded.

1 Enoch is canonical to Orthodox Ethiopians and others who choose to accept it. How does 2 and 3 Enoch figure into this? By the way, it is you who were first to confuse this thread by menitioning 2 and 3 Enoch, not me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

to MoreCoffee, here is what we know about the ten commandments. We are told that a list of commandments in ex. 20:1-17 are the ten commandments. Then we are told that another list in ex. 34:12-36 are the ten commandments. It is clear that these 2 lists are very different, thus making them contradictory. Here is what we know about contradictions, they are not permitted in scripture. Therefore, exodus cannot possibly be scripture and there is no such thing as a ten commandments.

Let me guess, you see yourself as "one of the saints" and you have the authority to make these sorts of decisions.

Golly gee wiz, hubris is yay!

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Targaryen]

to MoreCoffee, here is what we know about the ten commandments. We are told that a list of commandments in ex. 20:1-17 are the ten commandments. Then we are told that another list in ex. 34:12-36 are the ten commandments. It is clear that these 2 lists are very different, thus making them contradictory. Here is what we know about contradictions, they are not permitted in scripture. Therefore, exodus cannot possibly be scripture and there is no such thing as a ten commandments.

Wow...hetrodoxy.

Do you forget that this is a forum for orthodox discussions on Christianity?

 

[single eye]

LAC, heterodoxy, in other words you could not defend the contradiction.

 

[Targaryen]

LAC, heterodoxy, in other words you could not defend the contradiction.

You do know what hetrodoxy means right? If not, let me point it out to you:

Therefore, exodus cannot possibly be scripture and there is no such thing as a ten commandments.

That is hetrodoxy. The sheer denial of Scriptural texts and even the outright rejection of Scripture.

Again, this is an orthodox forum, hetrodox matters like that have a forum already designed for them. If this is your "position" then you would be better served to voice those in a forum suited to hetrodoxy.

 

[squint]

Squint, please stop changing the subject. We were not discussing the AOJ,

You're right. You inserted that matter.

the topic is who was qualified to write scripture. This was established and demonstrated by Jesus, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with Him.

I think it's generally recognized that the Spirit of Christ was in the writers. So who was writing?

As to the latter, hear it all the time. Especially from fringe sections.

 

[Knee V]

Please point out the specific contradictions in what is being commanded in those two lists.

 

[Blessedj01]

X

 

[Blessedj01]

That is actually a profound statement. It is predicated on the fact the author of the Bible is the One who is wholly other.

Exactly, so I don't believe people when they say scripture was rejected "because it was weird."

 

[single eye]

ViaCrucis, rather than quessing how I see myself why not be respectful and ask like a normal person. I believe that Jesus established and demonstrated the qualifications for writng scripture in the gospels. You must have been personally invited to abandon everthing else to follow Jesus day and night for over 3 years before receiving advanced training by Another Comforter a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth. Only the saints meet these qualifications, and I certainly do not claim to be one of them. I do have enough sense to know that they did not write any of the o.t. or most of the n.t.

 

[squint]

ViaCrucis, rather than quessing how I see myself why not be respectful and ask like a normal person. I believe that Jesus established and demonstrated the qualifications for writng scripture in the gospels. You must have been personally invited to abandon everthing else to follow Jesus day and night for over 3 years before receiving advanced training by Another Comforter a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth. Only the saints meet these qualifications, and I certainly do not claim to be one of them. I do have enough sense to know that they did not write any of the o.t. or most of the n.t.

Seriously you need to take a hiatus to the unorthodox section here as these kinds of statements are so off the wall it's not even in the christian remote radar zone.

The posters here will get out their shovels and dig til they find your heretical source (rightfully so,) which is already openly on display.

Not everyone who wears Jesus paint on their lips is christian.

 

[rick357]

ViaCrucis, rather than quessing how I see myself why not be respectful and ask like a normal person. I believe that Jesus established and demonstrated the qualifications for writng scripture in the gospels. You must have been personally invited to abandon everthing else to follow Jesus day and night for over 3 years before receiving advanced training by Another Comforter a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth. Only the saints meet these qualifications, and I certainly do not claim to be one of them. I do have enough sense to know that they did not write any of the o.t. or most of the n.t.

So you only take as scripture Matthew..John(maybe) the epistles of Peter and John(maybe) and revelation(maybe)....and deny deuteronomy. Isaiah. and psalms from wich Jesus quoted and drew a great many of his conclusions...???what???

 

[Erose]

I am officially confuded.

1 Enoch is canonical to Orthodox Ethiopians and others who choose to accept it. How does 2 and 3 Enoch figure into this? By the way, it is you who were first to confuse this thread by menitioning 2 and 3 Enoch, not me.

Perhaps there was some misunderstanding the discussion. You are speaking only of 1Enoch.

 

[Erose]

ViaCrucis, rather than quessing how I see myself why not be respectful and ask like a normal person. I believe that Jesus established and demonstrated the qualifications for writng scripture in the gospels. You must have been personally invited to abandon everthing else to follow Jesus day and night for over 3 years before receiving advanced training by Another Comforter a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth. Only the saints meet these qualifications, and I certainly do not claim to be one of them. I do have enough sense to know that they did not write any of the o.t. or most of the n.t.

So if the OT isn't Scripture, why did Jesus and the Apostles treated as such?

 

[single eye]

Squint, my source is what was written in scripture by the saints. Are you calling the saints heretics?