PabloSerna said:

---

"Banned book"

I guess that it was deemed not inspired by God doesn't sound as good?

---

Who made that call and why?

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"Banned book"

I guess that it was deemed not inspired by God doesn't sound as good?

---

Who made that call and why?

---

People. People made that call. People have made all the calls. From the beginning of time.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"Banned book"

I guess that it was deemed not inspired by God doesn't sound as good?

---

Who made that call and why?

---

The easiest answer is God made the call. Why? Because it wasn't a book divinely inspired by Him.

The second is that it was never considered part of the canon of the OT. We have good historical record of what books the Jews kept in their canon and it was not there.

---

His revealed that Enoch is scripture through Ethiopian Orthodox church.

What are the criteria for "divinely inspired'? Who, what delivered that memo? Who allowed them to be written in the first place?

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

Sorry to disappoint and again point out the fact that God (not ET) works through his creation. God (not ET) has written his law upon the hearts of man. So when Jesus (son of God, not ET) came into this world, he came to bear witness to the truth and establish a church that began with 12 men and numerous disciples (other men, women, and children).

When Jesus (son of God, not ET) died, resurrected, and ascended into heaven- he promised to send God's spirit (not ET) to guide the church until the end of time. It is this spirit (not ET) that has guided the church to determine which books of many were to be included in a canon of scripture (Bible). This canon has been the same since then. HTH

---

Not really. I say that enough. And for good reason. Just curious how other Christians are approaching the reality and the potential implications.

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

We shall.

Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter:
1st Director of the CIA (1947-1950)
"It is time for the truth to be brought out....Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officials are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense....I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about Unidentified Flying Objects."
Hillenkoetter, Roscoe; "Aliens from Space", Major Donald E. Keyhoe, 1975

(Please note the "dangers" that Hillenkoetter talks about are from SECRECY not from the UFOs.

Yeah canon is not some declared thing. Its objective - canonical writings for any given community are the writings that function as canonical within that community. The canon has been different in different Jewish communities and different later Christian communities over time. There were variances in canon between small-o orthodox Christian groups over time.

The writings a community uses as canonical are also ways for other communities to recognize them as small-o orthodox or heretical/heterodox sects.

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

We shall.

Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter:
1st Director of the CIA (1947-1950)
"It is time for the truth to be brought out....Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officials are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense....I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about Unidentified Flying Objects."
Hillenkoetter, Roscoe; "Aliens from Space", Major Donald E. Keyhoe, 1975

(Please note the "dangers" that Hillenkoetter talks about are from SECRECY not from the UFOs.

---

It also does not mean the unknown/unidentified flying objects were of an other worldly nature.

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

Tough crowd.

747Ag said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

Tough crowd.

---

No doubt. It's a reality that many find troublesome. Hence, my activity to "break" folks in gently. Would be irresponsible on my part if I didn't.

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

747Ag said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

Tough crowd.

---

No doubt. It's a reality that many find troublesome. Hence, my activity to "break" folks in gently. Would be irresponsible on my part if I didn't.

---

I think we're past the just posting a video without explanation or vague pointless statements. You've exhausted the first step of "breaking us in". Please now, impress us with something new instead of the same old played out George Noory ancient aliens bit.

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

747Ag said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

Tough crowd.

---

No doubt. It's a reality that many find troublesome. Hence, my activity to "break" folks in gently. Would be irresponsible on my part if I didn't.

---

I put a smiley face on that post. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. I enjoy your posts,

PabloSerna said:

---

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

747Ag said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

Tough crowd.

---

No doubt. It's a reality that many find troublesome. Hence, my activity to "break" folks in gently. Would be irresponsible on my part if I didn't.

---

I put a smiley face on that post. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. I enjoy your posts,

---

No prob. Never hurts to reemphasize things. No ruffled feathers at all. It's an amazing time to be alive.

jrico2727 said:

---

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

747Ag said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You want us to say "ET" don't you?

---

He didn't phone home, so I guess Elliot is out of the question too? Sorry for the humor break. Carry on.

---

Tough crowd.

---

No doubt. It's a reality that many find troublesome. Hence, my activity to "break" folks in gently. Would be irresponsible on my part if I didn't.

---

I think we're past the just posting a video without explanation or vague pointless statements. You've exhausted the first step of "breaking us in". Please now, impress us with something new instead of the same old played out George Noory ancient aliens bit.

---

I just want a video of Elliot and ET riding a bike, but in the air, and in front of the moon.

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

What are the criteria for "divinely inspired'? Who, what delivered that memo? Who allowed them to be written in the first place?

---

For the TaNaKh (or "Old Testament"), the judgement was made by the Sanhedrin. The New Testament was canonized by some ecumenical councils in the 300's.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

What are the criteria for "divinely inspired'? Who, what delivered that memo? Who allowed them to be written in the first place?

---

For the TaNaKh (or "Old Testament"), the judgement was made by the Sanhedrin. The New Testament was canonized by some ecumenical councils in the 300's.

---

Thanks

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

What are the criteria for "divinely inspired'? Who, what delivered that memo? Who allowed them to be written in the first place?

---

For the TaNaKh (or "Old Testament"), the judgement was made by the Sanhedrin. The New Testament was canonized by some ecumenical councils in the 300's.

---

Your second sentence isn't correct.

No ecumenical council canonized the Scriptures.

There were local councils that would list the books they used as a "canon" or collection for the purposes of their council, but there was no ecumenical level council.

Is that because it was obvious to everyone at the time?

PabloSerna said:

---

Is that because it was obvious to everyone at the time?

---

In a sense yes.

The Church Fathers who looked towards the Jews to understand the "Hebrew Bible" were consistent in saying the OT was 22-24 books (depending on how different Jewish groups) combined books.

When it comes to the NT, as early as you get, the Gospels and Pauls letters were in wide circulation, usually in a set. Some of the NT did not circulate as widely or there was questions about, and so those took longer to spread and eventually find acceptance.

It was understood that the apocrypha were not books widely accepted by the Jews as "canon" though they were known and used.

Then there's the definition of canon itself. It wasn't as defined as it would become. In many cases, there were books that were "God's Word" and then "useful books" all combined into a singular "canon." It was understood that there were differentiations between the two classes. This differentiation was sustained really until the Reformation.

You say tomato, I say tomato...

"apocrypha" vs. "deuterocanonical"
"reformation" vs. "counter-reformation"

The word apocrypha isn't a negative term. It's simply the historical term dating to at least Jerome who used it in his prefaces in the Vulgate for certain books or portions of books that were either outright spoken against or were not found in Hebrew.

So if you wanted to be historically accurate in your language it seems to be the proper term to use.

The best I could find quickly (i.e. Wikipedia) says deuterocanonical is really a medieval Latin term.

So it's really a question of how accurate we want to be to history.

Lord of Spirits just put out a great episode on the Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs, which is a second temple jewish book. Its apocryphal but not in the sense like Enoch where Enoch is viewed as one of the 'first books' left out. This book is obviously not written by the twelve patriarchs because its written post rise and fall of the first temple.

They bring up an interesting point in the middle of the podcast. This was literature produced and preserved by 2nd temple jews. But, after the time of Jesus you see that the only surviving copies come down the Ortho-Catholic early church and it stops being a book important enough to copy among the Pharisaical line. And when you read the testaments its pretty obvious why- its chuck full of prophetic language that is so pro Christ that historians accuse Christians of inserting Christ like language into it.

Again, canon is way more about who is copying a text, preserving it, and why. And much less about a counsel and a list. 2nd temple jews and the orthodox church would agree this book is good to be read at home. Modern jews would not.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/testaments_of_the_twelve_patriarchs

I'll give it a listen, but will be honest that I struggle with DeYoung. I don't find him convincing in many of his statements and he tends to rely on being on EO focused conversations to avoid real challenges to his position.