Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

In addition to the issues pointed out in the two replies above, why must a true Canon contain the New Testament?The Law and the Prophets was good enough for Jesus, must man add more?Second, what the hell is the "True" New Testament?Where's 1 Enoch?Who decides what is the "True" New Testament?By Orthodox Church do you mean the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Samaritan Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church?

Jude is not referencing the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was not around when Jude was written. Jude is referencing a common theme throughout the Old Testament and is more likely referencing Deuteronomy 33:2 but the idea is also found in Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalms 96:3. In reality, both Jude and the book of Enoch are referencing the same idea listed in the verses above, mainly Deuteronomy 33:2.While it is true that all other canons include the books of the protestant canon and the protestant canon contains a few books not referenced in the New Testament, a criteria must be established for books not referenced in the New Testament. All of the apocryphal books never make a claim to divine inspiration or make a claim to divine authority. All the books of the protestant Old Testament DO either make a claim to divine inspiration or a claim to divine authority either explicitly such as "Thus saith the Lord", or implicitly such as the book of Esther when it provides authority for the celebration of the Jewish feast of Purim.Only the protestant canon has all the books referenced in the New Testament and does not contain any books that do not make a claim to divine inspiration or authority.

The topic is the superiority of the protestant canon. You are disputing the very idea of a canon. You cannot make an argument against the superiority of the protestant canon if you don't even acknowledge the legitimitacy of the idea of a canon in the first place.

quote:

---

Jude is not referencing the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was not around when Jude was written.

---

1 Enoch is pre-Christian, so it certainly was around when Jude was written. And Jude explicitly cites the words as coming from Enoch (the man), which I do not think you will find in Deuteronomy.

quote:

---

While it is true that all other canons include the books of the protestant canon and the protestant canon contains a few books not referenced in the New Testament, a criteria must be established for books not referenced in the New Testament. All of the apocryphal books never make a claim to divine inspiration or make a claim to divine authority. All the books of the protestant Old Testament DO either make a claim to divine inspiration or a claim to divine authority either explicitly such as "Thus saith the Lord", or implicitly such as the book of Esther when it provides authority for the celebration of the Jewish feast of Purim.

---

I think you will find that many books in your canon do not make such a claim. How about Luke, for instance ? Or Jude, since it's come up here and it is very short. (And even where the books do make such a claim it only covers a part of them).And you still haven't addressed the validity of your criterion for the NT books. What do you mean by the "orthodox" Church, and why is its choices superior to any alternatives ?

Um, Jude directly quotes Enoch. I don't know which version of the Bible you'd have me quote from, I just use biblegateway.com and their default is the NIV. So that's what your getting until you specify otherwise:

quote:

---

Jude 1

​

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

---

Jude says that Enoch said it and there's even quotation marks. Here's the line from Enoch:

quote:

---

Enoch 1

​

9. And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of {His}holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy {all} the ungodly:

​

And to convict all flesh
Of all the works {of their ungodliness} which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners {have spoken} against Him.
source

---

Here's that one:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 33

​

1 This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death.
2 He said:
The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned over them from Seir;
he shone forth from Mount Paran.
He came with {a} myriads of holy ones
from the south, from his mountain slopes.

---

So yeah, its talking about a lot of holy ones, but the line from Jude lines up exactly as a quote from Enoch. Not according to wiki:

quote:

---

It is generally accepted by scholars that the author of the Epistle of Jude was familiar with the Book of Enoch and was influenced by it in thought and diction.

---

. Which version of the Bible are referring to as this? There's this chart on wiki that explains the differences, but if I go to pick a "version" of the Bible from a dropdown list on biblegateway, which one is the "protestant" one?

Nonsense.I don't dispute the legitimacy of any Canon.Each Canon is legitimate since each Canon was created by an authorized Committee of Canon.The issue is why the protestant canon is superior.Why must a true Canon contain the New Testament?Second, what the hell is the "True" New Testament?Where's 1 Enoch?Who decides what is the "True" New Testament?By Orthodox Church do you mean the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Samaritan Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church?

You could not possibly have made any attempt to verify this before stating it as fact. All of the book of Enoch predates the birth and ministry period of Jesus Christ. Most of the book dates from centuries before Jesus was born. Jude dates from some time after the crucifixion and resurrection. Could you provide a source for this claim. I don't believe you checked this either. Let's look at the relevant passages from each.KJV Jude 1:14-15

quote:

---

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying , Behold , the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed , and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

---

Enoch 1:9

quote:

---

9. And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones
To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.

---

I'd suggest that Jude was quoting from Enoch and not merely citing a common theme. The other Biblical verses you cite don't contain anything resembling the wording used in Enoch and Jude. I've used your main source below:Deuteronomy 33:2

quote:

---

And he said , The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

---

Wow. No resemblance at all. Authorship and inspiration are not the same thing. And your evidence of claims of authorship is sorely lacking.Yes, there are quotes written in the first person, but that's a far cry from saying that God wrote the quotes or the description of events surrounding the quotes. You'll find far more references to God in third person than first person. Seriously? This is the type of claim of inspiration that makes you believe that every word of the book of Esther is dictated by God?

Protestants never seem to stop amazing me with everything they think they know, compared to the reality of the situation. I eagerly await an answer to yet another "house of cards" scenario like this one. Pax vobiscumEdited by AdminPD, : Warning

Its crazy how convoluted and complicated the protestant explanations for obvious errors and falsehoods can get. The mental gauntlet they have to get through is amazing. And it turns the faith in to this complicated puzzle that has to have all these disarranged parts put into a specific and precise arrangement and then: 'Viola! Look everything is so perfect!' Evangelical Protestant Christianty is God's Rubik's Cube. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : clarificationEdited by AdminPD, : Warning

It's not all Protestants. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

How is a claim like "Thus saith the Lord" different from a statement like "Long John Silver said"?

I've shown you the evidence. It's not really deniable. Every other Christian canon of the OT includes all the books in the Protestant canon. They've got every single one of the books in the Protestant canon. There is not a single OT book in the Protestant canon that is not also in every other Christian canon.So they've got all the books. The argument you need to make as a Protestant is that they've got too many books. But you can't make an argument that Protestants are special because they've got all the genuinely inspired OT books, because all the other Christians have got these books too.I'm not going to argue with you about anything else unless you admit that. Also, I don't think anyone else on these forums should try to argue anything with you about anything until you can admit that, because until you can admit that a subset is always a subset of its superset, then I don't see how anyone can try to argue with you as though you were a rational person.

There is the Samaritan Orthodox Canon that contains only those books that had been canonized at the time Jesus lived. They consider everything else as extra-canonical.

semantics much?of course not all of them. the originals who broke with the catholic communion (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.), the post-catholics are NOT the ones I was referring too.I am mostly talking about the "i read the bible all by myself and now I am going to create my own faith" christians. I think "most" evangelical protestants fall into this category (Baptists, Pentacostals, 7th day adventist); aka the American Christians. you know the sort of crazy that isn't-allowed-in-Europe-Christians. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I'm a bit puzzled, and perhaps it is because I am not parsing your sentence above properly.You seem to be using the term "Protestant" to refer to a class of worshippers that excludes Lutherans. Such a usage would be ... non-standard, and it should not be too terribly surprising if someone did not pick up on that usage without some help. Edited by NoNukes, : Bad use of the word "to". I'm glad I didn't do any grammar flames in my post.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning