Hot answers tagged

27

Short Answer: The Book of Enoch is not Scripture. As such, the Holy Spirit did not lead the church to include it in the canon of Scripture. The Controversy Jude 1:14-15 says this: It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute ...


24

There was no mandate that the gospels should appear in the order they were written once they were gathered into a collection. This is true of the rest of the New Testament as well. The order is the gospel accounts, the history of the early church, the letters of Paul to churches, to people, letters by other apostles, and prophecy. So, there ...


23

What is considered scripture The Standard Works The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as "standard works" of scripture: The KJV Bible (minus Apocrypha) The Book of Mormon The Pearl of Great Price The Doctrine and Covenants Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the ...


21

Abstract The Jewish canon was still in a state of flux when the New Testament was being written. Therefore, early Christian authors drew freely from a wide variety of works, some of which were excluded from both the Jewish and Christian scriptures at a later date. 1st Enoch falls into that category. The early church probably held theological views most ...


20

I am indebted to Dr. Peter Leithart for his writings and lectures on the Song of Songs. For further reading, you can visit his website. These thoughts might help in approaching the book. Wisdom literature It is helpful to consider the book’s position in the canon as part of the wisdom literature. In Proverbs, the king exhorts his son to seek wisdom and ...


19

It's because the early church fathers thought that Matthew was written first. This is known as the Augustinian Hypothesis, and its namesake, Augustine, writes: Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world [...] are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, ...


18

Wikipedia does a good job of summarizing the heresy, but I want to pull out some source material. Some of the sayings do attest to the synpotic Gospels, but there is a lot of heresy in there too: From the top, selected parts of The Gospel of Thomas: These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. 1. And he ...


15

There are no direct quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. Here is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable). As to "other books quoting them," it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, ...


14

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) listed the books that he considers to be the Word of God ("divinely inspired Biblical canon," in the words of the question) in three places: Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #10325, The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #266, and The White Horse #16. Here is the listing from Arcana Coelestia #10325: The books of ...


14

Most of the books of the Bible were written by different people. An estimated 40 authors wrote the 70 or so books that various Christians accept as "the Bible". Most of these authors wrote independently from each other; if they were contemporaries, they typically did not confer with each other. If they were separated by time, the latter typically did not ...


13

The Bible itself seems to indicate that Jesus performed no miracles until His ministry began. Non-biblical sources may disagree, but they are non-biblical. John 2 records to miracle at the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine. John completes the account with the following statement: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in ...


12

Several reasons: Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew & John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.) Later Councils (I ...


12

The "books" of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :) Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by Peter'...


12

The Book of Jashar is mentioned in two places in the Bible: 2 Samuel 1:18 (NASB) and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar. Joshua 10:12-13 (NASB) Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of ...


11

Historically, there have been two primary understandings of the Song of Solomon - It prefigures the love that Christ has for his church It is an erotic love story Personally, I find it nearly impossible to accept the first, however. I submit, on the basis of SOS 5:3-6, the following: I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? I have ...


11

There is no record of Jesus performing miracles when he was a child that is accepted according to the Bible. There are also these biblical reasons to believe that he did not perform any such miracles: The Bible records no such miracles, and the most remarkable event that the Bible does record is the Finding in the Temple. See Luke 2:46-47: 46 After three ...


10

Some historical background regarding the Canon of Scripture The books that non-Catholics (generally Protestants) call the Apocrypha are called by Catholics the Deuterocanonical books (from the Greek δεύτερος, second; and κανῶν, literally a straight rod or bar, hence a unit of measure, or, by extension, a list). They are called the “second” canon because, ...


10

It is impossible to know for sure without asking the person that said it, but I believe it is most likely, given her description of the individual in question, the historical time frame and the context of the discussion, that she was speaking of a man named Marcion. Who was Marcion? For the first hundred years or so of the Christian faith, documents ...


9

You, my friend, have a hard heart if you can't find anything interesting in Ezra. ;-) And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang ...


9

Briefly: Paul's letters were probably first, beginning with 1 Timothy and Galatians. Romans was a middling book, 2 Timothy was probably his last. They range from 52 ad to 62 or 68, depending on what you think about deutero-Pauline scholarship Of the Gospels, Mark is usually considered to be first, although some have proposed Matthew. Luke is usually dated ...


9

Given the clarification of the question, an entirely new answer is in order. The quick answer is that most of the rest of the NT was written before the Gospels, and was sourced by eyewitnesses in any event. Every writer was in some way written by somebody who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. As such, there would have been no need to go back and read ...


9

The standard resides in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. While there are, admittedly, small variances in the Greek manuscripts (New Testament) in particular, these variances are completely insignificant, consisting mostly of spelling variances for proper names, word order, and very slight verb tense differences, which happen to translate ...


9

The Old Testament and the New Testament are different sections of the library. To think of this division as "insert a title page" is too far off the mark. Imagine, if you will, a library of 66 books, written over the course of 1500 years, by 40 different men (possibly one woman). As each of these works was created, it doesn't make sense to ask "When did ...


9

The answer is most certainly no. The oldest complete Bible that we have is the Codex Vaticanus, dating to between 300 and 325. It contains 68 books: 45 Old Testament books plus 23 New Testament books. The Old Testament includes 2 Esdras (sometimes called "Ezra-Nehemiah"), Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon. The New Testament lacks 1 ...


9

Actually, in his magnum opus "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (ICR), he cited Tobit, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Siriach. The Geneva Bible, which Calvin accepted and fostered, also contains the Deuterocanonical books. This doesn't say however that Calvin accepted them as having the same rank as others books. In fact, he wrote precisely about this. ...


9

At the Council of Trent, the Church officially declared as dogma the canon of Holy Scripture. This included "the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." The council did not explicitly say whether the Longer Ending of the Gospel is canonical. However, it does declare that if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books ...


8

In the Catholic tradition, there 3 types of historical writings dealt with here: biblical writings and/or non-biblical writings known as Apocrypha. Canononical works Deuterocanonical works Apocrypha (non-biblical works) The OP states that there are several books "used in addition to the same Old Testament canon used by Protestants", but also calls these ...


8

One of the closest examples would be Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans. Scholarship is divided about the authorship, whether it is Paul or a Marcionite forgery - but the point is that at the time, when canonization was occurring, it was not accepted as such. Most everything else (Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc...) was pretty much rejected even at the ...


8

I think that the easiest answer is that it was excluded because it was never properly included. None of the groups who formed a version of the canon felt that this book accurately reflected Jewish values sufficiently to be included in the Tanak or the LXX. Christians just followed suit. Just because a book is cited by the Bible, that does not make for ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible