Who Runs the Church?

Bob1953 · Oct 7, 2009

Keith,
You and I both agree that the entire Bible is Scripture. However, you believe that all Scripture is true, while I just gave an example of where Scripture seems to contradict itself. Let me do it again:

Paul seems to me to contradict Jesus in Galatians 5:14 (RSV). Read what he says:

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Now read what Jesus says in Matthew 22:36-40:

[36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment I am right. Then, where does that leave us?
Well, you know the teachings of Jesus as found in the books of Matthew. Mark, Luke, and John are infallible. We have to obey those teachings. I have found tremendous solace and instruction in the rest of the Bible as well. It’s a magnificent book even without Matthew Mark, Luke, and John.

Thaddaeus · Oct 7, 2009

Bob1953 said:

let's not ASSUME anything But rather let's believe that the Word of God is rightI think I explained this in another post

is it love to others to let them die in a false religion, when Jesus said that he was the only way. or would it be love to share the Gospel/good news of Jesusand pray that may find Jesus so that they too one day get in also. there is only a contradiction in the Word if you think it is wrong to tell people of the Gospel which is the greatest love we can share with anybody. if sharing the Gospel is not love what is it offensive???
Joh 15:13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Mobius · Oct 7, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

wait, know more than G-d HIMSELF?

So you believe G-d HIMSELF is responsible for our canon? Not a synod of VERY flawed, politically motivated men, who resorted both to the law, and to lawlessness, in order to deal with INTERNAL disputes in the church? Who followed any procedure BUT the one the Bible gives us for dealing with disputes among the brethren ? These were acting on G-d's authority ?

Okay, I'll bite.

See, it only takes one false prophecy to prove a false prophet. And I've got it, so no, I don't have any faith in what this synod of men chose to do, to protect their power.

BUT perhaps you can change that for me.

Perhaps you (or anyone) can explain to me, WHY, if they were right (or by extension of what you're implying, that it was G-d who was right) in removing the Book of Enoch from the scriptures, why then, did He inspire Jude to write in HIS book, that Enoch WAS a prophet of G-d, AND to quote the Book of Enoch so extensively? I've said it before, I don't think there are 4 verses in a row in Jude that don't refer to, or quote something from Enoch.

PLEASE, by all means, if you believe the canon itself was inspired by G-d, and not just the books, help the rest of us make sense of this discrepancy. Because it seems to me either they were BOTH inspired, or NEITHER of them.

If you call someone a prophet who isn't, then clearly you are not a prophet either, right ?

Jezreel · Oct 7, 2009

I totally understand what you are saying in men wanting to protect their power but I do not feel, or discern that Thaddeus is being that way at all. There are men who use the word of God to justify to Lord it over others Mobius, that is true. Instead of being a servant like Christ, they have created a hierarchy. The early Christians did treasure the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude and Peter. I have been reading it for awhile and I believe it to be the inspired word of God. It also gives more insight to the last days also. I used to believe that the sons of God were the sons of Seth. When I read the book of Enoch, luckily God had done a work on my heart that I was willing to admit that I was wrong. You see, most men in authority in churches have their positition threatened and that means that their paycheck is threatened if they do not believe in the way that their denomination has trained them to believe. They go to seminaries (cemetaries) The men that cannonized the books of the bible were very evil men and I would not just their judgement at all. I also believe that the Epistle of Barnabus should have been included. The Epistle of Barnabus goes into about the temple of God not being a huge pagan building. The church fathers were into building their cathedrals, so, they eliminated that book too. There are other books and I do not agree with any others, except that I would like to be able to read the book of Jubilees that the children of Israel used in the old testament. The old testament even speaks of the book of Jubilees! Well, all I can say that maybe it is a good thing that they were not included so that the church fathers when they made up their doctrines could not pervert the book of Enoch as well as Barnabas!

Mobius · Oct 7, 2009

No, I didn't mean Thaddeus, but the "Council of Nicea" which established both Catholic canon and dogma, which for some reason, even those calling themselves "protestants" carry forward, as if they still held some loyalty to the Catholic church. I've given up trying to make sense of that. It's only the first in a very long list of Catholic traditions that have been carried forward by non-Catholic churches.

I completely agree with you. To me, Enoch stands on its own merits. I still remember the first time I started reading it.. I got through the "alternate" or "more complete" creation story (depending on who you ask), and skipped ahead to the section on the Paths of the Luminaries. And as soon as I realized that this ancient book had laid out a solar year of 364 days, and STILL understood it to not be accurate enough, I was sold. I printed my own copy right then.
And that was before I even realized that Jude was nothing more than a long string of quotes from, and references to Enoch.

I also understand the hesitance which mainstream Christians have towards questioning the canon. Certainly, it would be easier if we had a canon we didn't have to question. It would appear to be a "slippery slope" of sorts; Once we come to the conclusion that the canon is flawed, what are we supposed to do? Look to our own understanding? Look for a DIFFERENT council that we find more trustworthy ? Either way, we're relying on the wisdom of man, to discern the things of G-d. Whether it is our own wisdom we rely on, or that of other people, seems to make little difference.

However, it needs to be pointed out, that just because someone does question the canon, doesn't automatically and inherently mean that they are looking for a "buffet" style approach to religion. Sometimes, it's simply that we see discrepancies too great to ignore.

Thaddaeus · Oct 7, 2009

Mobius said:

God has given us free will, how ever there are some things that He controls and will even use men to get the job done, example being Pharaoh as God Harden his Heart til God could Put the Curse on the people of Pharaoh's rule as pharaoh had put on the people of God, God raised Pharaoh up so that He could use Him, even though Pharaoh was evil. so you know if you want to attack the word of God and do it in the name of God I don't think you have any room talking about anybody being evil. Christians attack the KJB by saying king james was a homosexual, people have said that paul and the writers of the Word was male Bigots who just wanted to degrade women, But I Have to believe God and when someone attacks the Word of God then they attack God himself, and God has and will use men even if they are evil to get His work done. so here is what i know, now I know that what I am going to share with you all Is Bible and that even though they are many in here that call themslves Christians that this reference to what I believe may be offensive to you, Who don't Believe that the Bible is from God, But I am not ashame of the Gospel found in the Bible and neither anything else in the Bible so here is why I still Trust the whole Bible even though some of you would trash it , it is still true to me for God has promised that

Mr 13:31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

so how do I know this part of the Bible is true I think we would call that faith, faith cometh by hearing, so what are we hearing a book, that it is no more than any other book and it contains all kind of lies and false informatiom or do we hear THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, whom can not lie. when we hear the Bible, but wouldn't this be something that should divide the non-believer from the believer and not divide the Body, Oh wait I got it God said or did God really say it (could have been peter that said), that there be no schism in the body but God gave us a book that we could pick and choose what we wanted to believe ,but wouldn't that Cause Confusion so is it also wrong when the Bible says that God is Not the author of Confusion.
'

Father now I understand ;

Ro 1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Ro 1:23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Jezreel · Oct 7, 2009

I would also love to read the book of Jubilees that it mentioned in the old covenant but I am not sure if the book of Jubilees that we can access is the one that the old testament speaks of.
To me, the Book of Enoch answered questions for me for eg, "a woman needs power on her head because of the angels" etc. It also gives a deeper look and understanding of the book of Revelation.

Mobius · Oct 7, 2009

Thaddeus-

We're not talking about Pharoah, Paul, or King James here. We're talking about Jude and Enoch, and you seem to have danced around that issue, without directly confronting it. I'm used to it of course, but I gotta say it does nothing to assuage my very particular and concise reservations about accepting the Catholic canon.

Thaddaeus said:

So then, since the Bible can't lie, and Jude does call Enoch a prophet, and quotes the Book of Enoch, the way that the NT quotes the rest of the Tanakh, we can take Jude at his word, and affirm that yes, Enoch WAS a prophet of G-d ?

Jezreel · Oct 7, 2009

Thaddeus is conditoned to not believe and think that only what the Roman Catholic apostates approved is truth. Of course we do understand that many lost books of the bilble are not the word of God. The book of Enoch is entirely different. Why would the apostles use that book if it was not inspired!? The book of Enoch was loved and treausred by the first early chuch until the the coucil of Hell (Niclene council)

MahogonySnail · Oct 8, 2009

The Nicene creed was the standard belief set by the early church in response to heresies (Arianism).

BTW your offensive statements "council of hell" Jezreel cannot be from God.

Arel · Oct 8, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

I have to agree. While I don't agree with the opinions and conclusions of the Council, it is certainly no reason to align brothers with the Adversary just because we disagree with them.

MahogonySnail · Oct 8, 2009

The book of Enoch was never considered part of canon by the Jews nor the early church ( I think, but feel free to correct me).

According to most scholars Enoch is not considered to be authored by Enoch of the bible.

It contradicts the bible in a number places and in other places it is nothing but mumbo jumbo.

Just because an author of scripture may quote a non-canonical source doesn't mean the non-canonical source is scripture.

The apostle Paul quotes Epimenides at times but this doesn't mean we need to take Epimenides as canonical as well.

The reason why it is not canonical is because all of it cannot be trusted. While it may contain elements of truth, the majority of it is uninspired ramblings and errors. We can read it for pleasure or out of interest but not for doctrine as it is uninspired.

Mobius · Oct 8, 2009

It was never "standard" until the Nicene council MADE it standard. The fact that there WAS a strong faction of believers who didn't subscribe to their way of thinking, should impress that upon you.

MahogonySnail · Oct 8, 2009

which faction was that? 1000 eastern and 800 western bishops were invited. 300 went with eastern in the majority. The factions were given opportunity to hear their case, including those that followed Arius. They all agreed upon the Nicene creed. As far as Christianity is concerned, it was, always has been, and is still today, the standard.

Mobius · Oct 8, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

Bah, Jude doesn't just quote it, he specifically calls it "prophecy." Now what other kinds of "prophecy" are believers allowed to dabble in? Either it's prophecy from G-d, or it's idolatry, right? I see no third option.

You know, it's a miracle Revelations made it into the canon. Many said the same thing, that it was "ramblings" and didn't make any sense.

Enoch, like Revelations, was not meant for the generation in which it was given, but rather a remote generation much later-

The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by G-d, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.

...which also explains why it reads more like the NT, than the Tanakh.. constantly referring to the Holy One, and the Son of Man..

But it's not JUST Jude!

The author of Hebrews, makes reference to Enoch. As just as explicitly as Jude calls Enoch a prophet, Hebrews 11:5 tells us that BEFORE Enoch was taken by G-d, HE was given this same testimony!

BEFORE the Council decided on what was scripture, and what wasn't, Enoch was very widely read. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria ALL referred to Enoch in their writings. Tertullian specifically called it "Holy Scripture".

And of course, this is where somebody can say "Just because the early church fathers might have considered it scripture doesn't mean it was inspired by G-d"

and I say... "EXACTLY!"

In all seriousness, though, I'd be interested to hear any actual arguments against it. It's easy to say something is ramblings, but as I say, it could simply be that we don't understand it. It's easy to say it conflicts with scripture, but can you be more specific ?

MahogonySnail · Oct 8, 2009

We have to remember that it is not popularity of a scripture that determines whether it is part of canon, but the result of various councils led by the Holy Spirit who determined the canon. ( BTW for Jezreel -l it was the Council of Laodicea where it was rejected not Nicea as claimed. )

The reason why it was rejected by later church authorities was because of the controversial descriptions of the fallen angels. The reason why Enoch is not in protestant bibles is because it wasn't in the Jewish canon and so should be left out, as Luther argued. Of course, the apocrypha was originally books that contained revelation not intended for the general public to read. So even if all of Enoch were inspired, it may still not be included in the canon because it is non-essential. The canon is intended to contain only essential books to faith and doctrine.

Perhaps it is a good thing it isn't in the canon of our bibles today (protestsant). With the way people privately interpret scripture, unlearned people may use it to prove anything from aliens and nephilim existing to the world is flat, to evolution. In fact Cup of Ruin has used it to show that we live in a geocentric universe in other threads.

Finally, we don't really know whether the authors of scripture quoted from Enoch just because it says similar. As they were inspired they could have been directly inspired by God and may not have been quoting Enoch at all. There are also similarities between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh but that doesn't mean Jesus quoted Gilgamesh or that Gilgamesh should be in our bibles too.

By the way you still haven't answered my question about the factions thing.

Thaddaeus · Oct 8, 2009

Mobius said:

you are focused on enoch and Jude/Thaddaeus. I am am talking about God Promising to preserve His word so If the Bible, King James Bible is not this Word that God has Promisec to preserve then Where is the Word of God That is what i am talking.I believe That we Have the word of God , if you don't then you don't need to be a Christian until you canb find the true Word Of God Thats say Jesus Is the One that God sent for if we don't have the true word of God then we ought to be as the Jews still hunting still looking for the Messiah so , if woman should not have authority over man then how do we know that Jesus is the one the same people that put the Canon together said that jesus was the way how do we know they didn't tamper with that just as you claim they tamper with enoch I heard the reason we don't have enoch is it could not be proven as scripture same as the book of thomas I have not heard you say anything about the Book of Thomas. I have faith that God preserved His word and that is the King James Bible. It all about God not the Catholic, the Cannonor enoch or paul It about God God said He would preserve His word But according to Mobius how do we even know that God said he would preserve His word acccording to you that could be a lie also>> faith in a book full of lies or faith in the True Word of God which will you preach from??

Arel · Oct 8, 2009

Thaddaeus said:

you are focused on enoch and Jude/Thaddaeus. I am am talking about God Promising to preserve His word so If the Bible, King James Bible is not this Word that God has Promisec to preserve then Where is the Word of God That is what i am talking.I believe That we Have the word of God , if you don't then you don't need to be a Christian until you canb find the true Word Of God Thats say Jesus Is the One that God sent for if we don't have the true word of God then we ought to be as the Jews still hunting still looking for the Messiah so , if woman should not have authority over man then how do we know that Jesus is the one the same people that put the Canon together said that jesus was the way how do we know they didn't tamper with that just as you claim they tamper with enoch I heard the reason we don't have enoch is it could not be proven as scripture same as the book of thomas I have not heard you say anything about the Book of Thomas. I have faith that God preserved His word and that is the King James Bible. It all about God not the Catholic, the Cannonor enoch or paul It about God God said He would preserve His word But according to Mobius how do we even know that God said he would preserve His word acccording to you that could be a lie also>> faith in a book full of lies or faith in the True Word of God which will you preach from??

If Elyon will preserve His Word, then why has the bible been changed so many times throughout history? Why are there translations like the Mormon and JW versions, which have the bible but also have added things in with it?

Jezreel · Oct 8, 2009

The Mormon bible and JW bible is completely different because they are new man written testimonies that are bearing false witness. Take the Dead Sea Scrolls for example. These are ancient writings that were found by a sheperd boy that have the book of Isaiah that says exactly the same thing as the original Isaiah. It also contained the book of Enoch.
The book of Mormon and JW bibles are a joke.

Bob1953 · Oct 8, 2009

Keith, the Bible doesn’t save; the Lord does that. We need to develop a strong faith in the Lord. I think you mentioned something about faith earlier.

Mobius, with just one thoughtless word we can turn a multitude of friends into a multitude of enemies.

Who Runs the Church?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Jezreel

Guest

Banned

Banned

Jezreel

Guest

Banned

Jezreel

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Jezreel

Guest

Banned