There is no such thing as The Bible

There is no one accepted Canon. And when the first Bibles were created, no guidance was given except that they should be beautiful. No mention was made of what should be included or what was scripture, what was not.Quotes of Jesus and parts of the NT Gospels that were eventually included in most Canon show that Jesus certainly considered the Book of Enoch (usually called Enoch 1) as part of Scripture yet in most Canon it is excluded.The actual creation of the Bible was far more celebratory and self-serving than theological. They were created to be placed in the new Churches being built in Constantinople, more as decorative pieces than instructional.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Several of the quotes he used were from the Book of Enoch. Remember, during his lifetime that was the scripture. There was no Gospel as we know them. No Bible.The parts in Hebrews and Jude that talk about Enoch were from the Book of Enoch.In addition Enoch 1 is a Canonical book in several Christian Churches.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is no such universal Canon.Before we go any further I need to know that you understand that one simple fact. There is no such thing as a universal Canon.As I mentioned in an earlier message, the parts in Hebrews and in Jude that refer to Enoch were plucked from the Book of Enoch.Enoch fell into disfavor at the Council of Laodicea but it is still part of the Canon of the Ethiopian Christian Church,one of the oldest extant Churches.It is not Apocryphal. It was though lost for many, many centuries.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The Samaritans recongnize only the first five books of the Bible. The Syrian Church rejects 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelations and 2 Peter. The Ethiopian Church has the largest Canon, in fact two different Canons, one called the Wide Canon, the other the Narrow.But again, at the time of Jesus, none of this mattered. There was NO Canon at all. Enoch was very popular at that time and the fact that Jesus quoted from it and the authors of Hebrews and Jude used it as base material indicates how broadly it was accepted.When Jesus or Paul or others spoke of Scripture, they were not talking about what we call the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, Revelations, 1,2 or 3 John, Paul's writings, none of what we call the New Testament even existed. Even the OT was not fully organized as we know it today. Scripture was the books of the OT and those that were in circulation at that time. It also included the Talmudic discourses and you see time and time again, Jesus holding Talmudic debates with the clergy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you look at the record, the translation and compilation of the Septuagint only began around 300 BC. The work continued and additional works were added and others removed well into the Christian Era. This can be seen in the differences between the LXX and MT texts of the work as well as the differences in style between the translations of the different books.The whole creation of what would become fixed Canon was a dynamic and ongoing process. It was one of argument, revision and redaction.Agin, these existed as individual texts. Each stood alone. Until Constantine there was no single work that contained all of what would be considered a Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But Christians did include 1 Enoch in their Canon. So from a Christian perspective, it did meet the test.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm talking about official Canon of Christian Faiths. Enoch (actually both Enochs) are included in the Ethiopian Christian Church, one of the oldest extant Christian Faiths, predating even the Roman Church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What the hell are you talking about.The Ethiopian Christian Church pre-dates the Roman Church.The Syrian and Samaritan Churches pre-date the Roman Church.They ARE the Historic Christian Church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

IMHO it's important to also remember the Talmudic Tradition. This is important for several reasons.First, by design it was maintained as an oral format. For most of early Jewish history it was oral only by consent, students memorized what earlier Rabbis had said on a subject, nothing was ever written down.Second, an acknowledged and accepted practice was 'Argument in the style of'; had Rabbi so-and-so addressed this issue he would have said "...". These attributions were not written as we would today, as I outlined above, but rather simply inserted as though the person had actually made such a statement.Third, its very existence shows that very little of the laws and ceremony were accepted as being literal. It was acknowledged that all existed in a cultural context and so must be viewed subjectively in relation to other things going on at the time. This is particularly evident in areas such as defining work on the sabbath, when to celebrate holidays or what constitutes a contract or obligation.Fourth, Judaism was seen as a very practical, everyday social structure beyond simple religion. It was an outline for every step in life and every social interaction. It was totally invasive and meant to control and direct social, day to day, interaction between Jews, between Jews and non-Jews, and between non-Jews living within a Jewish community.Finally, there is no answer to any question in the Talmudic Tradition, no one correct answer. Instead there is a recognition, a celebration even, of differing viewpoints.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree. One of the biggest problems I see with understanding Christ and Christianity is that folk forget that Jesus was a Jew, a Rabbi raised in the Talmudic tradition.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah, yet another lying historian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think what folk are saying is that none of the truths in Christian Faith depend on the Canon, any Canon.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

does "Love thy neighbor as thyself" still hold validity even if everything in the Bible was no more than tales told around the campfire?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Suppose there was NO GOD. Would the message still be the same?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are wandering far afield. If there were no GOD would the message "Love others as you love yourself" still have the same significance?If not, explain.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion