> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The Fool wrote: > > > >Non inspired books. Catholic versions of the bible contain Apocryphal > > > >books (that are not considered to be inspired, but are of note). > > There > > > >are other books not in either cannon that are apocryphal, like the > > > >'Gosphel of Thomas' and the 'Book of Enoch' (a glaring forgery written > > > >well after christ). > > > > > > > But it can't be *that* well after, because The Book of Enoch is > > mentioned in > > > one of the letters. Or is the forgery the invention of a book just > > because it > > > was quoted and lost? > > > > The thing I was reading about it suggested it was written at least fifty > > years (but more like 200) after Christ. Doubt I could find it again. It > > _Is_ a forgery. > > Well, your opinion is not shared by mainstream scripture scholars. My > daughter has it in her collection of inter-testiment literature which she > studied as part of her theology degree at a Presbyterian school. I studied > it as part of my course in Persian and Hellenistic Judiasm. IIRC, the > general consensus is that it was written around 150 BCE...but I haven't dug > my notes out on this. When exactly was the Julian calendar implemented? Specifically the Lengths of the months (which are contained within the book of Enoch)? This would be the lower bound of when it could have been written. > The quote in Jude is: > > "It was with them in mind that Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam, made > his prophecy when he said, 'I tell you the Lord will come with all his holy > ones in their tens of thousands, to pronounce judgement on all humanity and > to sentence the godless for all the godless things they have done, and for > all the defiant things said against him by godless sinners.' " > > The Jerusalem bible has a foot note that states: > > Enoch 1:9, probably quoted from memory. Who is to say that the book of Enoch is not quoting Jude? Or that they both are quoting some other long lost source (like those missing books quoted by Samuel the prophet)? > Why would your one source have precidence over the consensus viewpoint of > non-fundamentalist scholars? Perhaps, perhaps not. Are you saying I am a fundamentalist? > BTW it contains the Julian calendar (Listed oddly > > enough, backwards). > > > > I am unsure about the jude reference. There may have been a different > > source, than that which is suggested. The OT contain references to > > several books that seem to have been lost.
