SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Sirach, chapter 2

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
Koheleth
Member



Joined: 2005/11/10
Posts: 530
NC

 Re: Sirach chapter 2

Just a thought on this discussion. If Greg were lifting up words that have not been received as Scripture as equal with Scripture, we should be concerned. However, Greg and many, many others post words on this forum (and elsewhere) all the time that are not Scripture. Some Christians react against anything from the apocrypha as if those books were written by Satan rather than men, just as books about God and Jesus today are also written by men (and women).

That "Sirach" has a knowledge of God and beneficial words is generally clear, as far as any book not in the received Scriptures goes. Greg has done nothing out of line here, any more than when he posts from Brooks or Tozer, etc. So let's not take him to task. I found the sayings quite encouraging and don't believe they have detracted any glory or power from our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

May God bless all in their scruples and leadings that come from their intimacy with Jesus!

 2007/8/28 10:14Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hmmm...

The original King James Version contained the Apocrypha. While I find nothing "spiritual" from these books, I do find them educational. The traditional service established from the Maccabees (particular the [i]Feast of Dedication[/i] or [i]Hannukah[/i]) was actually attended by Christ (John 10:22-30).

There is a lot to be discussed or learned from the Apocrypha -- even if it is not doctrinal and entirely "historic" in nature.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/8/28 13:12Profile
awakenwithin
Member



Joined: 2007/1/31
Posts: 985
AZ

 Re:

THank you Linn,
I was wondering what it meant.. Thanks for the info..

In his love
charlene


_________________
charlene

 2007/8/28 13:33Profile









 Re:

I have always tried to get a proper answer from someone on this but haven't received any thats worth noting.

When Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch in Jude 14, 15, this is written no where in our canon, yet it's in the Apocrypha. If Jude used it and considered it holy, as holy men of old did write, why are we afraid of it?

Sirach could have been spoken by God. Men from our distant past have made decisions to remove these text based upon their own convictions, who's to say that they were right? There was a lot of false teachings doctrines and religions arising in the 18th Century, who's to say that these people that removed the Apocrypha were holy and right? Just because they are old and dead, does that make them sacred in their decisions?

How do we know that these men didn't have itching ears and wanted YOU and I to not know what is contained in these books? How do we know that they were not standing in the way so that none could pass into life eternal?

Just because your a scholar, does that mean your decisions on that which is sacred is always right?

I am glad that Greg stepped out of the boat, we need such men to walk on the water, there is more water to explore than our measly boat.

 2007/8/28 15:05









 Sirach chapter 2

Koheleth said

Quote:
If Greg were lifting up words that have not been received as Scripture as equal with Scripture, we should be concerned...



Koheleth, The Apocrypha contained within the Anglican Bible and the Catholic Vulgate have been read alongside the New and Old Testaments since the first century. And though various theologians have disagreed about whether or not the works were "inspired", none were audacious enough to remove them from the Bible until the middle of the nineteenth century.

Luther wasn't fond of the Apocrypha. On the other hand, he believed the books of Jude and Revelation weren't inspired, either.

Please do not confuse the Apocrypha/Vulgate with the gnostic apocrypha (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Book of Enoch, etc).

Compliments said
Quote:
When Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch in Jude 14, 15, this is written no where in our canon, yet it's in the Apocrypha. If Jude used it and considered it holy, as holy men of old did write, why are we afraid of it?



Simply read the chapters describing nature and astonomy and compare that with what we know to be true.

I'm no theologian, but I know from those Earth and Atmospheric Science courses I took in Uni that The Book of Enoch (or current edition) completely misses the mark on "how things work".

For sure there [i]was[/i] a Book of Enoch, just like there was a Book of Jasher. The question is whether the books that bear those names now are the same as the original.

 2007/8/28 16:57
Forgiven1
Member



Joined: 2007/4/17
Posts: 30
Western Australia

 Re: Sirach, chapter 2

Thankyou for posting this. I found it encouraging for my walk with our Lord due to the perilous times in which we are living.
1-6. Was encouragement for trials that we will face.
7-11. He is the only One we can trust in and the only One that can save us. The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

12-14. Reminds us to be vigilant in our walk with the Lord lest we fall, again encouragement.

15-17. Encourages us to keep on loving Him and staying close to Him and again to fear Him because this is the beginning of wisdom, it is for our benefit.

Please note this is a healthy fear for the Lord our God, a fear out of not wanting to do wrong or hurt Him, because we Love Him !

God bless you Greg. :-)


_________________
Lissa

 2007/8/29 3:07Profile
Koheleth
Member



Joined: 2005/11/10
Posts: 530
NC

 Re: Sirach chapter 2

Corey,

Thank you for your concern. I wonder if in replying to my post, you may have had in mind some other discussion.

Quote:
Koheleth, The Apocrypha contained within the Anglican Bible and the Catholic Vulgate have been read alongside the New and Old Testaments since the first century.



I never implied they were not.

Quote:
Please do not confuse the Apocrypha/Vulgate with the gnostic apocrypha (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Book of Enoch, etc).



Please do not? My post was not at all concerned with this topic, nor am I interested in it now.

My intention was only to address the questioning of what Greg posted, nothing else.

 2007/8/29 15:16Profile









 Re:

Koheleth,

I probably interpreted your post the wrong way. Sorry if I offended.

 2007/8/29 16:27





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy