I used
non-canonical books because these were created during the "Intertestamental"
period. In fact, the class is called "Intertestamental Period" or something
close to that.
I do
not think I Enoch is or should be canonical, even though it can be argued that
it's quoted in the Newer Testament.
As far
as the "Majestic Plural" argument for Elohim and the "Us-Our" passages, I can
discuss that in another post if you like.
I
agree there were no Trinitarians in the house on Shavuot/Pentecost because the
"manifestations of God" outnumber three.
--
slade
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 09 December, 2004 08.55
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational?
Slade, I read your paper last night. In your mind, what is the status of such books as Enoch. Your paper seems tp rely heavily on what we consider to be uncanonical books.
I have come to appreciate an importance for a multi-manifested God, whether two or three personalities, whether "Godhead" or "Trinity." BUT, I do not us the statement "Let us make man ....." to argue that point. The reason is that, going back my college days (college, you know, was invented immediately after fire), one prof stressed that the Jewish use of "Elohim" and such statements as above were testimoney, in the Jewish mind, of the largeness of God, not His duplicity. He used to say that on Pentecost Day, after the 3000 were baptised, their still was not a Trinitarian in the house. Comments?
John
