They should have removed ALL the books of the Old Testament that aren't quoted by the New Testament. It's only logical
>>18530939Anon, that is Gnosticism
>>18530959no it isn't, there's no esoteric knowledge being passed on on secret here
>>18530939Judges and Ruth are very important and Zephaniah has a strong warning about the day of God's wrath. Jonah puts God's mercy in display.
>>18530959It would be closer to marcionism, most gnostic groups have their own gospels
>>18531268If they're so important they would've been quoted in the NTThere's no reason to accept the Masoretic canon at face value
>>18531547The New Testament quotes the Book of Enoch, so do you accept it as canon?
>>18530939Indeed it didn't go far enough. Should have gotten rid of that entire mouldy trashheap.Except Ecclesiastes. That one's the only one worth the paper it's written on. Pure sovl from verse 1.
>>18531553Enoch wasn't part of any ancient canon it also quotes Greek philosophy
>>18531568Yes it was. All the ancient Hebrews from Shem to Jude read it. Paul may quote random Greek philosophy but Jude quotes an entire prophecy from the book of Enoch word for word and used it as a testimony of what was going to happen to the wicked in the end, which means he 100% believed Enoch's prophecy was legit and something that will 100% happen in the end times.Which means the NT endorses the book of Enoch and believes the prophecies in it are real prophecies spoken by God.
>>18531268>Zephaniah has a strong warning about the day of God's wrath.Oh yeah, that's definitely something the Bible was lacking otherwise.
Jonah gets a clear reference in Matthew 12:40, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
>>18531713Also Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah from Judges are mentioned in Hebrews. And Ruth appears the Matthew genealogy as Jesus descendant.
>>18530939Why stop there? Why assume the New Testament is scripture?
>>18531632>Paul may quote random Greek philosophy but Jude quotes an entire prophecy from the book of Enoch word for word and used it as a testimony of what was going to happen to the wicked in the end, which means he 100% believed Enoch's prophecy was legit and something that will 100% happen in the end times.>Which means the NT endorses the book of Enoch and believes the prophecies in it are real prophecies spoken by God.No it doesn't it just means it endorses that one verse especially since the Book of Enoch as we have it today is made up of multiple sub-books that aren't attested to
>>18531568>it also quotes Greek philosophyokay then, say goodbye to Acts
>>18530939You know Paul references a Talmudic Legend at one point. In Hebrews.
>>18531782Those books have always been part of the same volume so if Jude had read one part it means he likely read all of them and he wouldn't quote a prophecy from a book he didn't think was inspired by God. And the fact that in the same chapter Jude talks about the angels who did not kept their positions but left their heavenly place and God has kept them on darkness until judgement day is proof Jude was endorsing the whole book of Enoch.
>>18531881>Those books have always been part of the same volumeNo they haven't there are different dates for the different parts and one of the parts may have been replaced (the Book of Giants with the Book of Parables)
>>18531841what I meant was that Greek philosophy isn't included in the Bible just because it's quoted
>>18532444What do you mean lmao? Greek philosophy is the foundation of many books in the new testament.
>>18532462bro they never included the Republic in the Bible
>>18532467ngl I'd buy a copy of the Bible that included Plato's Republic
>>18532488Thomas Jefferson would've probably done that kinda thing in an alternate timeline
>>18532467Okay but they included other philosophical works, it doesn't even just stop there. Christianity as a whole is just Greek philosophy with a Semitic coat of paint
>>18532493I feel like every house, no matter how rich or poor, should have at least two books: the Bible, and also a secular book that summarizes the Western Canon. Something like the Harvard Classics, but much shorter and containing a very small sampling of works of transcendental importance - perhaps one of Shakespeare's plays, a few essays by Bacon or Montaigne, some short stories by Oscar Wilde or James Joyce, and perhaps a few poems by Sylvia Plath or another famous female poet just to throw feminists a bone.
>>18532502>Okay but they included other philosophical works, it doesn't even just stop there. Christianity as a whole is just Greek philosophy with a Semitic coat of paintyeah in the Greek Bible because Greeks converted to Christianity and brought their philosophy with them what did you expectIt wasn't in the Hebrew Bible because the ancient Jews were notorious for their lack of literary talent among ancient cultures
>>18532514Okay so the Greek bible condemns itself for using vain philosophy.
>>18532520Yeah so to be consistent they shouldn't be part of it and they're already not in the Protestant canon
>>18530939>This is all the Jewish nonsense not referenced in more Jewish nonsense
>>18530939A revolution is what is needed. Reform will never ever go far enough.
There are also references to and responses to some Epicurean claims as well.
>>18532502Second Temple Jewish Philosophy was engaging with Greek and Near Eastern phllosophy for quite some time. What became Christianity actually developed partially as a response to platonic philosophy. Antiquity Judaism is closer to early Brahmanical Hinduism in the sense that it was characterized by diverious philosophies and religions that developed from interpretations of hte rituals.
>>18530939Esther is a weird book. It's a theatre play inspired by Greek drama but the plot is taken from mesopotamian myth. Why is it part of the OT nobody knows but the redactors must have simply liked it.
