The Redhead

I think it is obvious the Book of Enoch is not inspired. If it were inspired, I believe the majority of Christians would accept it. The Holy Spirit would lead Chirstians to the truth.

IF it is true, Christians will accept it in the future. Same goes for the Book of Mormon (which I doubt is a hoax, but I know not where/how Joseph Smith secured the record).
 
TheDanold said:
1. go through life and never have to take any responsibility for anything,

2. pretending that so much is against you

3. most people kind of grow out of that when they leave their teens.
Click to expand...

You've accurately summarized liberalism. It IS a mental disorder. Liberals are either naive like children, just plain stupid, or evil. I would classify Maineman as naive. He is a sniveling child.
 
Brent said:
I think it is obvious the Book of Enoch is not inspired. If it were inspired, I believe the majority of Christians would accept it. The Holy Spirit would lead Chirstians to the truth.

IF it is true, Christians will accept it in the future. Same goes for the Book of Mormon (which I doubt is a hoax, but I know not where/how Joseph Smith secured the record).
Click to expand...
Clearly Christ accepted it there, Brent, hence his reference to it in his teaching. It seems to me that if God accepted it, Christians today probably would too if the Council of Nicea were truly inspired. Arrogance is not the Voice of God speaking to you...
 
Brent said:
Maineman,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) How do you define 'ALL'?
Click to expand...
it is typical of you to avoid any quotations in red when attempting to justify your continued refusal to follow the words in red...

and you call yourself a Christian?

whatever
 
Damocles said:
Clearly Christ accepted it there, Brent, hence his reference to it in his teaching. It seems to me that if God accepted it, Christians today probably would too if the Council of Nicea were truly inspired. Arrogance is not the Voice of God speaking to you...
Click to expand...

The point being, Damo, we do not know to which Book of Enoch Christ was referring. The current version is probably corrupted. Arrogance? You want us to accept whatever books are discovered, regardless of how doubtful their sources?
 
Brent said:
You've accurately summarized liberalism. It IS a mental disorder. Liberals are either naive like children, just plain stupid, or evil. I would classify Maineman as naive. He is a sniveling child.
Click to expand...
Not really naive, just he tries to feel where he should think.

Liberals desire a child's Neverland world. One in which the ultimate state is to have all of the freedom in the world with none of the responsibility that must go with it.

They want the freedom to do drugs but desire government addiction and treatment programs - provided by others.
They want the freedom to allow prostitutes but desire government healthcare and publicly funded AIDS research - provided by others.
They want to dole out government goodies, while ensuring that no perceived need ever goes unfulfilled - provided by others.
And on and on...

Sooner or later honest hardworking people start asking themselves "What's the point in trying to be responsible?" and the dependence and irresponsibility can only cascade from there.
 
Maineman is a child. He repeatedly ignores my question.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) How do you define 'ALL'?
 
TheDanold said:
Not really naive, just he tries to feel where he should think.

Liberals desire a child's Neverland world. One in which the ultimate state is to have all of the freedom in the world with none of the responsibility that must go with it.

They want the freedom to do drugs but desire government addiction and treatment programs - provided by others.
They want the freedom to allow prostitutes but desire government healthcare and publicly funded AIDS research - provided by others.
They want to dole out government goodies, while ensuring that no perceived need ever goes unfulfilled - provided by others.
And on and on...

Sooner or later honest hardworking people start asking themselves "What's the point in trying to be responsible?" and the dependence and irresponsibility can only cascade from there.
Click to expand...

Well-said.
 
Brent said:
The point being, Damo, we do not know to which Book of Enoch Christ was referring. The current version is probably corrupted. Arrogance? You want us to accept whatever books are discovered, regardless of how doubtful their sources?
Click to expand...
The book of Enoch has been uncorrupted for a long time. It was never a "lost" book. It is included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Texts (they missed the Nicea memo)...
 
Damocles said:
The book of Enoch has been uncorrupted for a long time. It was never a "lost" book. It is included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Texts (they missed the Nicea memo)...
Click to expand...

It was isolated in Ethopia until around the 17th century, was it not? I for one consider that "lost." It was unavailable to the rest of the world.
 
No, there were version in Greek and it was available in the library, but excluded by that Priest who brought the books forward for approval at Nicea. The Greek and Ehtiopian version differ slightly in translation, but only in translation. This was an uncorrupted book, as uncorrupted as many accepted ones.
 
Damocles said:
No, there were version in Greek and it was available in the library, but excluded by that Priest who brought the books forward for approval at Nicea. The Greek and Ehtiopian version differ slightly in translation, but only in translation. This was an uncorrupted book, as uncorrupted as many accepted ones.
Click to expand...

I maintain the belief that IF God intended it to be part of inspired Canon, it would be included in the common Bible. God is sovereign; His word will be preserved.
 
Except it was preserved that God (if you believe that Jesus was indeed God) used it to teach, but we know it is not included. Man screwed that one up... That is the Arrogance to which I referred.
 
Brent said:
I maintain the belief that IF God intended it to be part of inspired Canon, it would be included in the common Bible. God is sovereign; His word will be preserved.
Click to expand...

Why do God's intentions only pertain to the written word? Why don't his intentions pertain to things like the Holocaust or Etheopia? His intentions are more important to what is written than human suffering? Your God can be a real dick. My god is kick back, a free will kind of god.
 
Damocles said:
Except it was preserved that God (if you believe that Jesus was indeed God) used it to teach, but we know it is not included. Man screwed that one up... That is the Arrogance to which I referred.
Click to expand...

There are in fact 3 Books of Enoch. And, interestingly, most scholars doubt they were authored by Enoch:

Most modern scholars consider the Enochic literature to be pseudepigraphal.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

That's not arrogance, Damo.

Clearly God does not want the Books of Enoch in our Bible.
 
Once again, God (if you believe Jesus was God) used it to teach, as Canon... To say now that "God clearly doesn't want it" is simply rubbish. It is arrogance to assume that God isn't perfect... while the choices of men are. Especially when the religion specifically notes that God is perfect. Which text do you want to ignore, the one where Christ (God Himself) uses the book as Canon? Or the one where it says that God (Christ) is perfect?

The whole, "doubt it was written by Enoch" thing is ridiculous. God (Christ) used it as Canon to Teach... That should be good enough for any imperfect human.

You can keep ignoring the whole "God used it to Teach" thing, but it isn't going to go away. Two of those books were Christian Texts... the other is a Hebrew text. I have read them all, the differences are minimal.
 
Damo, I would like to clarify something.

The Bible does not necessarily include ALL the inspired scripture in existence. I believe it is possible there are other accounts which are inspired by God, which aren't included in the Bible. It is possible Enoch is such an example. Also possible, though admittedly less likely, is the Book of the Restored Covenants, also known as the Book of Mormon. (It would make sense that this is a separate account, however, since it deals with an entirely separate group of people).

However, whichever books ARE in the Bible ARE inspired. In other words, while not necessarily all inspired books are in the Bible, all books in the Bible are necessarily inspired. That is what is truly important: that we can trust the written word of God. I believe that is what 2 Timothy 3:16 emphasizes. The Bible tells no lies.

My point here was to point out that Maineman believes there are lies in the Bible, that the Bible cannot be trusted. In response I suggested he should remove the parts of the Bible he doesn't like because they're of no use to him.

Once again, God (if you believe Jesus was God) used it to teach, as Canon... To say now that "God clearly doesn't want it" is simply rubbish. It is arrogance to assume that God isn't perfect...
Click to expand...

You are conveniently ignoring the possibility that those books became corrupted.
 
Which? Christ's quotes? Or the Book of Enoch... When between three the differences are so minimal it pretty much tells you they are not corrupted. The Hebrew version was deliberately changed later and that one is known so you compare the two that were separated before and find the differences almost non-existent... That is not a corrupted text. It is, in fact, where most Angelology and Demonology texts directly relate to, including the ones used by the Catholic Church... the same church that denied the inclusion of the text with the information that they actually use!

It is a fascinating text, and one of the most clearly "Inspired" texts that were not included.
 
I've been fascinated by the texts that were not included in the "Canon"... I feel far more inspired by the Gnostic Texts than by the "inspired" books that were included. There is a depth to them that is part of what was missing long ago when I first realized that I didn't believe as my mother did...
 
Damocles said:
Which? Christ's quotes? Or the Book of Enoch... When between three the differences are so minimal it pretty much tells you they are not corrupted. The Hebrew version was deliberately changed later and that one is known so you compare the two that were separated before and find the differences almost non-existent... That is not a corrupted text. It is, in fact, where most Angelology and Demonology texts directly relate to, including the ones used by the Catholic Church... the same church that denied the inclusion of the text with the information that they actually use!

It is a fascinating text, and one of the most clearly "Inspired" texts that were not included.
Click to expand...

We only have a few excerpts included in the Bible, so there is very little to work with. We can't be sure the remaining 99.5% of those books are trustworthy. Why do most scholars consider it to be pseudepigraphal, as in not written by Enoch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top