There is no such thing as The Bible

Other than the Apochryphal books (which were added by the Roman Catholic Church after the Reformation started, to support their extra-biblical doctrines of purgatory etc., so that they could point to why you couldn't be saved if you weren't a member of the Roman Catholic Church), the other distinctions in the Biblical text do not require a change in any of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Therefore, I find the arguments about the differing manuscripts pointing away from the infallibilty of the Bible as rather unconvincing. I must say, I found one of the earlier postings about the NIV being too pro 'Jesus as the Christ' (if my memory serves me correctly) as rather amusing...I remember reading a KJV only author who tried to argue that the NIV actually de-emphasised Jesus' role as the Christ! I suspect if you look at these things from either side, it can be made to look either way.

If what you say is true about Jews re. the Messiah being a man, as opposed to God as a man, may I ask how you explain the existence of Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as God?

Can I ask you for some examples as to where Christians have 'mutilated' the OT??

Well, I can't speak for the US branch of Jews for Jesus, but as far as I know, Southern Baptists don't exist in Canada, so I guess things are different up here.

Re. the deutero-canonical books, yes , it is true, varying numbers of them are accepted in some circles today...although I do believe some of them have historical value, I noticed that the Hebrews tended to divide the writings into those for the general public and those for the 'knowledgeable and initiated' from about the first century A.D. Of course, the early Christian church ultimately rejected the Gnostic view of religion that was popular at the time, (i.e. that there are hidden meanings that could only be understood by certain initated people). So I think the Jewish distinction was a good and important one. It is true that Augustine said all should be included in the Canon and that the RCC did ultimately take his side, albeit over a thousand years later, at the Council of Trent (1546). My general rule though is to trust the majority of those from whom the manuscripts originated rather than a single man's viewpoint writing centuries later, so I would have to disagree with the RCC and the Greek Orthodox on this one.

Well, of course, if you define Judaism as rabbinical Judaism, then no, Messianic Jews would not be Jewish in that sense.

Which translation/version of the OT do you use?

Can I ask where exactly Jesus is said to have considered the book of Enoch as scriptural?

Let me rephrase that...the RCC "infallibly pronounced" that the Apochrypha was scriptural for the first time in 1546 at the Council of Trent.

Alas, though I have many apochryphal/deutero-canonical books, the book of Enoch is not one of them...I was wondering...in your opinion...what does the book of Enoch contribute to Christianity doctrinally speaking that cannot be found in the 66 books of the Bible that all strains of Christianity accept? Or would you say it is doctrinally consistent with those 66 books?

Thanks for the link Brian, and for your welcome to the website. Will study your link later, bedtime for me right now lol.

I realise some chrches have larger canons than the ones I mentioned but I don't know of any who have smaller. Which of the minimum 66 books are not accepted and by whom?

I am aware Enoch is quoted in Hebrews and Jude...not really sure if that proves anything as far as scripture goes. It does not actually say, the BOOK of Enoch, so it could just be an oral tradition. After all, the NT also quotes a few writings that have never been considered canonical by any church (Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, Titus 1:12). A quote, in and of itself, does not prove the quoted book is inspired. It only shows that the quote itself is true. Besides which, if it is considered a 'false writing', which my sources say it is, then that means it contradicts some teaching of the undisputed NT books. Therefore, both cannot be true.

I have met some Messianic Jews who did grow up Jewish...which to me undermines your point. By the way, I do not consider Messianic Jews to be ex-Christians by any means. If they believe in Jesus as Messiah, they are Christians, whether they are Jewish by birth or religion originally or not. Of course, most of Jesus' original disciples were Jews in the first place...so, how you can say that Jews can't be followers of Jesus sounds like a statement that denies alot of history. The only difference is, Jews for Jesus believe Jesus is the Messiah and live their lives accordingly, other Jews don't but still believe there is a Messiah to come, and live their lives accordingly. One is the example of a Jewish community that believes their Messiah has come, the other an example of one that doesn't.

Of course, the OT canon was in existence at the time of Jesus which is half of the Bible right there! When was the book of Enoch written?