Book Of Enoch

[hyperdulia again]

I just don't know...Tuth, are you for real?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Why do you hate? Tell the Truth, Truth, do you hate Catholicism? Would you rather see Catholics go to hell then save them? Would you rather condemn them than convert them?

[hyperdulia again]

bumper cars

[ironmonk]

The keys were given to Peter, the Church has the authority to put into the Canon, and take out.

The taking out of a book such as Bel and the Dragon, does not mean that they are not inspired, unless the Church said they weren't.

Looks like it can be spelled w/an H... book of Henoch.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm

God guides the Church. As promised by Jesus.

I trust Christ with my salvation.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Edited January 28, 2004 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

The Book of Enoch was approved by God and Jesus read it but the some Cc's pope and Father rejected it as inspired by God, even banned it. Jesus, Moses, Jews, and God himself approved of it since God gave it to him.

Just for Kicks, go to the Bible, Genesis start at chapter 5 this is the written account of the line of Adam-Jesus. count every seventh generation see what you find in common and get back to us all.

See the power that the Cc claim is very dangerous.

The Church did not ban it.

There is a difference between taking something out of Canon, and banning it...

If you use a protestant bible, you've got no room to talk.

<Refer to my other post>

The Catholic Church is the only church that uses the Septuagint... the kjv doesn't... the NIV doesn't... etc...

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Truth]

Why do you hate? Tell the Truth, Truth, do you hate Catholicism? Would you rather see Catholics go to hell then save them? Would you rather condemn them than convert them?

I don't hold the keys to heaven or hell. You faith in Jesus will surely get you heaven. That is my view on that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The taking out of a book such as Bel and the Dragon, does not mean that they are not inspired, unless the Church said they weren't.

As far as I know the Church has never taken 'Bel and the Dragon' out of the Bible.

'Bel and the Dragon' and 'Susanna' appear as seperate books in some editions of the Bible (such as the NRSV), but they are not really seperate books. In most editions of the Bible which include the Deuterocanonicals (as all Catholic Bibles do) these stories are the last two chapters of the book of Daniel. They are both short accounts of events in the prophet Daniels life. Susanna being the story of Susannah, a maid of the tribe of Judah who was falsely accused by two evil elders and sentenced to death, Daniel, then just a boy, was inspired by God to speak out in defense of the maiden and uncovered the tyranny and lies of the evil elders. Bel and the Dragon is the story of Daniel who, while in the court of King Cyrus, revealed the falsehood and deceptions of the priests of a false-god called Bel and proves that it is a powerless idol of stone. The dragon is another babylonian object of worship that Daniel destroys, thus converting the King to the worship of the One, True and Living God of Israel.

These stories are left out of many protestant bibles and are seperated in some editions of the Bible which include the Deuterocanonicals because many ancient manuscripts of Daniel exist without them and no Hebrew manuscripts exist for these stories (only Greek). The Jews, many centuries ago, dropped books from the OT that lacked an intact Hebrew manuscript tradition thus these stories were removed. The protestant reformers more or less followed suit with the Jews in deciding their OT canon (motivated largely be a desire to be distinct from the Catholic Church). The motivation of the Jews was largely to maintain a purity of their religion and culture in the midst of a crisis of Hellenistic influences and as a reaction against the threat of a flourishing Christianity.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[phatcatholic]

The Book of Enoch was approved by God and Jesus read it but the some Cc's pope and Father rejected it as inspired by God, even banned it. Jesus, Moses, Jews, and God himself approved of it since God gave it to him.

Just for Kicks, go to the Bible, Genesis start at chapter 5 this is the written account of the line of Adam-Jesus.  count every seventh generation see what you find in common and get back to us all.

See the power that the Cc claim is very dangerous.

okay, lets disect this, a line or two at a time:

The Book of Enoch was approved by God

proof please....

and Jesus read it

is this ur proof that it was approved by God? b/c Jesus read it? are you implying that Jesus' knowledge of a work, or his reference to it makes it inspired? i hope not, b/c Jesus' very words are eerily similar to books that yoiu would call "apocrypha" and thus NOT the inspired word of God:

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

could Jesus be quoting these uninspired books? the proof is before you to decide for yourself. either the act of Jesus quoting or referring to a book makes it inspired, in which case you would have to accept the "aprocryphal" books along w/ Enoch, or you will have to continue to reject these books, in which case you would also have to reject your premise that Jesus reading/quoting/referring to a book makes it inspired. now, to continue:

but the some Cc's pope and Father rejected it as inspired by God, even banned it.

we are in agreement that the book was rejected as being inspired by God. but, u say we banned it as well. Proof please....

Jesus, Moses, Jews, and God himself approved of it since God gave it to him.

Proof please. also, be careful using the Bible when you do this, for you just might inadvertently support the deuterocanonical, or "aprocryphal" books as well!

Just for Kicks, go to the Bible, Genesis start at chapter 5 this is the written account of the line of Adam-Jesus.  count every seventh generation see what you find in common and get back to us all.

so, are you saying here that if Enoch's name is found in an inspired book, then the book that Enoch wrote is inspired? first of all, the first statement does in no way logically lead to the second statement.

first statement: Enoch's name is found in an inspired book

alternative first statement: Enoch is found to be in the lineage of Jesus

second statement: The Book of Enoch is inspired

how can you possibly jump from the first statement to the second? there is no logical connection. but, lets say somehow that u can make this quantum leap in logic. James is an apostle. Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem. Does this mean that Protoevangelum of James is inspired? for ur sake, i hope not, b/c u would then be utterly forced to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary! (a doctrine that is well defended in this work). finally.....

See the power that the Cc claim is very dangerous.

from what you have written up to this point, i am failing to see how this somehow makes the Church "dangerous." proof please.

I anxiously await your response to my critique of ur post.

Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

Edited January 28, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Bruce S]

As a broader theme, many speculate that Jesus was exposed to an Essene community near His home as a youngster, so much of what He taught is parallel with Essenic teachings.

Of course, being God/Man himself, he would incorporate only what was applicable to His unique understanding of things, I would personally think that in many things these quotations are generic to the God/Human relationship, and while contained in some books, were more generally part of a body of understanding.

My belief is to treat the Apocryaphal - Deutercannonical books as commentary, worth noting, reading, and gleening for insights. Not to incorporate as fully accurate scripture, there are too many clearly demonstrated errors in some of them for my taste.

Scripture inside of the accepted books, compared with lesser scripture should be the test. Where they agree, the secondary books should be used, where they don't...

Question.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Bruce S

[ironmonk]

As far as I know the Church has never taken 'Bel and the Dragon' out of the Bible.

'Bel and the Dragon' and 'Susanna' appear as seperate books in some editions of the Bible (such as the NRSV), but they are not really seperate books. In most editions of the Bible which include the Deuterocanonicals (as all Catholic Bibles do) these stories are the last two chapters of the book of Daniel. They are both short accounts of events in the prophet Daniels life. Susanna being the story of Susannah, a maid of the tribe of Judah who was falsely accused by two evil elders and sentenced to death, Daniel, then just a boy, was inspired by God to speak out in defense of the maiden and uncovered the tyranny and lies of the evil elders. Bel and the Dragon is the story of Daniel who, while in the court of King Cyrus, revealed the falsehood and deceptions of the priests of a false-god called Bel and proves that it is a powerless idol of stone. The dragon is another babylonian object of worship that Daniel destroys, thus converting the King to the worship of the One, True and Living God of Israel.

These stories are left out of many protestant bibles and are seperated in some editions of the Bible which include the Deuterocanonicals because many ancient manuscripts of Daniel exist without them and no Hebrew manuscripts exist for these stories (only Greek). The Jews, many centuries ago, dropped books from the OT that lacked an intact Hebrew manuscript tradition thus these stories were removed. The protestant reformers more or less followed suit with the Jews in deciding their OT canon (motivated largely be a desire to be distinct from the Catholic Church). The motivation of the Jews was largely to maintain a purity of their religion and culture in the midst of a crisis of Hellenistic influences and as a reaction against the threat of a flourishing Christianity.

The book "Bel and the Dragon" was part of the Septuagint.

The Church did take it out.

http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/katmandu/bible/oldtest.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Not to incorporate as fully accurate scripture, there are too many clearly demonstrated errors in some of them for my taste.

There are no errors at all in the Catholic Bible.

You fail to realize what is meant as "no error". There are many things that are parables, things that were meant to teach a lesson, not be historical fact.

Jesus says that the smallest seed is the mustard seed.

That is not true; why would Jesus say something that was not true? There are many seeds smaller than a mustard seed.

Did Jesus not know? If He is God, He would know.

Answer:

He put the lesson in a way that the people of that time would understand it.

How do we know what is parable and what is literal? Something spoken 2000 years ago in Aramaic, written in Greek, and then to modern day English, HOW CAN WE POSSIBLLY KNOW?

Because of the Catholic Church was around then, and now.

Unless you are infallible, you could be wrong.

The Catholic Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals because Jesus promised to guide her.

Why do you make up your own religion, instead of following what the first Christian's followed... One Faith... True Unity.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

The Jews, many centuries ago, dropped books from the OT that lacked an intact Hebrew manuscript tradition thus these stories were removed.

Oh, I forgot to add...

The Jews dropped the books in 90 AD. Which was called the Messorah, because the translation was completed by the Messorites.

If I recall correctly there wasn't any Hebrew books, that is why they translated the Greek into Hebrew.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Norseman82]

The Book of Enoch was approved by God and Jesus read it but the some Cc's pope and Father rejected it as inspired by God, even banned it. Jesus, Moses, Jews, and God himself approved of it since God gave it to him.

1) It is not in any protestant canon that I know of either.

2) We've established that it was quoted in Jude, but where did Jesus quote it?