International News
See other International News Articles
Title: 'Mountain of God' Volcano Preparing to Erupt
Source:
National Geographic
URL Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ ... uption-ancient-humans-science/
Published: Jul 13, 2017
Author: Michael Greshko
Post Date: 2017-07-15 18:23:14 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 6800
Comments: 35
The East African peak looms over a modern city as well as three major sites featuring signs of early humans. An aerial view shows erosion on Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano, Tanzania. An active volcano in northeastern Tanzania known to the Maasai as the “Mountain of God” has been quietly rumbling—and it is showing signs that an eruption is imminent. Known as Ol Doinyo Lengai, the 7,650-foot-tall peak is the only known active volcano that belches out lava rich with a type of rock called carbonatite. This thin, silvery lava can flow faster than a person can run. (Read more about the volcano from our January 2003 issue.) The volcano is some 70 miles from the city of Arusha and is known for its proximity to some of the world’s most important paleoanthropological sites. Ol Doinyo Lengai is less than 70 miles from the famed Olduvai Gorge, a collection of 3.6-million-year-old hominin footprints at a site called Laetoli, and a “dance hall” of ancient Homo sapiens footprints at a site called Engare Sero. D. Sarah Stamps, a geophysicist at Virginia Tech, has been partnering with local academics to try and predict the next major eruption. In June 2016, she and her colleagues installed five positioning sensors around Ol Doinyo Lengai in the hopes of tracking how magma’s underground churn is deforming the volcano’s surface. In concert with Tanzania’s Ardhi University and South Korea’s KIGAM, Stamps has set up a monitoring system that collects data on the volcano’s activity in real time. On January 17, 2017, Stamps saw a shudder in the data streaming from one monitoring station—a sign that, far from merely rumbling, parts of the volcano were lifting upward. “Several subsequent signals were also seen in real-time with additional on-the-ground observations by our local technician,” Stamps says. “These signals prompted rapid responses by our team to install three new real-time stations”—a project funded by the National Geographic Society. (Since 2012, the National Geographic Society has committed more than $400,000 to researching volcanoes. Find out more.) Based on the data they are seeing, Stamps and her colleagues warn that an eruption seems to be on the horizon. “Imminent in our case means in one second, in a few weeks, a couple of months, or a year or more,” she says in an email. “There are increased ash emissions, earthquakes, uplift at small volcanic cones, and an ever widening crack at the top of the volcano on the west side,” she adds. “These are all signs of volcanic deformation that will likely lead to an eruption sooner rather than later.” Stamps notes that an eruption alone likely would not affect many of the nearby paleoanthropological sites, an opinion shared by Cynthia Liutkus-Pierce, an Appalachian State University geologist and National Geographic grantee who recently led an analysis of the Engare Sero footprints. In an email sent from a site six miles from the volcano, Liutkus-Pierce reported that from her perspective, the volcano seemed calm, and the local Maasai did not appear overtly concerned about an eruption. However, if a large eruption and a heavy rainy season were to coincide, the resulting debris flows could potentially harm Engare Sero and nearby sites, Liutkus-Pierce says. “Historically, Lengai is capable of large debris flows and debris avalanches that reach the shore of Lake Natron, and these could potentially pose a significant threat to the site and to all of the camps that are here along the lake edge,” she says. “I think that would be my biggest concern for this area—the potential for a debris flow or debris avalanche.” As it happens, the Engare Sero footprints exist only because a similar scenario occurred between 5,000 and 19,000 years ago. At that time, an influx of volcanic mud—washed off of Ol Doinyo Lengai’s flanks by rainfall—created vast mudflats on the shoreline of Lake Natron that ancient humans trod across within hours to days of the event. A second surge of material then filled in the dried footprints, preserving them. Liutkus-Pierce notes that even in a worst-case scenario, Engare Sero’s “dance hall” is staying alive. Her research team has photographed the footprints in high resolution and could re-create them—and even print them out—in 3D as needed. “In that way,” she says, “we have essentially preserved the site in case of a natural disaster.” 
Typically, the volcano’s activity is confined to its summit. But occasionally, the Mountain of God can roar to life in more dramatic fashion: On September 4, 2007, the volcano belched out a plume of ash that extended at least 11 miles downwind. Lava running down the north and west flanks ignited burn scars that were visible from space.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
There's the accuracy we're paying for. Sounds like my local weatherman. "Could rain tomorrow. Or not".
They need a few million dollar grant to preserve Wahhabi Donald's "dance hall" steps in Saudi Arabia! Lest the voters forget that the Trump administration are HUGE supporters of Radical Islamic Terrorism. Fascinating! If you look closely at that mountain by google you can see some interesting images of Satan's fall on there. It's in plain sight.
That is right here. And next to him is the Angel Raphael casting him in there. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lake+Baringo/@1.177799,36.2775289,6298m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x1786cf9b80b81d2b:0xb6601e651892f2a0!8m2!3d0.6320551!4d36.0567202
I was surprised that the SS allowed so many Saudi swords near Trump. I noticed he had almost no protection near him when wandering through the vast halls of the Saudi palace.
I looked and I did not see the Angel Raphael. And Raphael is a very close friend of mine. I could spot him anywhere in Africa, even from space.
Look closer at here cause the angel is to the right of the black devil that's leering at Raphael. You can tell who Raphael is because he is the one with the wings on his back. Check out Raphael's sharp nose and piercing eyes back at the devil. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lake+Baringo/@1.1686814,36.289395,3149m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x1786cf9b80b81d2b:0xb6601e651892f2a0!8m2!3d0.6320551!4d36.0567202 Some info on the biblical location and Angel Raphael of where this image was located and its biblical name. The location was known in ancient biblical accounts as Dudael, Ethiopia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(archangel) I would strongly suggest you research into some ancient Ethiopian maps dating back prior to 1600's to find that location of Dudael. It not only did exist but also the true biblical location of the Euphrates river was in West Africa in the township of Benin which was along the West Ethiopian coastline for gold which was where the true Hebrew Israelites (which were black) were sold and their inheritance and identity stolen from them by the British the French and the Romans who conquered the slave coast region.
Only Gabriel and Michael are mentioned in canonical Jewish and Christian scripture. The other archangels' names were almost certainly brought back to Israel following the Babylonian captivity. You seem to be referring to the account in the Book of Enoch, where Raphael is alleged (by some) to have bound a fallen angel, Azazel, in Dudadel. Other scholars say that Azazel is just a metaphor, not a fallen angel.
And I should make you aware there are two biblical Enoch's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_(son_of_Cain) The first Enoch was the son of Cain (from our first earthly family, Adam and Eve). After Cain was banished from Eden, he went Eastward and founded a city called "Nok" and named his son Enoch after it. Enoch or "Nok" is (located in Nigeria area) Africa. Africa was formerly known as Ethiopia before it was conquered and changed by the Roman empire. The second Enoch was related to Noah. Noah was born in Borno, Ethiopia. Also to point out this about Azazel : https://encyclopediasatanica.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/references-to-demons-in-the-apocryphal-texts/
Scripture tells us in Jude of "Enoch, the seventh from Adam." He was the seventh son born of Seth's family line and was the great-great-great-great-grandson of Adam and was also the great-grandfather of Noah. The other Enoch was the son of Cain and a grandson to Adam. And no churches other than the Ethiopian consider the Book of Enoch to be canonical (because they think everything is canonical). The remainder consider it apocryphal or spurious, despite that little quote at the beginning of Jude where the fallen angels are condemned in verse 6, sodomites are condemned in verses 7 & 8, and the archangel Michael is quoted debating the devil in verse 9 and Enoch's prophecy is quoted in verse 1:14. 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. The later Enoch (seventh from Adam) was the great-grandfather of Noah. I always thought that Jude was as close as the N.T. gets to including an apocryphal book, especially verse 14. Even Revelation poses fewer problems and we know the opposition it faced before being included in the N.T. But to include Enoch itself would have gone much much further than the African church (very powerful at the time) or the emerging Latin church or the Greek Eastern church was willing to go. So they allowed Jude into the canon and no more. redleghunter can tell you that I am pretty ambivalent about the Book of Enoch and of Jude.
https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=9849026531 - Description of 1644-blaeu8-map of Ethiopia showing Azzel half inch below 60 degree Equator https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=9849026293 - Description of 1561 map of So. Africa-showing Raphael River- Just above Mozambique sits Dud which is short form for (Dudael)
I think one of the main reasons Enoch is excluded from most canons is due to the spurious nature of its manuscript history. Will check on that, but compared to many of the OT books and the fact Enoch was not accepted as part of the Hebrew TaNaKh, gives us a good picture of why the early church did not consider it. From Norm Geisler: 6. Canonicity I. Introduction How do we know that the 66 books in our Bible are the only inspired books? Who decided which books were truly inspired by God? The Roman Catholic Bible includes books that are not found in other Bibles (called the Apocrypha). How do we know that we as Protestants have the right books? These questions are addressed by a study of canonicity. “Canon” is a word that comes from Greek and Hebrew words that literally means a measuring rod. So canonicity describes the standard that books had to meet to be recognized as scripture. On the one hand, deciding which books were inspired seems like a human process. Christians gathered together at church councils in the first several centuries A.D. for the purpose of officially recognizing which books are inspired. But it’s important to remember that these councils did not determine which books were inspired. They simply recognized what God had already determined. This study discusses the tests of canonicity that were used, the history of canonization and a brief explanation of why certain disputed books are not scripture. II. Summary: The collection of 66 books were properly recognized by the early church as the complete authoritative scriptures not to be added to or subtracted from. III. Tests of Canonicity The early church councils applied several basic standards in recognizing whether a book was inspired. A. Is it authoritative (“Thus saith the Lord”)? B. Is it prophetic (“a man of God” 2 Peter 1:20)? - A book in the Bible must have the authority of a spiritual leader of Israel (O.T. – prophet, king, judge, scribe) or and apostle of the church (N.T. – It must be based on the testimony of an original apostle.). C. Is it authentic (consistent with other revelation of truth)? D. Is it dynamic – demonstrating God’s life-changing power (Hebrew 4:12)? E. Is it received (accepted and used by believers – 1 Thessalonians 2:13)? (Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible. pp. 137-144). Jude on the other hand had early patristic support.
Mmmm...it is a scholarly piece you link to but it doesn't address the inclusion of a quote from the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15 of Jude. Which is the bone I always have to pick with Jude. To torture yet another hoary metaphor, verse 14 sticks out like a sore thumb, at least to me. It is not consistent with the general character of the NT canon, like it doesn't belong there at all. And naturally, that raises questions about the entirety of Jude and not just that lone verse.
Yes Jude. Been some time since we discussed. Let me look back at some personal notes.
Well have not devoted much time lately to Jude. So my apologies. Been quite busy in other matters. However, remember an old conversation on Obadiah from years ago on how pastors and liturgy don't give his book much if any mention. As you would expect Charles H. Spurgeon of course found a way: Morning and Evening Charles H. Spurgeon July 23, 2017 Morning Reading Even thou wast as one of them. —Obadiah 1:11 Brotherly kindness was due from Edom to Israel in the time of need, but instead thereof, the men of Esau made common cause with Israel's foes. Special stress in the sentence before us is laid upon the word thou; as when Caesar cried to Brutus, "and thou Brutus"; a bad action may be all the worse, because of the person who has committed it. When we sin, who are the chosen favorites of heaven, we sin with an emphasis; ours is a crying offence, because we are so peculiarly indulged. If an angel should lay his hand upon us when we are doing evil, he need not use any other rebuke than the question, "What thou? What dost thou here?" Much forgiven, much delivered, much instructed, much enriched, much blessed, shall we dare to put forth our hand unto evil? God forbid! A few minutes of confession may be beneficial to thee, gentle reader, this morning. Hast thou never been as the wicked? At an evening party certain men laughed at uncleanness, and the joke was not altogether offensive to thine ear, even thou wast as one of them. When hard things were spoken concerning the ways of God, thou wast bashfully silent; and so, to on-lookers, thou wast as one of them. When worldlings were bartering in the market, and driving hard bargains, wast thou not as one of them? When they were pursuing vanity with a hunter's foot, wert thou not as greedy for gain as they were? Could any difference be discerned between thee and them? Is there any difference? Here we come to close quarters. Be honest with thine own soul, and make sure that thou art a new creature in Christ Jesus; but when this is sure, walk jealously, lest any should again be able to say, "Even thou wast as one of them." Thou wouldst not desire to share their eternal doom, why then be like them here? Come not thou into their secret, lest thou come into their ruin. Side with the afflicted people of God, and not with the world.
I appreciate your efforts but I am still stuck on how a book that made it into the canon (Jude) can quote from a book that was explicitly rejected from the canon (Enoch). Maybe I should just let it go.
...Be honest with thine own soul, and make sure that thou art a new creature in Christ Jesus; but when this is sure, walk jealously, lest any should again be able to say, "Even thou wast as one of them." Thou wouldst not desire to share their eternal doom, why then be like them here? Come not thou into their secret, lest thou come into their ruin. Side with the afflicted people of God, and not with the world. Awesome reminder from Spurgeon on our careless whims and casualties of humoring "the world." This is how, when and why the secular/un-saved point to Christians and say, HYPOCRITE!" On this very site I am still guilty at times. :-( It takes effort not to let our guard down and succumb. Silence may be construed as tacit approval. Yet it is inevitable at times. A similar case to which Spurgeon refers happened to me as I'd recently befriended an old high school acquaintance of mine. We'd sat across from me at the lunch table once upon a time. We were friendly back then, but I wouldn't say we were "friends." Turns out he'd become extremely successful as a doctor and is now retired. It is now over 40 years later. He's a good man, loyal to his friends & family; He's worked hard and been blessed...but "humble" was not THE word here. He was friendly, but so over-the-top on boasts of the material, of places & people, and "conquests"; Then there was the constant F-Bomb barrage (language that was shouted loudly one day in front of his house in anger over a trivial matter, echoing throughout his cul-de-sac.) I'm happy for his success, however there was an odd insecurity STILL -- despite his worldly success and standing. Strange. OR IS IT? In a great sense I felt...embarrassed and pity for him. Seemingly he has "everything" -- or does he? We've seen each a few times since -- partially for business reasons -- but I haven't corrected him or discourage him, but nodded or bit my tongue. (Maybe the purpose for our meeting is for another later time. It seems clear his heart is still empty, and there is a seething anger and hurt -- despite his success and lacking for nothing material.)
Come not thou into their secret, lest thou come into their ruin. Side with the afflicted people of God, and not with the world. Well worth repeating and remembering. EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Red, that's a great keeper by Geisler on the rule of thumb for Canon. The Book of Enoch is enigmatic to say the least. I have been exploring investigations into the pre-Flood World (speaking of "enigmatic"...wow.) That Jude was allowed to quote and give a measure of authority to the word of God via the Book of Enoch could well be considered puzzling. But IF it's made its way into Scripture, we can be sure God had His reasons. If the Lord *didn't* want it included as part of Scriptural canon, it wouldn't be there. Without exception.
Maybe I should just let it go. Legit point... *My* (simple) theory as to why the entire Book of Enoch isn't sanctioned as Canon is that it and that entire Angel rebellion/battle scenario, the inter-mingling of fallen angel with humans, giants, Nephilim, etc would likely have been too distracting, opening up other necessary/irrelevant cans of worms that just aren't important to man's Salvation. Thus I believe the Book of Enoch would have diverted precious attention of the Believer from the Gospel. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject.
I do find it interesting that the author obviously expected his readers to be quite familiar with the general outline of the prophecies of the Book of Enoch. Whether he is endorsing those prophecies or dovetailing that into his writing because he perhaps knows that his primary intended readers placed some stock in the book of Enoch. Or perhaps he simply wanted to invoke a warning of a dire Enochian judgment falling on those who failed to heed his warnings. I think when we look at epistles, we have to see them as addressed to and aimed pretty squarely at particular ancient audiences. It is often the case that shallow preaching presents scripture as a-message-meant-equally-for-all-times-and-all-Christians. Yet we do see some very specific instances of epistles directed at particular problems in a specific church in a particular city. So while we shouldn't see that as making the text ineffectual for other Christians, we always have to keep in mind that these epistles really were addressed to particular persons and churches and the problems and disputes in those churches. So I think we read epistles knowing we really are reading other people's mail. I am not suggesting that that means these are not authentic scripture or that they have no application to us. But to me, it is a profound mistake to read the epistles as though they were only addressed to us and not keep in mind that they were addressed to some particular ancient church or person(s). But perhaps I overstate the obvious.
Your interest in not letting it go is understandable. I'm searching on why some saw Judes epistle as paramount for inclusion. You gave such sources but the question is still not put to rest. Unless this was an early church wrangling due to the rise of regional metropolitans that is super bishops.
The very "open" prison door Satan likes to offer each of us. And when the time has come we either escape it by God's Grace or comfortably slam it shut ourselves.
Well worth repeating and remembering. EVERY SINGLE DAY. Amen. Taking it day by day, breath by breath. To attain this way is not of one who loves this world.
I did have to stand away a bit. The power of suggestion....Remember the 911 cloud/explosion illusions? I see faces in everything from bathroom tile to the shower curtain patterns.
We know it was about as controversial in some parts of the Empire at the time that it was a disputed book, much as the Revelation was. One hates to demote their importance but these are books that are in the almost-Apocryphal category. One hates to grade various scriptures against each other but the gospels are primary witnesses to which the others cannot compare and of course Paul's epistles (especially eight of the bunch) are considered as written directly by him and written to his churches and/or associates. And somewhere after the Gospels and the most authentic Paulian epistles, you work down the list and you find Jude and Revelation. There's a reason they were placed last in the canon and that is because they were controversial at the time of their adoption into the canon. Wiki is far from perfect but they summarize some of the issues well enough. Because this epistle is much shorter than 2 Peter, and due to various stylistic details, some writers consider Jude the source for the similar passages of 2 Peter.[29] However, other writers, noting that Jude 18 quotes 2 Peter 3:3 as past tense, consider Jude to have come after 2 Peter.[30] Some scholars who consider Jude to predate 2 Peter note that the latter appears to quote the former but excises the reference to the non-canonical book of Enoch.[31] Verses 14–15 contain a direct quotation of a prophecy from 1 Enoch 1:9. The title "Enoch, the seventh from Adam" is also sourced from 1 En. 60:1. Most commentators assume that this indicates that Jude accepts the antediluvian patriarch Enoch as the author of the Book of Enoch which contains the same quotation. However, an alternative explanation is that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch aware that verses 14–15 are in fact an expansion of the words of Moses from Deuteronomy 33:2.[37][38][39] This is supported by Jude's unusual Greek statement that "Enoch the Seventh from Adam prophesied to the false teachers", not concerning them.[40] The Book of Enoch is not considered canonical by most churches, although it is by the Ethiopian Orthodox church. According to Western scholars, the older sections of the Book of Enoch (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BC and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC.[41] 1 Enoch 1:9, mentioned above, is part of the pseudepigrapha and is among the Dead Sea Scrolls [4Q Enoch (4Q204[4QENAR]) COL I 16–18].[42] It is generally accepted by scholars that the author of the Epistle of Jude was familiar with the Book of Enoch and was influenced by it in thought and diction.[43] 2 Peter is another problematic member of the canon. Eusebius and Origen both had conflicted views of all the books of the Antilegomena. Wiki only scratches the surface of the canon decently but their broad outline is not wrong on the facts.
Can't all of the above be the case for Jude's inclusion and citation of the Book of Enoch? "Endorsing AND dovetailing"...AND invoking a warning of judgment and penalty. If we presume canonized Scripture as written is The Almigthy's Will, then mustn't we presume Jude's warning has purpose and intent? Btw, have any of you looked into the Bible-based archaeology and research of Steve Quayle and Timothy Alberino? Their focus is pre-Flood interpretation of Genesis, including researching proof of past Giants, Vatican control of crucial archaeological finds, parsing the book of Enoch, and well as ancient past & prophecies. They've also gotten into theories on the CERN project -- which is speculated to be a matter of attempting to access the metaphysical realm and with it, "time" itself. For anyone interested in the dissemination of news from a Christian perspective, 'Skywatch TV' found at (youtube) is worthy IMHO. They also link to the scientific/archaeological/theological work of Quayle and Alberino -- as well as theorizing about the pre-Flood world and of course, End Days prophecies. Frankly, I personally don't dwell/obsess on End Days prophecies. I personally don't need to know God's protocol of End Days/pre/post-Rapture events -- just that I'm a part of the eventual "festivities" :-) I DO understand man's natural innate inclination, curiosity and drive to learn THE truth if possible. INCLUDING Real History, instead of the Default alternative "history" The Powers That Be have mapped out, eliminated, substituted, or otherwise manipulated... ....Yes, like the "6 BILLION year age of the universe" and dinosaur bones (and in some cases, tissue) that were obviously swept up and preserved in a relatively recent cataclysmic Flood, but claimed to have *somehow* survived the ravages of a supposed 30-60 million years.
Come up with any info...(or theories?)
Yup, VERY "open" prison door. Of our own volition. Sneak attacks are the most insidious....although, aren't we ourselves responsible for indifference and willful blindness....We sure can't claim ignorance. "Comfortably numb" is a phrase ;-)
Yes...Which...often as we know taken for granted. To attain this way is not of one who loves this world. These days it's become much easier to discern among others. Usually and obviously, the younger are more likely succumbing to the seduction of The World. As we grow older, hopefully we become wiser (the jury is out on that in my case ;-) Material wealth, opulence, popularity, power and position -- disappears in an instant. ALL of it. Forever. "Wealth" is relative as we know. Sure, we all prefer the finer things; we'd all feel great with the best of the material blessings of this world. But not at the expense of ignoring spiritual wealth....rich which last Forever. Btw Red -- Ever see these posts or tributes to dead rock stars? "He's a God!" "His legacy will live on forever!" "He's in 'Heaven's Band' now!" (Remember 'Roll & Roll Heaven' by the Righteous Bros?) And I'm thinking..."No, you don't get to invent your version of 'Heaven.'" I didn't mean to pick on this one guy...It's just that in his case the classic, "I have everything I'd ever want but am still unfulfilled" so obviously applied like a sore thumb. As I get to know the man better, I'll hopefully see where he's "at" eventually.
If we presume canonized Scripture as written is The Almigthy's Will, then mustn't we presume Jude's warning has purpose and intent? I think we have to admit that conventional scholarship has a good point when it says that Jude was written as a general epistle to all churches. It was not addressed to a specific church and its problems, the way we see some of Paul's epistles directed at specific churches. So the bishops voting on the canon at the council of Hippo, each with his own scriptural expert, would be thinking of that when they voted. We also have to keep in mind that heresy on a very large scale was creeping into churches across the ancient Christian world, both inside the Roman empire and those Christian groups outside the empire. Among these groups, we would group the Gnostics who claimed special secret teachings or knowledge. And we can't dismiss the rise of Marcion and the Marcionites who followed him. He established his own canon, essentially a paraphrased version of Luke that reads like Ernest Hemingway wrote it (short choppy sentences) and all of the epistles of Paul. Everything else did not make the grade with Marcion. He rejected all of the Old Testament and most of the N.T. canon. The rise in popularity of his bible and its canon in many ways did spur the Council of Hippo to meet and to declare what the canon was so that someone like Marcion couldn't do it first. Except he had. It took a long time for them to suppress the Marcionites. Along with the Arians and the Marcionites, there were numerous other dissident groups that the Roman hierarchy was eager to suppress. And all of these groups were producing their own holy books and circulating them in various parts of the empire or beyond its boundaries. Of even greater concern to the ancient bishops were the Arians and the challenge they posed to the hierarchy and to orthodox teachings. Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian bishop and other Arians held considerable sway as bishops during his reign and thereafter. The Arians were taking over the churches in a way that threatened the established hierarchy. The Arians had, for instance, solid control of the Christian churches in north Africa. They had sent an able Arian missionary and converted all the German barbarians to adopt Arian theology which they promptly imposed on all areas they conquered in western Europe and Africa. The Vandals were German Arian Christians for the most part. In parts of Syria and Iraq and Persia, we had other non-orthodox cults of Christians that thrived and the bishops of Rome's hierarchy couldn't have been too happy with them either. You can review Wiki's Arianism page to get an idea of how extensive Arian influence was for several centuries until it finally died out for the most part in the 7th century. It was a constant and ongoing challenge to Roman orthodoxy the entire time. So a writing like that of Jude would be useful for orthodox Roman bishops. So if we see Jude calling down judgment on false teachers and warning churches in general against these infiltrators and usurpers, perhaps we should not be too surprised. Other books in the N.T. do warn about false teachers at some length and I would suppose that Jude's inclusion is most likely due to the fact that it was calling down curses on false teachers, infiltrators and usurpers of legitimate church authority. If the bishops at the Synod of Hippo in 393 voted for it, it's scripture. If they didn't, it is spurious. The N.T. canon was then ratified by the Council of Carthage in 397, pending the forthcoming approval from the bishop of Rome, an early milestone of papist supremacy. As mentioned above, Jude is pretty unique in that it contains references to the rejected books The Assumption of Moses and to the Book of Enoch. So it referred via quotes to two books the bishops at Hippo explicitly rejected yet these quotes from the two spurious books did not disqualify Jude from the canon. I presume this is because they really liked how Jude threw down on the false teachers in very dire terms. There had to be a lot of local and regional politics involved as well as the personalities of the bishops who attended Hippo. We can't dismiss the idea out of hand at least.
Thinking...but perhaps inspired by the Holy Spirit? Among these groups, we would group the Gnostics who claimed special secret teachings or knowledge. And we can't dismiss the rise of Marcion and the Marcionites who followed him. He established his own canon, essentially a paraphrased version of Luke that reads like Ernest Hemingway wrote it (short choppy sentences) and all of the epistles of Paul. Everything else did not make the grade with Marcion. He rejected all of the Old Testament and most of the N.T. canon. Interesting....I readily concede I don't possess nearly the scholarship as either you or Red, and the early Church edit of THE Word of God. What a wild melee you describe of the early Church as the varied sects were all submitting their version as crucial to "Scripture." So if we see Jude calling down judgment on false teachers and warning churches in general against these infiltrators and usurpers, perhaps we should not be too surprised. Other books in the N.T. do warn about false teachers at some length and I would suppose that Jude's inclusion is most likely due to the fact that it was calling down curses on false teachers, infiltrators and usurpers of legitimate church authority.... ...If the bishops at the Synod of Hippo in 393 voted for it, it's scripture. If they didn't, it is spurious. The N.T. canon was then ratified by the Council of Carthage in 397, pending the forthcoming approval from the bishop of Rome, an early milestone of papist supremacy. So shall we presume the decision omit the Book of Enoch (and Assumption of Moses) from the voting an "Final Cut" was made in 393 AD? As mentioned above, Jude is pretty unique in that it contains references to the rejected books The Assumption of Moses and to the Book of Enoch. So it referred via quotes to two books the bishops at Hippo explicitly rejected yet these quotes from the two spurious books did not disqualify Jude from the canon. I presume this is because they really liked how Jude threw down on the false teachers in very dire terms. Though yes, there were votes as a Democratic process, we still must believe that whatever the final edit was as it stood as well as as it stands is *exactly* as the Lord intended. Personally, my feeling is The Book of Enoch would have potentially detracted from the Gospel and instead dramatized the the chaotic, science fiction-like/"Super Hero"/Arch-Villainous pre-Flood world.
Well, the synod of Hippo was a meeting of established Roman bishops of generally Roman orthodox outlook. You can't say it was a hotbed of Arians or Valentinians or Marcionites or what not. Hippo should be seen as Athanasius and others shepherding the church of Rome and its establishment to unite with the Greek churches of the East to declare an official canon so as to exclude the spurious texts like Enoch (and Enoch II and Enoch III), the Assumption of Moses, the Gospel of Judas, et cetera, et cetera. Along with these were writings like the Didache, surely the most common single manuscript of all the early churches, before there were any gospels or epistles in circulation; it was a how-to manual for training recruits, vital doctrinal knowledge, conduct of Christian churches, etc. And yet, the Didache itself was judged spurious by the Synod of Hippo. There were thousands of various spurious manuscripts being produced at Alexandria and other early printing establishments. You have a certain faith that all of those bishops at Hippo were suddenly inspired to do the right thing by the Holy Spirit. Well, maybe. OTOH, Hippo did serve to exclude the writings that Rome and the eastern churches did want to exclude. After some wrangling over the Antilegomena (James, Jude, II Peter, II John, III John, Hebrews, the Revelation of John), they compromised and included them. Part of the price for the Latin church accepting all these books was the rejection of Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermes, the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles (a.k.a. the Didache). We at least have to consider whether there was as much or more horse-trading among powerful bishops occurring than the usual explanation of the profound action of the Holy Spirit on the bishops. I'm not sure I want to presume noble and selfless voting by papist bishops. We like to say that but I haven't seen any evidence of it and the process that we do know and understand indicates it was pretty political. Personally, I'm not sure I trust those Hippo bishops not to be so crafty. These are the same kinds of people who promulgated the Nicene creed in various stages and they were nakedly political about it for decades. Just weeding out the Arianism and the Gnosticism of the era was a big challenge for them, considering that both the first Christian emperor and his son/successor were both quite Arian in their outlook and interceded in doctrinal matters. These are part of why we call it the Roman Catholic Church. Well, that and the fact that it annoys the crap out of the Catholics when we call it the Roman Catholic church. LOL I think it is a mistake to believe that all the struggles and controversies of the era with the Arians and Marcionites and Paulicians and Valetinians and Gnostics had no influence on how the bishops of Hippo were casting their votes on the canon. OTOH, we should still recognize that the books of the canon were all in pretty wide circulation by the time of the Hippo synod. Some, like the Gospels or the epistles of Paul or I Peter, were very widely circulated and accepted. So these were pretty much a slam dunk from the beginning. However there were others like Didache and Shepherd of Hermes that were rejected as spurious despite the fact that they were in wider circulation than the vast majority of books accepted into the canon at Hippo. As for political impact of the canon, by establishing the canon at Hippo, it became possible to drive dissenting bishops from their sees, to suppress the printing of heretical books. The early church of Rome did not believe in freedom of speech and would routinely ask the emperor to persecute heretics for them for printing/circulating/preaching from spurious texts. So there was a practical political aspect to the establishment of the canon. Look at how many Gnostic texts and Arian books they made disappear entirely from history. That was the power of the Roman civil law and magistrates used by the Church against dissenters and radicals like the Gnostics. Well, it is fascinating to review these things and try to see the various currents and cross-currents in the early churches and how the establishment of Rome and the eastern churches chose to deal with them. That is my understanding. The Synod of Hippo in 393 was the first to produce the list of 27 books in the N.T. canon, exactly as listed in a feast circular by Athanasius just prior to the synod. Athanasius made that list, the synod of 393 produced that same list. You might want to review a bit of Athanasius' life, his banishment over fighting the Arians, his reinstatement, his role in getting the canon approved, etc. The pope Damasus confirmed the list of 27 books by Athanasius a few years later, the synod of Hippo confirmed the 27 books, the Council of Carthage repeated that list in 397 (but excluded the book of Hebrews). And the final canon issued by the pope (bishop of Rome) did include Hebrews, despite the Council of Carthage trying to kill it off. Apparently, it was extremely popular with many Jewish Christian congregations, like, it was their favorite book to read.
I can see why HEBREWS would be popular with Jews.
The NT canon, then as now, had many different groups and they all had their favorites for various reasons. Another really interesting study if you have the curiosity is how the original bibles published in Antioch Syria came about. They didn't have the resources to publish them all at once so they published the ones the Syrian Christian establishment considered most important first. After a few more years, they did complete their full canon but the choices were interesting and suggestive. Syria was a major bastion of Christianity in the era, more important than Rome or Alexandria. And they were quite ambitious to publish their own bibles.
“These signals prompted rapid responses by our team to install three new real-time stations”—a project funded by the National Geographic Society. Imminent in our case means in one second, in a few weeks, a couple of months, or a year or more,”
#2. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
Engare Sero’s “dance hall” is staying alive. Her research team has photographed the footprints in high resolution and could re-create them—and even print them out—in 3D as needed.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: cranky (#0)
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: hondo68 (#2)
(Edited)
#6. To: goldilucky (#4)
That is right here. And next to him is the Angel Raphael casting him in there.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: goldilucky (#7)
Look closer at here cause the angel is to the right of the black devil that's leering at Raphael.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#8)
(Edited)
#10. To: goldilucky, redleghunter (#9)
And I should make you aware there are two biblical Enoch's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_(son_of_Cain)
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, The second Enoch was related to Noah. Noah was born in Borno, Ethiopia.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)
#12. To: Tooconservative (#10)
redleghunter can tell you that I am pretty ambivalent about the Book of Enoch and of Jude.
#13. To: redleghunter (#12)
(Edited)
Jude on the other hand had early patristic support.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#16. To: redleghunter (#15)
#17. To: redleghunter, Tooconservative (#15)
Hast thou never been as the wicked? At an evening party certain men laughed at uncleanness, and the joke was not altogether offensive to thine ear, even thou wast as one of them. When hard things were spoken concerning the ways of God, thou wast bashfully silent; and so, to on-lookers, thou wast as one of them...
#18. To: redleghunter, Tooconservative (#15)
Be honest with thine own soul, and make sure that thou art a new creature in Christ Jesus; but when this is sure, walk jealously, lest any should again be able to say, "Even thou wast as one of them." Thou wouldst not desire to share their eternal doom, why then be like them here?
#19. To: redleghunter, Tooconservative (#12)
#20. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#16)
(Edited)
I am still stuck on how a book that made it into the canon (Jude) can quote from a book that was explicitly rejected from the canon (Enoch).
#21. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#19)
That Jude was allowed to quote and give a measure of authority to the word of God via the Book of Enoch could well be considered puzzling. But IF it's made its way into Scripture, we can be sure God had His reasons.
#22. To: Tooconservative (#16)
#23. To: Liberator (#17)
despite his success and lacking for nothing material.
#24. To: Liberator (#18)
Be honest with thine own soul, and make sure that thou art a new creature in Christ Jesus; but when this is sure, walk jealously, lest any should again be able to say, "Even thou wast as one of them." Thou wouldst not desire to share their eternal doom, why then be like them here? Come not thou into their secret, lest thou come into their ruin. Side with the afflicted people of God, and not with the world.
#25. To: goldilucky (#4)
#26. To: redleghunter (#22)
(Edited)
I'm searching on why some saw Judes epistle as paramount for inclusion.
Part of Jude is very similar to 2 Peter (mainly 2 Peter chapter 2), so much so that most scholars agree that there is a dependence between the two, i.e., that either one letter used the other directly, or they both drew on a common source.[28] The Epistle of Jude references at least two other books, with one being non-canonical in all churches and the other non-canonical in most churches. Verse 9 refers to a dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses. Some interpreters understand this reference to be an allusion to the events described in Zechariah 3:1-2.[32][33] The classical theologian Origen attributes this reference to the non-canonical Assumption of Moses.[34] According to James Charlesworth, there is no evidence the surviving book of this name ever contained any such content.[35] Others believe it to be in the lost ending of the book.[35][36]
The first major church historian, Eusebius,[4] who wrote his Church History c. AD 325, applied the Greek term "antilegomena" to the disputed writings of the Early Church: Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
The Epistle to the Hebrews had earlier been listed:[5] It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.
Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th-century text and possibly one of the Fifty Bibles of Constantine, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The original Peshitta (NT portion is c. 5th century) excluded 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Some modern editions, such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823, include them.
#27. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#21)
I do find it interesting that the author obviously expected his readers to be quite familiar with the general outline of the prophecies of the Book of Enoch. Whether he is endorsing those prophecies or dovetailing that into his writing because he perhaps knows that his primary intended readers placed some stock in the book of Enoch. Or perhaps he simply wanted to invoke a warning of a dire Enochian judgment falling on those who failed to heed his warnings.
#28. To: redleghunter, Tooconservative (#22)
I'm searching on why some saw Judes epistle as paramount for inclusion.
#29. To: redleghunter (#23)
The very "open" prison door Satan likes to offer each of us. And when the time has come we either escape it by God's Grace or comfortably slam it shut ourselves.
#30. To: redleghunter (#24)
Taking it day by day, breath by breath.
#31. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#27)
Can't all of the above be the case for Jude's inclusion and citation of the Book of Enoch? "Endorsing AND dovetailing"...AND invoking a warning of judgment and penalty.
If we presume canonized Scripture as written is The Almigthy's Will, then mustn't we presume Jude's warning has purpose and intent?
#32. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#31)
....[T]he bishops voting on the canon at the council of Hippo, each with his own scriptural expert, would be thinking of that when they voted.
#33. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#32)
(Edited)
What a wild melee you describe of the early Church as the varied sects were all submitting their version as crucial to "Scripture."
Though yes, there were votes as a Democratic process, we still must believe that whatever the final edit was as it stood as well as as it stands is *exactly* as the Lord intended.
So shall we presume the decision omit the Book of Enoch (and Assumption of Moses) from the voting an "Final Cut" was made in 393 AD?
#34. To: Tooconservative (#33)
And the final canon issued by the pope (bishop of Rome) did include Hebrews, despite the Council of Carthage trying to kill it off. Apparently, it was extremely popular with many Jewish Christian congregations, like, it was their favorite book to read.
#35. To: redleghunter (#34)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]