I'll leave that to GracePeace, who is apparently more interested in the subject than I am.
Wycliffe Bible Lk 1:28 says Hail Mary full of grace
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'll leave that to GracePeace, who is apparently more interested in the subject than I am.
Wycliffe Bible Lk 1:28 says Hail Mary full of grace
I did not deny that!
What dualism is that? If I am a child of GOD, I can only be an orphan if God is dead. Is that were you are headed now?
Your statement makes no sense. I assumed that all your posts and recommendations were to my benefit. You are right, though, I am obligated to obey God's revelation, which is found exclusively in the scriptures.
God tells us this explicitly. That is, he teaches Israel, and us through them, how to recognize and spot false teachers and false prophets. Essentially, we compare the presumed word from God with prior revelation. If the presumed word is contrary to what God has already revealed, we are to consider that message to be false.
I see no reason to adopt another strategy.
We have the scriptures.
You were talking about Apostles. Dude, take Zoe's advice. Give in to reality.
Only in the church you need a spiritual father to guide you
1. I brought Mariolatry up BECAUSE you didn't follow it... but here you're following errant men who did. Starting in the 2nd century, the Mariolatry began with St. Irenaeus declaring her to be "New Eve" and it ramped up from there. These are the men you're following, and telling me and all the readers to follow, when you want to defend "the Bible" as some kind of perfect complete exhaustive compendium of God's Words to us. Why are you following them and treating their pronouncements so seriously? Why only this one? Why not all of them?I'm not going to re-read, because I'm not sure it's going to get any clearer. But thank you for acknowledging that I *don't* follow Mariolatry. But then it confuses me because you say you think I follow the Catholic traditional line on what Scripture consists of.
But my argument has *not* been that I believe the Scripture canon is set because Catholics said so, because Catholics set the number of books. Obviously, Catholics like to add the Apocrypha to their Bibles!
I do not reject Enoch as canon because Catholics or Fundamentalists do so. I reject it for the same reasons that it traditionally is rejected as canonical--it lacks Jewish acceptance as OT canon, and lacks value as having apostolic doctrinal content.
1. I brought Mariolatry up BECAUSE you didn't follow it... but here you're following errant men who did. Starting in the 2nd century, the Mariolatry began with St. Irenaeus declaring her to be "New Eve" and it ramped up from there. These are the men you're following, and telling me and all the readers to follow, when you want to defend "the Bible" as some kind of perfect complete exhaustive compendium of God's Words to us. Why are you following them and treating their pronouncements so seriously? Why only this one? Why not all of them?
2. My argument about Enoch, again, was that Jude cited an extra-Biblical authority.
Now, you may want to argue it didn't come from the Book of Enoch we have.
All right. Where did it come from? What's the source? It's not the Bible.
I think it was from the Book of Enoch we have--it would have to be certified by examining ancient citations.
(Was the Book around? Were there fakes around? Et cetera.)
Also, Paul possibly cited a midrash about the Rock that followed the children of Israel.
If God has a blessing for me in extra-Biblical sources/writings the NT writers lived by, I want it.
That's my point.
1. You said you didn't even know what that was.So if Paul cited baptizing people for the dead, you're all in? It's a free world, brother. Go for it!
All the readers know the point I'm making even if you want to pretend you don't.I don't know why you want to keep linking me with the Mariolatry crowd. But you're enjoying it. Go for it!
1. Again and again, I cannot accept the idea that Jude citing a Prophet of God is nothing notable, and isn't a seal of approval--that I should hold it as being nothing more than something like Paul becoming like a pagan to win pagans (citing pagans to pagans). I know better than that. You do as well. Your allegiance to Mariolators is the only thing preventing you from admitting it.It doesn't matter to me if Jude was quoting from the book of Enoch. I think he did so not to put his seal of approval on the book of Enoch, but rather, to acknowledge the commonly-accepted prophecy of Enoch, recorded in the book of Enoch, that he foretold a coming universal judgment on earth. Recognizing that Enoch gave this prophecy and giving sanction to the book of Enoch are two different things. Again, if you want to make them the same thing, it's a free world. Go for it.
For what it's worth, Jude did not give any credit to the book of Enoch, even though he may have been quoting it.
Yeah, as I'd already said, that is a possibility--one way of testing that speculative belief would be to cross-reference citations from reputable sources. Really, we'd have to ascertain where Jude got this prophecy from.Rather, it gave recognition to the pseudepigraphal work that acknowledged a commonly-held belief that Enoch had given this prophecy.
The book of Enoch likely used that prophecy to try to legitimize his entire phony book. It is *my belief* that Enoch falsely lifted Enoch's genuine prophecy, inserting it into his own work, thinking that those who knew Enoch had given this prophecy would accept the whole book as genuine.
Well, before you said you didn't care if it did come from the Book of Enoch, but now you're saying you think the Book of Enoch was a result of divination? You think the Bible leads its readers to trust in a publication authored by divination? Yeah, that's a dangerous belief--and, what do you know, it is blind faith in Mariolators which is at the base of it (is the reason you are having to resort to it--it's the only way to hold the nonsensical tradition together). Solution : drop the Mariolators.It is likely the author of Enoch thought he was somehow "channeling Enoch" through his writing. I wouldn't accept automatic reading, ouija boards, or false prophecies. If you have no basis by which to judge a prophecy, you'll fall victim to it!
And you enjoy yours--ie, "Mariolators told me so--I don't question them."But I think we're pretty much done. Enjoy your beliefs, as long as you can...
We must be taught by Peter, the apostles, and their successors! Lk 10:16 Matt 28:19 Jn 21:17
I already have a spiritual father to guide me. Jesus said he sent the Spirit of truth to guide us. He also said, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers." Matthew 23:8Only in the church you need a spiritual father to guide you
Zoe is my wife and she is wise. I listen to her when she makes sense, and she makes sense quite often.you won’t obey your superiors in the faith, why should listen to Zoe? Is Zoe an apostle?
1. I brought Mariolatry up BECAUSE you didn't follow it... but here you're following errant men who did. Starting in the 2nd century, the Mariolatry began with St. Irenaeus declaring her to be "New Eve" and it ramped up from there. These are the men you're following, and telling me and all the readers to follow, when you want to defend "the Bible" as some kind of perfect complete exhaustive compendium of God's Words to us. Why are you following them and treating their pronouncements so seriously? Why only this one? Why not all of them?
2. My argument about Enoch, again, was that Jude cited an extra-Biblical authority.
Now, you may want to argue it didn't come from the Book of Enoch we have.
All right. Where did it come from? What's the source? It's not the Bible.
I think it was from the Book of Enoch we have--it would have to be certified by examining ancient citations.
(Was the Book around? Were there fakes around? Et cetera.)
Also, Paul possibly cited a midrash about the Rock that followed the children of Israel.
If God has a blessing for me in extra-Biblical sources/writings the NT writers lived by, I want it.
That's my point.
Who may I ask are their successors ?
so in order to remain in grace do you disobey the law?I’m just curious about it, Paul said if you keep the law you have fallen from grace
I already have a spiritual father to guide me. Jesus said he sent the Spirit of truth to guide us. He also said, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers." Matthew 23:8
Zoe is my wife and she is wise. I listen to her when she makes sense, and she makes sense quite often.
Nonetheless, Jesus told you not to allow someone to call you "rabbi". Why? Because all of those in Christ are brothers, i.e. of equal status. We have no superiors. We only have one superior and his name is Jesus.
We have teachers, we have mentors, we have mature Christians to help guide us. Yes, but they are NOT our superiors. They encourage us, they guide us, they help us see the long view. But we learn from them as one brother to another, not as superior to inferior. And most importantly, we take their advice and encouragement ONLY insofar as our elder brothers have given us advice consistent with the teaching of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church is not the church of Christ. Not even close.