the book of Jasher, should it be part of study ?

[Qnts2]

2 minutes ago, SINNERSAVED said:

really , it seems that you where there ?  you cannot back that up m it is all hear say, so , what is the proof of what you are stating, for you do not know if the gnostic is original and worthy or not,  you dis agree with them and so that does not make it correct ?

 you also go by the church , of the past,  to be correct, of whats in, and whats out of the bible, you got to give references , I would like to read that for my self ?

 thanks

Do you disagree that Jesus regarded the Tenakh as scripure when He walked on this earth?

[SINNERSAVED]

Just now, Qnts2 said:

Do you disagree that Jesus regarded the Tenakh as scripure when He walked on this earth?

that is not what I said , so you can rephrase your question , thank you

[Qnts2]

7 minutes ago, SINNERSAVED said:

that is not what I said , so you can rephrase your question , thank you

I can not rephrase the question. You seem to be challenging the canon scripture of the Tenakh. Or am I misreading? Since this thread is titled, the book of Jasher, are you questioning whether that book was ever canon?

[SINNERSAVED]

Just now, Qnts2 said:

I can not rephrase the question. You seem to be challenging the canon scripture of the Tenakh. Or am I misreading? Since this thread is titled, the book of Jasher, are you questioning whether that book was ever canon?

no !!.

 I know as everyone knows about the canon ? it was about the information of all the other stuff, mentioned, and how does he know what was correct of being in or out, by what the church has decided? and if the gnostic writings are really true or false , ?

[Sister]

On 10/04/2016 at 11:21 PM, 1to3 said:

• 6:3 Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural

Hi 1to3, I'm still looking at all these pointers just to show I am not ignoring. 

Book of Enoch

6:1  And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto

6.2  them beautiful and comely daughters.  And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men

6:3  and beget us children.  And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them:  I fear ye will not

6:4  indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.  And they all answered him and said:  Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations

6:5  not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.  Then sware they all together bound themselves

6:6  by mutual imprecatons upon it.  And they were all two hundred.

 

Do these scriptures come to mind?

Genesis 6:1   And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Genesis 6:2   That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 6:3   And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Genesis 6:4   There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
 

Can you see how it flows quite nicely?  Maybe God did not mention the ringleaders name in the holy scriptures because he already mentioned it in the book of Enoch!  If God was to transfer every thing written in the book of Enoch to the holy scriptures, we would not be able to carry the bible around.  It would be too big!  This book alone is "massive".

Don't forget Enoch was from "the Old World".  Enoch would of passed this information on to Noah, and Noah would of known exactly why God was going to destroy the earth, and why he had to build the ark. 

 

•  

  Quote

   

  • 6:3,8 None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible

    
    

   

Yes they are not mentioned again in the bible.  Is it important that we know their names?  or what they did?.....

It harmonises with Genesis 6 regardless. 

[Qnts2]

33 minutes ago, SINNERSAVED said:

no !!.

 I know as everyone knows about the canon ? it was about the information of all the other stuff, mentioned, and how does he know what was correct of being in or out, by what the church has decided? and if the gnostic writings are really true or false , ?

Ok. So you are questioning the NT. The NT book have been accepted as it stands since 211 ce. Serapion who lived from 191 to 211 ce and was considered a knowledgable theologian, wrote against the gnostic writings. We know that the NT warns against gnosticism. Going forward, Eusebius, 260-339 ce, reference Serapion, agreeing with his view of NT books. Going forward, both the Orthodox churches and later the Protestant churches reviewed which NT books were canon scripture and excluded the gnostic books. 

Over the years, many committed believers studied the accepted books in the NT and agreed that the gnostic books were not scripture. I have read some of the gnostic books and agree with the committed believers who went before me. The gnostic writings are contrary to both the OT and the NT. Primarily, the gnostic books teach that the earth was created by a lesser god called the demiurge who was evil. Since the demiurge created the physical world, all that is physical is to be escaped and the only way to do that is by gaining knowledge. In comparison, the Tenakh says that God created the universe and said that it was good. So, to me it is very clear that gnosticism is not biblical. 

[SINNERSAVED]

1 minute ago, Qnts2 said:

Ok. So you are questioning the NT. The NT book have been accepted as it stands since 211 ce. Serapion who lived from 191 to 211 ce and was considered a knowledgable theologian, wrote against the gnostic writings. We know that the NT warns against gnosticism. Going forward, Eusebius, 260-339 ce, reference Serapion, agreeing with his view of NT books. Going forward, both the Orthodox churches and later the Protestant churches reviewed which NT books were canon scripture and excluded the gnostic books. 

Over the years, many committed believers studied the accepted books in the NT and agreed that the gnostic books were not scripture. I have read some of the gnostic books and agree with the committed believers who went before me. The gnostic writings are contrary to both the OT and the NT. Primarily, the gnostic books teach that the earth was created by a lesser god called the demiurge who was evil. Since the demiurge created the physical world, all that is physical is to be escaped and the only way to do that is by gaining knowledge. In comparison, the Tenakh says that God created the universe and said that it was good. So, to me it is very clear that gnosticism is not biblical. 

okay , you have a good point, now how do we not know that anything else found out side of what is canon, is not valid to be used ?

 and how do we know that anything else then what was given to us, was not kept from us, and hidden or destroyed ?

 if we want truth we need to look at everything, , and not just say the bible,   but not saying the bible is not, for I have more bibles, then most people ? so besides would be a better word, ?

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, SINNERSAVED said:

no !!.

 I know as everyone knows about the canon ? it was about the information of all the other stuff, mentioned, and how does he know what was correct of being in or out, by what the church has decided? and if the gnostic writings are really true or false , ?

I think that any believer knows the gnostic writings are false teaching; we are to place our faith in the inerrant word of God, preserved in the Bible which was inspired by Him. I know that you know that gnosticism is in direct opposition to the word of God so why would you ask if they are true or false? From About.com/christianity:

 

Definition: Gnosticism was a second century heresy claiming that salvation could be gained through secret knowledge. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "to know."

Gnostics also believed that the material world (matter) is evil and that only the spirit is good. They constructed an evil God and beings of the Old Testament to explain the creation of the world (matter), and considered Jesus Christ a wholly spiritual God.

These two beliefs clash strongly with accepted Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches that salvation is available to everyone, not just a special few, and that it comes from grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9), and not from study or works. The only source of truth is the Bible, Christianity asserts.

Gnostics were divided on Jesus. One view held that he only appeared to have human form but that he was actually spirit only. The other view contended that his divine spirit came upon his human body at baptism and departed before the crucifixion.

Christianity, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was fully man and fully God and that his human and divine natures were both present and necessary to provide a suitable sacrifice for humanity's sin.

Gnostic writings are extensive. Many so-called Gnostic Gospels are presented as "lost" books of the Bible, but in fact did not meet the criteria when the canon was formed. In many instances they contradict the Bible.

(Sources: gotquestions.org, earlychristianwritings.com, and the Moody Handbook of Theology, by Paul Enns.)

[SINNERSAVED]

8 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I think that any believer knows the gnostic writings are false teaching; we are to place our faith in the inerrant word of God, preserved in the Bible which was inspired by Him. I know that you know that gnosticism is in direct opposition to the word of God so why would you ask if they are true or false? From About.com/christianity:

 

Definition: Gnosticism was a second century heresy claiming that salvation could be gained through secret knowledge. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "to know."

Gnostics also believed that the material world (matter) is evil and that only the spirit is good. They constructed an evil God and beings of the Old Testament to explain the creation of the world (matter), and considered Jesus Christ a wholly spiritual God.

These two beliefs clash strongly with accepted Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches that salvation is available to everyone, not just a special few, and that it comes from grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9), and not from study or works. The only source of truth is the Bible, Christianity asserts.

Gnostics were divided on Jesus. One view held that he only appeared to have human form but that he was actually spirit only. The other view contended that his divine spirit came upon his human body at baptism and departed before the crucifixion.

Christianity, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was fully man and fully God and that his human and divine natures were both present and necessary to provide a suitable sacrifice for humanity's sin.

Gnostic writings are extensive. Many so-called Gnostic Gospels are presented as "lost" books of the Bible, but in fact did not meet the criteria when the canon was formed. In many instances they contradict the Bible.

(Sources: gotquestions.org, earlychristianwritings.com, and the Moody Handbook of Theology, by Paul Enns.)

your source is not the authority of said subject, and that is not what I asked, , so read the question again? and you will see what I am asking ?

[Sister]

I don't know what happened to the format in my last post, the empty space just went on forever?  Sorry about that, I tried to fix it.