Bible alone

[GracePeace]

Not playing games. The passage in Jude indeed ascribes to Enoch the role of prophet who foretells the coming of the Lord.

Therefore, a reasonable person would not go about comparing this citation to Paul's addressing the pagans on Mars Hill.

And yet, in the same passage, Mt. Sinai is mentioned, which likely hadn't even been named in the time of Enoch.

1 Enoch 1.4. And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai...

It could be a variant. It could be a later interpolation. It could be a misinterpretation--maybe a name that was similar that was then contorted into "Sinai" by a well-meaning scribe. It could be that, over time, it was interpreted as it was preserved by the Jews and so it was preserved that way.

So my assumption is that Enoch probably did, by tradition, proclaim the coming of the Lord. But the book is pseudepigraphal, someone using some of Enoch's words, traditionally accepted as Enoch's words, even though the book itself is falsely ascribed to the prophet Enoch.

So, a man of God like Jude had no problem alluding to a Book that would mislead the readers, and even ascribed "prophecy" (speech of God) to it, to make the delusion even stronger? That's Scripture to you?

Who says "Prophet Enoch?" The Jews did not accept the book as canonical, and the Jews created the OT canon, for the most part.

1. This is circular reasoning--you're assuming what is being argued.
2. Well, I've been convinced by a Russian Orthodox that the Apocrypha should be taken seriously. He had some good arguments.

But yes, Enoch likely prophesied before he was caught up to heaven, and he likely left some kind of tradition bearing the prophecy of the Lord's coming in judgment. After all, it was just prior to the Flood of Noah.

Right...

Although Jude says that Enoch prophesied, I'm not sure he is referred to, officially, as having the role of a prophet. For example, where in any of the books ascribed to him does he set forth his calling as a prophet?
On the other hand, the biblical prophets largely attribute their office of prophet to a divine calling. We see only a small part of that with Enoch. In the Bible we read that he walked with God, and intimately knew God. So he likely had insight into the future. But the book of Enoch may capture only a small part of what he actually said. We don't know how much the book may actually capture what Enoch prophesied.

1. Well, let's say the "Book of Enoch" we have today is just a fake--that they stripped that one verse from the NT and then filled the rest of it with lies--fine, then, again, I am interested in finding the source material for Jude. I don't accept that it would be strictly oral. People regularly wrote things down.
2. A prophet is just someone who speaks for God--and there is a part in Enoch where the fallen angels ask Enoch to go petition God on their behalves because they could no longer look at God for their shame and God reprimanded them "aren't YOU , spiritual beings , supposed to be interceding for HIM , a physical being!?" if I remember correctly. So, yes, according to that book God had Enoch speak on His behalf.

MY POINT, again, bottom line, is that I DO NOT accept that "the Bible" is somehow exhaustive and anything that I can find substantive reasons for considering seriously I am interested in. The same sort of men who decided on this anthology we call "the Bible" were the men who dreamt up ridiculous anti-Scriptural doctrines like "Mary is the New Eve"--they need to be questioned not blindly trusted. Granted, #1 is knowing God.

 

[GracePeace]

maybe a name that was similar that was then contorted into "Sinai" by a well-meaning scribe

This sort of thing literally happened in the Masoretic text with the verse "they pierced my hands and feet"--just ONE "yod" that apparently was accidentally dragged down a little too far was misinterpreted as a "vav" and it became "like a lion my hands and feet" obscuring (I think as a divine judgment) the Gospel from the Jews. That mistake became authoritative.

 

[theefaith]

I see nothing in Acts 2.38-39 to warrant conflating Eze 36 with Water Baptism. More than likely, it indirectly relates to the spiritual cleansing that Christ brings with the New Birth. This is Spirit Baptism, which Water Baptism merely symbolizes.

Eze 36 certainly does *not* establish a *ritual* of Baptismal cleansing! To insinuate that is far from the thought of that passage.

Acts 2:38 this promise or sacred oath or a sacrament
That promise was made in ez 36

same as Jn 3:5 ritual of Christian baptism

eph 4:5

 

[theefaith]

I would agree with that. The Pope has a call and a gift to lead. The only problem I have is that the Catholic Church has gotten greedy over the centuries, claiming to be the exclusive source of Christian unity in the world. The idea that unity must be *organized,* like the Roman Empire was organized into an empire, is false and not Christian.

However, there is nothing wrong with organizing a Church organization, so as to facilitate the ministry of the Gospel. How well the Catholic Church is doing in that department is for God to judge--not me.

I would embrace the Catholic Church as a brother organization, along with many other Christian communions. The only problem I have with the RCC is that the organization has adopted many questionable traditions and beliefs that I don't feel jibe with Scriptures. And the Catholic Church never seems to receive correction from outside of its own communion.

That being said, I believe there are likely many good Christians in the Catholic Church. More than anything, I intensely dislike the exclusivity that the RCC represents in its own beliefs. This hardly makes for good relations among the many communions.

the church is exclusive, do you want “good relations” with Jews Muslims pagans Indian witch doctors etc.

There is only one name under heaven for salvation and only one true church Jn 10:16

Only Christ has authority to found the church only he builds the church on the apostles Matt 16:18 eph 2:20

 

[theefaith]

One mediator bewteen God and the Son of man jesus God not seen not a legion (3500 and rising)

John 6: 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Not to our sister in the Lord Mary.

Those who do say we do need a man to teach us it simply idenfies the working of the antichrists many mediators .they refuse to hed the warnings so that they can rather kep this oral traditon of sinful men

1 John2: 26-27 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

Like shown in Mathew 16 when Peter blasphemed the Son of man , Jesus in false pride claiming he was the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against . The father gave Jesus the chief apostle words to rebuke the spirit (singualr )of the anchrists (many) that worked in Peter . He fogave Peter of his blaphemy against the Son of man that window cloesd when Jesus disapeared .A 33 year window of opportunity .

Mathew 16: 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Jesus venrated Peter and said I come to do your will .... Not

Mathew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

What did the lord not seen tell Peter to get behing him not seen and not Peter seen? Did Peter heed the warining in 1 John 2:27-28 ? even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Must be taught Matt 28:19 Luke 1:4


Christ founded the church on Peter!
And the apostles!
Matt 16:18 eph 2:20 Jn 20:21-23

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You CANNOT give the keys (authority) to a confession but to a person! Peter
Vs 19 unto thee (Peter) thou shalt bind (Peter) thou shalt loose (Peter)

Only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors and those members of Christ by faith and baptism United with them, the communion of the saints
Jn 16:10 matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23
Jn 10:16

Ephesians 5:32
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The office of apostle that has the three fold office, to teach: to govern the church: and to sanctify by the sacraments or sacred oaths (promises) of the father! Acts 2:38-39 with ez 36:25-27 Heb 8:6

Keys of authority! And power to bind and loose! Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18

Moral authority:
(Teaching)
Necessity of being taught by Christ:
Two edge sword: defining truth and condemning errors, and Interpreting scripture.

Jurisdictional authority:
(Governing / administering)
Necessity of Peter and the apostles and their successors to govern the holy church.

Spiritual authority:
(Life of Grace)
Sanctifying thru the mass and Sacraments

Jn 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Jn 9:5
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Matt 5:14
Ye (the apostles/ the church) are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
(There is only one church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors!) matt 16:18 Jn 10:16 eph 2:20

Only Peter and the apostles and their successors have the teaching authority of Christ with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit! Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13

Fathers have care of their children, spiritual fathers care for our souls!

Pope, papa, father, yes spiritual father!

Isa 22 father

Christ is the head of the church!
Peter is appointed by Christ as the head of the church on earth!
Supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

Matt 17:27
Jesus and Peter are one:
Jesus even works a miracle to make this point. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mt 16:18 Peter received the keys of the kingdom: (jurisdictional authority of the universal church) and the power to bind and loose:

Lk 22:32
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter:

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:

Matt 10:2
Peter is the prince of the apostles, head of the universal church on earth!

Jn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jn 20:21-23
Peter and the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins:

Acts 1:15 1:17 1:26
Peter declares Judas office of apostle valid and vacant and chooses a successor:

Acts 2:14
Peter preaches the first sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 2:38
Peter requires baptism as the outward sign and initiation into the new covenant!

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
(Peter guided by the Holy Spirit guides the church)

Acts 5 authority of the apostles verified by them being stricken dead by God verifying Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and the apostles have the light of the Holy Spirit!


1 Tim 1 Paul is Timothy’s spiritual father.
1 Jn 2:1 little children are adult Christians, John is their spiritual father.

Apostles have Care for our souls
(Acts 20:28 Jn 21:17 Heb 13:17)

———

The successors of Moses having kingdom authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose Mt 23 was taken from them Mt 21:43 and given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: Mt 16:18 Mt 18:18 and Jesus says this power and authority is to be obeyed!

Rom 13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(If it applies to civil authority, how much more to religious authority)

Mt 28:18-20
all authority is given to Peter, the apostles, and their successors requiring obedience, rom 1:5 obedience to the faith!
And Jesus say to Peter, the apostles, and their successors: behold I am with you even until the end of the world!!!
So the apostles have to remain until the end!

Lk 10:16 He who hears you hears me...
(The apostles and their successors)

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Without a central authority there can be no unity of the spirit, no obedience to the faith!
God - Christ - Peter - the apostles - the apostles successors - the people

Hierarchy is the nature of authority!

God always establishes order in obedience to hierarchical authority!

 

[theefaith]

There are many Christian administrators. They just don’t flow through Rome.

matt 16:18 only Peter and his successors

Keys of authority! And power to bind and loose! Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18

Moral authority:
(Teaching)
Necessity of being taught by Christ:
Two edge sword: defining truth and condemning errors, and Interpreting scripture.

Jurisdictional authority:
(Governing / administering)
Necessity of Peter and the apostles and their successors to govern the holy church.

Spiritual authority:
(Life of Grace)
Sanctifying thru the mass and Sacraments

 

[theefaith]

Joseph under our unseen eternal Father. Peter under the same when he was not denying Jesus over and over.

The foundation of the matter must be sought out

The kingdom of the faithles, athiest Jew as fools who gathered themselves together They did not beleive in a God not seen as one that does call men togehter. They in self righteous pride became jealous of the sourrunding Pagan nation(out of sight out of mind)

Our Lord as Father as King of kings and Lord of lords declared to Samauel its not you they reject as King reinging over them But me the Faithfull Creator of the universe . That period of time used a parable for the time present it came to a end at the time of the first century reformation. The veil is still rent.

1 Samauel 8:4-7 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20

Matt 16:17-19

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Lk 10:16
He who hears you hears me...

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, so send in you. (The apostles) posses the same power mission and authority as Christ!
Peter, the apostles and their successors!

 

[Wrangler]

matt 16:18 only Peter and his successors

Except matt 16:18 does not say his successors.

 

[Randy Kluth]

the church is exclusive, do you want “good relations” with Jews Muslims pagans Indian witch doctors etc.

There is only one name under heaven for salvation and only one true church Jn 10:16

Only Christ has authority to found the church only he builds the church on the apostles Matt 16:18 eph 2:20

All true, but the implication that Christ founded only the RCC as the exclusive *church organization,* controlling all other communions, is wrong and not in Scriptures. It was invented by the RCC with self-serving motives, to give control over all to the Catholic leadership, much as Communist leaders want to rule the world.

This kind of dictatorial leadership was never what Christ envisioned for the Church. He said his Kingdom was from heaven, and not to establish an earthly Kingdom until it comes time for world judgment.

We may have Christian kingdoms or Christian nations. And we may legitimately have organizations with established leaders. But this is not to be confused with the Kingdom of heaven, which has yet to come.

Until such time, any effort to establish the Kingdom of heaven on earth now, by earthly organizations, is a "false Messiah," and a "false Prophet." So said Jesus himself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Acts 2:38 this promise or sacred oath or a sacrament
That promise was made in ez 36

same as Jn 3:5 ritual of Christian baptism

eph 4:5

Not even remotely! Neither Eze 36 nor John 3 refers to any ritual at all. It is meaningless to say it does when it doesn't. Eze 36 refers to a spiritual cleansing--not a ritual. A spiritual cleansing is something God does by purifying us *on the inside.* In this case, God was promising to purify the entire nation, spiritually. This was a reformation--not the prediction of a coming NT ritual!

John 3 refers to the New Birth, which is an internal spiritual change, a new spiritual identity. None of these passages mention any NT ritual to come at all!

In fact, Jesus told Nicodemus he should already have understood the New Birth. So it wasn't something relegated to a NT ritual at all. It was already understood, in some sense, in the OT era!

Even though the New Birth is fully consummated by NT redemption, the complete change in direction, spiritually, was already understood as taught by the Law. It was a reference to a complete repentance, or a complete redemption from sin.

If the New Birth should've been understood by Nicodemus under the Law, it certainly didn't refer to NT Water Baptism! On the contrary, the birth by water refers to natural childbirth, and not to NT Water Baptism!

 

[DPMartin]

God promised Abraham a "nation," which we know was Israel. God gave that nation statehood by allowing it self-governance, or rather, governance under God's laws, as opposed to pagan countries.

If you think God doesn't want a godly society, you misinterpret the entire Bible! God has never just wanted individuals living in pagan societies, although that is sometimes necessary. The goal is, as you say, the Kingdom of God, which ultimatley will be a political state headed by God.

In the interim, God has not changed--He still prefers godly societies, and not just lone rangers living in a wilderness of paganism. So God was clearly for the State of Israel from the beginning, and He is still all for Christian States.

It's just that all godly states fall into disrepair and corruption. This doesn't delegitimize the idea of a Christian Statei--it is just a statement about fallen human nature, that even the best societies degrade over time.

The whole idea of the corruption of the State as opposed to "pure" Christianity is a myth concocted by rebels who want to live independent of government. This is our natural bent, to not want to be ruled by anybody, including God! Obedience to the State was something Paul taught even during some of the worst governments in history! Paul was for social order!



Yes, the Inquisition and the Catholic Church both suffered corruption. It is worth telling the other side of the story, however, that Christian societies opposed other beliefs because they were seditious movements, rebels against the State, not just disagreeing with ideas, but actually taking up arms to defend their ideas against the Christian State.

Both Martin Luther and other good Christian leaders in history have erred by going too far in their hostility towards the Jewish People. I cannot defend them--they were right to oppose Judaism, and they certainly had the right to depose Jews hostile to the Christian State. But they were not right to slander all Jews as hostile to the Christian State.



Any Christian State that bases its political system on the Christian Bible and on its faithful practice is a State under the direct authority of God. Ruling by "Divine Right" can either be legitimate or corrupt, depending on who is claiming it and depending on whether they are truly living it.



Clearly, we disagree. The level of our integration, politically, with our country's government is determined by the choice of the people themselves--not just the political system, nor just the leadership itself. When the people largely embrace the Christian religion, the leadership and the political system will reflect that. And that is what we all should be striving towards, even if it is not presently possible, even if at present the majority are against Christian exclusivity in our system.



The world is *not* the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God has an ambassadorship not just of individuals, but also of States, at times. Your failure to recognize that is what God wanted with Israel is at the heart of our disagreement. And He wanted that well before the Kingdom of God could come!

i responded to a posting of which that posting wasn't about bible along.

what does your posting here have to do with bible alone?

 

[Randy Kluth]

i responded to a posting of which that posting wasn't about bible along.

what does your posting here have to do with bible alone?

I was responding to your post. You would have to go back and follow the evolution of the various posts. If you think our discussion is out of line, I have nothing more to say then.

In post #21 you seemed to argue, against "Bible only" that the RCC and the Protestants were in a competition to spread Christianity around the world, a "healthy competition?" So maybe you're saying that the critical thing was not which Bible you use, but more, whether you belong to any Christian communion at all?

And you seemed to argue that the important thing was in providing a secure place for Christians to belong. You also suggested that "most" don't do their homework, in understanding this history. This suggested that your readers should study the "Bible only" issue more from the vantage point of history.

I'm not really sure how you mean this, so I really needed more information about your logic in how Christian history affects the "Bible only" argument. I just wanted to assure you that even with a good grasp of the history, "belonging" is not the critical thing in Christian issues of authority.

It is, in fact, remaining true to the Gospel, that safeguards our place in heaven. And that comes by conforming to the truths of the Scriptures. It is our guide keeping us from wandering, which happens in all communions, including the RCC and Protestantism.

To just follow Catholic Tradition, and to "trust" Catholic leadership, provides no safeguards at all. And it sets one up for following a blind leader off a cliff. There has to be a means of reform, a means of challenging the status quo if it has wandered.

I wasn't sure exactly where you were coming from. So by stating my own views, I thought I could learn more of what you meant? But I suppose I never got there? You can either explain more, and write this off as "off topic?"

 

[dev553344]

Where does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Bible alone?

where does the Bible say what is and what is not scripture!

Where does the Bible say read for yourself and make your own doctrine or your own salvation?

The bible wouldn't spell out that the bible is a complete knowledge of God, in fact it points to latter day prophets fulfilling the word of God:

Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Revelation 10:7 "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

 

[Gary Urban]

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20

That’s odd, new news to me. ? God does not have successors? Where did that idea come from the old testament or a law of men (I heard it through the grape vine)?

Did you forget the time of the first century reformation came as spoken of in Joel, men and women a kingdom of priest from all the nations worshiping a unseen King of Kings and Lord of lords.Just as during the time of Judges like deborah or Samaeul the last before the abominatio of desolation.

This is seeing our eternal God is not a man as us,(imposible) Therefore Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation was clearly restored at the time of the 1st century reformation .which for some odd reason you keep ignoring.????

The proper order of faith as it is written returning the divine government to where it was before the abomination with Judges, prophets sent as apostles that held out the word of God the gospel of salvation .

Successors are used in human government not the divine government (father and Son working as one God).

Like the time period there Kings in Israel called the abomination nation of desolation which is making desolation the unseen King of kings and Lord of lord .Priorto kings in Israel the abomination of desolation. God’s people and not the atheists Jews who refused to hearken on a God not seen. God’s people where represented by prophets sent as apostles amen and woman alike, they served a King of kings not seen .In that way you can ignore the foundation of the admonition of desolation ,But as a witness of God it is greater that the witness of men (Out of sight out of mind . .no faith of Christ as it is written (sola scriptural)

Try beginning with the foundation of the doctrine

1 Samauel 8: 4-7 Then all the elders of Israel (atheist as fools no God in their hearts ) gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people (atheist as fools no God in their hearts)in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Great verse to memorize .Because the atheist Jews became jealous of all the surrounding pagan nation God gave them over until the time of reformation (Hebrew 9)

On one occasion the atheist Jewish women decided they also had a desire to be venerated like the men .they demanded equal rights. They flat out rejected the prophet /apostle Jeremiah that our Holy Father sent. And the women that were chasing after all the gods of the nation with one voice declared. . We will have nothing to do with sola scriptura but will rather do whatsoever their own mouths as orals tradition wives tales declared. Because they saw no evil in that abomination of desolation which again was making sola scriptura without effect God sent them a strong delustion so that they could go on speading lires and seing no evil .

Jerimah 44:15-17 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Can you explain why the women saw no evil in destroying the integrity of the word of God.?. What does the Pope say?? Ignore the old testament as the foundation? Pretend it began in the beginning of Mathew 16 ingoring the part that Christ is the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against .You must remember when Peter rebuked the lord of Gloy .Or is that our brother in the Lord, Peter's role make the word of God (sola scripotura) without effect so that men could rather follow whatsoever thier own mouthh dreams up? ?







.

 

[DPMartin]

I was responding to your post. You would have to go back and follow the evolution of the various posts. If you think our discussion is out of line, I have nothing more to say then.

to illustrate the value of your political views in context

the only political authority that saw no reason to punish or persecute Jesus when the time came was Pilot, he was the only one that had such, that argued against doing anything to Jesus. and Rome was one of the most decadent societies we are aware of.

 

[Randy Kluth]

to illustrate the value of your political views in context

the only political authority that saw no reason to punish or persecute Jesus when the time came was Pilot, he was the only one that had such, that argued against doing anything to Jesus. and Rome was one of the most decadent societies we are aware of.

Sorry, the point is lost on me. 1st you don't want me to address anything but Bible only. And now this?

I'd be happy to respond, but I'm not sure playing "light" with Pilate makes any relevant point with respect to my view at all--only to yourself, apparently.

As I said, the ideal is a Christian state, or God's version of a "theocracy." That is clearly established in God's promise to Israel, that it should be a nation, and its own political state.

God, in other words, loves not just the whole society, but justice for the whole society, as well. That comes only when people follow God's laws. And those laws will not be followed if the lowest common denominator is protected.

We would likely both agree that imposing the highest standards on a society will be oppressive, and will not work, if the society does not, as a large majority, agree with it and consent to it. It is for good reason that God established His kind of theocracy with Israel after Israel *consented* to live by it. As Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

But when the state has lax laws, or when the people do not want stricter religious laws, they may feel free. But in the end there will be every kind of disorder, chaos, and lawlessness. There will be crime, and God will curse the society.

That being said, nations are always in a flux, going from bad to better, or from good to worse. There comes a time when the small remnant of good people in a bad society present truths that will ultimately turn the society around. Or, the society will persecute the righteous remnant, and ultimately be judged by God.

The very society in which an ungodly governor like Pilate wanted to let Jesus go also killed Jesus and the apostles, along with many Christians within the empire. The society did, however, convert to Christianity. This was unable to *completely* convert the society in terms of real repentance, and the empire fell.

The fact some societies are decadent, and may either rise or fall due to the witness of a few righteous, does not make living in a pagan society God's preferred situation. But it is what He wants, lacking any alternative.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Mars Hill was Paul's self-confessed "becoming all things to all men to win souls" 1 Corinthians 9:19-22--he appealed to what EVER could move them toward Christ--he wouldn't have cited those sources teaching the Church, teaching the Church he cited SCRIPTURE.

I understand, and I won't make too big a point of this. Paul did in fact use pagan sources to prove his doctrine of monotheism. That being said, it was Scripture that taught monotheism--not paganism. You're right about that much. Still doesn't prove much about citing Enoch's book as if it was Scripture. And it certainly doesn't prove that Enoch wrote the book of Enoch, even if the quote contained in the book was from Enoch. I believe it was a pseudepigrapha.

 

[GracePeace]

I understand, and I won't make too big a point of this. Paul did in fact use pagan sources to prove his doctrine of monotheism. That being said, it was Scripture that taught monotheism--not paganism. You're right about that much. Still doesn't prove much about citing Enoch's book as if it was Scripture. And it certainly doesn't prove that Enoch wrote the book of Enoch, even if the quote contained in the book was from Enoch. I believe it was a pseudepigrapha.

Yeah, that's the difference between us : you entrust yourself to the men who compiled the Bible (men who certainly held to tradition-based concepts you would reject), I don't.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Therefore, a reasonable person would not go about comparing this citation to Paul's addressing the pagans on Mars Hill.

Should I call you "unreasonable" simply because I disagree with you? Why don't you consider the point I'm making "reasonable?"

It could be a variant. It could be a later interpolation. It could be a misinterpretation--maybe a name that was similar that was then contorted into "Sinai" by a well-meaning scribe. It could be that, over time, it was interpreted as it was preserved by the Jews and so it was preserved that way.

You're making my point for me.

So, a man of God like Jude had no problem alluding to a Book that would mislead the readers, and even ascribed "prophecy" (speech of God) to it, to make the delusion even stronger? That's Scripture to you?

Why don't you consider what I actually said? Jude could be citing a well-known book, known to be pseudepigraphal, that established the traditional statement of Enoch.

1. This is circular reasoning--you're assuming what is being argued.
2. Well, I've been convinced by a Russian Orthodox that the Apocrypha should be taken seriously. He had some good arguments.

I won't hold that against you.

Right...

1. Well, let's say the "Book of Enoch" we have today is just a fake--that they stripped that one verse from the NT and then filled the rest of it with lies--fine, then, again, I am interested in finding the source material for Jude. I don't accept that it would be strictly oral. People regularly wrote things down.
2. A prophet is just someone who speaks for God--and there is a part in Enoch where the fallen angels ask Enoch to go petition God on their behalves because they could no longer look at God for their shame and God reprimanded them "aren't YOU , spiritual beings , supposed to be interceding for HIM , a physical being!?" if I remember correctly. So, yes, according to that book God had Enoch speak on His behalf.

Well yes, the book itself has Enoch as a prophet, speaking for God, called as such. However, no biblical source substantiates that. The only thing you have is Jude referring to a prophecy he made, and nothing more about the book of Enoch. There is nothing aside from this one quote to substantiate the book itself. I could quote something genuinely true from the book of Mormon, to substantiate a singular fact contained in a book full of lies. That does not endorse the Book of Mormon. I could quote some truths from Catholic books, to prove some truths that Catholics also believe. This does not uphold Catholicism.

The point is, Jude cited the book of Enoch because it was a reasonable source at the time for Enoch's life and prophecy of the endtime. It was not necessarily an endorsement of a pseudepigraphal book.

MY POINT, again, bottom line, is that I DO NOT accept that "the Bible" is somehow exhaustive and anything that I can find substantive reasons for considering seriously I am interested in. The same sort of men who decided on this anthology we call "the Bible" were the men who dreamt up ridiculous anti-Scriptural doctrines like "Mary is the New Eve"--they need to be questioned not blindly trusted. Granted, #1 is knowing God.

I too am a "critical thinker," and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Our disagreement is minor. If we look at the evolution of the Scriptures, we will find an initial compilation began with a heretic, Marcion. But when I look at what was finally decided, at the councils, of what the acceptable record of apostolic teaching was, I'd have to agree that certain apostolic letters were designed to preserve authentic teaching from Christ. Other writings may have been "apostolic," but were of less use in preserving a record of doctrine. 2 and 3 John seem to fit into this category. But I don't see any problem with preserving them as "Scripture," regardless.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[GracePeace]

Should I call you "unreasonable" simply because I disagree with you? Why don't you consider the point I'm making "reasonable?"

You're making my point for me.



Why don't you consider what I actually said? Jude could be citing a well-known book, known to be pseudepigraphal, that established the traditional statement of Enoch.



I won't hold that against you.



Well yes, the book itself has Enoch as a prophet, speaking for God, called as such. However, no biblical source substantiates that. The only thing you have is Jude referring to a prophecy he made, and nothing more about the book of Enoch. There is nothing aside from this one quote to substantiate the book itself. I could quote something genuinely true from the book of Mormon, to substantiate a singular fact contained in a book full of lies. That does not endorse the Book of Mormon. I could quote some truths from Catholic books, to prove some truths that Catholics also believe. This does not uphold Catholicism.

The point is, Jude cited the book of Enoch because it was a reasonable source at the time for Enoch's life and prophecy of the endtime. It was not necessarily an endorsement of a pseudepigraphal book.



I too am a "critical thinker," and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Our disagreement is minor. If we look at the evolution of the Scriptures, we will find an initial compilation began with a heretic, Marcion. But when I look at what was finally decided, at the councils, of what the acceptable record of apostolic teaching was, I'd have to agree that certain apostolic letters were designed to preserve authentic teaching from Christ. Other writings may have been "apostolic," but were of less use in preserving a record of doctrine. 2 and 3 John seem to fit into this category. But I don't see any problem with preserving them as "Scripture," regardless.

Thanks for your comments.

More circular reasoning : "no biblical source substantiates". Can't deal with this. Anyone who is reasonable will see I've already addressed these things. Nothing left to say. Not repeating myself or talking to a brick wall.