God did not teach us these things

[Kelly2363]

32 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

How is that working out for them all?  

Just peachy old son! Just peachy. 

[Marathoner]

13 hours ago, Willa said:

There may be some truth in the first chapter of Enoch but it is considered a heretical book because if if any part of it is false the whole message was to be cast out and the false prophet was to be cast out of the country.   That is the reason the apocryphal books  were rejected and discarded from cannon.  The reformers said it may be edifying to read the apocrypha but it may not be taught as holy truth.  That is why it was kept beside the Scriptures.  

Our statement of faith states that we embrace only the 66 books of the Bible which are complete.  To teach from other books as though they are equal to Scripture is heresy. 

"We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God"

 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/copyChkboxOff.gif Eze 13:8. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “Because you have uttered falsehood and seen lying visions, therefore behold, I am against you, declares the Lord GOD.https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/copyChkboxOff.gif                                                        Eze 13:9  My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

As members we agreed with both the TOS and SOF when we registered with Worthy, dear sister. No one in this topic has denied that the 66 books of the canon we are familiar with are scripture. Indeed, many of us have quoted the scriptures in our posts. 

In order to prove an accusation of heresy one must furnish proof before the assembly that it is so. If this accusation cannot be proven then it is false witness. Much like the soothsayer, date-setter (like Hal Lindsey and Harold Camping), and false teacher, the false witness bears responsibility for their unrighteousness before the Lord. 

The canon of scripture is not monolithic, Willa. The scriptures to the Lord and His apostles were the Tanakh --- what we recognize as the Hebrew scriptures, or Old Testament --- and for centuries after the Lord ascended to sit with our Father upon His throne, the scriptures included works which were either lost (like Paul's letter to the Laodiceans) or rejected by others later in time, like the works removed from the 1611 authorized version when the King James bible was revised later on.  

Consider the words you wrote above. If we are to believe what you say is true --- I am not disputing that the 66 books of the canon we possess are not scripture, mind you --- then the faithful of times past should be accounted heretics because the scriptural canon they were familiar with numbered more or less than 66 books as others have already pointed out. 

Accusations of heresy are all too common in this world and also on these forums, accusations which for the most part are not proven to be true before the assembly of the Lord's holy ones. In order for the belief in 66 books of the canon to be proven as a teaching of the apostles, one must furnish evidence of this doctrine in the body of their teaching. 

We all agree with Worthy's SOF as it is written. However, we find certain members accusing other members of heresy simply because of a difference in opinion, not the teaching of the apostles given to us in the scriptures nor Worthy's SOF. In any case, 1 Enoch is quoted in Jude's epistle which is numbered among the 66 books of the canon we are familiar with today. Is 1 Enoch therefore scripture?

At one time it was considered to be so, being included in the canon in times past. Care must be taken with regard to accusations of heresy, that the one who levels such an accusation is being truthful and not bearing false witness.  

Edited September 7, 2021 by Marathoner
typo

[Kelly2363]

50 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

Accusations of heresy are all too common in this world and also on these forums, accusations which for the most part are not proven to be true before the assembly of the Lord's holy ones. In order for the belief in 66 books of the canon to be proven as a teaching of the apostles, one must furnish evidence of this doctrine in the body of their teaching. 

 

The TOS were directly quoted and therein is the meaning of your agreement. No conclave is necessary no matter how flowery you dress it up. Neither is there a need to prove something that is not expressly stated to an individual. I always welcome being held to account. I don't even mind the conclave. I have taken numerous religious people to task before and even incited by demand a conclave - rather like Paul seeking Caesar - only Paul lost his head - one assumes that this isn't such a circumstance after all. More is the pity of it because were it so grave then we would scarcely be having such fanciful notions as to introduce heretical and blasphemous books into the midst of the children of God and insisting that they are not only true - but that they must be received. The book of 1 Enoch is not received - it is not even apocryphal - it is rejected utterly.  

[David1701]

17 hours ago, Marathoner said:

You haven't proven any sort of error with proper exegesis, my friend. The words of the Lord in the 10th chapter of John are in response to those who sought to stone Him because Christ said He is the Son of God. He is indeed. 

This doesn't change the language nor context of the Hebrew scriptures for the word in question is elohim, which is translated to "god" or "gods." At no time has anyone claimed these were deities as you insist. I demonstrated the fallacy of your opinion regarding the meaning of that word; are you claiming that men are the only servants of the living God? 

If so, then why would the Lord declare that men shall die like men? The Lord was not addressing men in the Psalm, something which you can't work around by quoting those verses from the Gospel of John. The Word of God came to more than just men. What did the author of Revelation hear when he fell to worship at the feet of the angel?

Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.

Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation 22:8-9 NKJV)

The sons of God, elohim who are referenced many times in the Old Testament, are our fellow servants. One does not demonstrate proper exegesis by pitting scripture against scripture, brother. It is enough that you disagree and I shall leave it at that. Nothing more needs to be written. 
 

I've already answered these claims, in previous posts.

[David1701]

41 minutes ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

The TOS were directly quoted and therein is the meaning of your agreement. No conclave is necessary no matter how flowery you dress it up. Neither is there a need to prove something that is not expressly stated to an individual. I always welcome being held to account. I don't even mind the conclave. I have taken numerous religious people to task before and even incited by demand a conclave - rather like Paul seeking Caesar - only Paul lost his head - one assumes that this isn't such a circumstance after all. More is the pity of it because were it so grave then we would scarcely be having such fanciful notions as to introduce heretical and blasphemous books into the midst of the children of God and insisting that they are not only true - but that they must be received. The book of 1 Enoch is not received - it is not even apocryphal - it is rejected utterly.  

Regarding your final sentence, I have to agree with you.

The fact that 1 Enoch only exists in the Ethiopic language and that the so-called Ethiopian Orthodox Church is the only organisation that accepts it as Scripture, should give any genuine Christian pause for thought.  Then there is the fact that the EOC persecutes genuine Christians (this is well known).

Even other so-called "Orthodox" organisations reject 1 Enoch, e.g., here is quote from the Coptic Orthodox:

"Why doesn’t the Coptic Orthodox Church accept the Book of Enoch as Scripture and part of the Old Testament if the Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts it?

The Ethiopian Church is the only Church that canonized the Book of Enoch as part of its Bible. The Old Testament books accepted by our Coptic Orthodox Church were originally all part of the Septuagint translation. The Book of Enoch is not included in this translation.

It has been largely the opinion of historians that the Book of Enoch does not really contain the authentic words of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since (based on the chronologies in the Holy Book of Genesis), he would have lived several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the book attributed to him. Most scholars believe that the Book of Enoch was written in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The probable dates usually mentioned are between 150 and 80 BC.

St. Jude refers to this book in his epistle. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabas" uses the Book of Enoch as well as the second and third Century Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria. However, when the churches convened in 325 A.D. to compile the Holy Bible as we have it today; there was much discussion as to which scriptures and gospels to be included in the Holy Bible and which ones to be excluded. The Book of Enoch was disfavored because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels."

https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=30&catid=58

[David1701]

5 hours ago, Alive said:

Sorry, David---I don't get the reference.

Oh, well.

A few years ago, someone on another Christian forum, asked whose catchphrase it was (he was an American lawyer), offering a virtual prize for the winner.  I got the virtual prize!

Rumpole of the Bailey was a 1970s British TV courtroom drama, with some dry humour.  Rumpole was a defence barrister in the Old Bailey (a famous court in London) and he always referred to his wife as, "She who must be obeyed.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey#The_series

[Starise]

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Regarding your final sentence, I have to agree with you.

The fact that 1 Enoch only exists in the Ethiopic language and that the so-called Ethiopian Orthodox Church is the only organisation that accepts it as Scripture, should give any genuine Christian pause for thought.  Then there is the fact that the EOC persecutes genuine Christians (this is well known).

Even other so-called "Orthodox" organisations reject 1 Enoch, e.g., here is quote from the Coptic Orthodox:

"Why doesn’t the Coptic Orthodox Church accept the Book of Enoch as Scripture and part of the Old Testament if the Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts it?

The Ethiopian Church is the only Church that canonized the Book of Enoch as part of its Bible. The Old Testament books accepted by our Coptic Orthodox Church were originally all part of the Septuagint translation. The Book of Enoch is not included in this translation.

It has been largely the opinion of historians that the Book of Enoch does not really contain the authentic words of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since (based on the chronologies in the Holy Book of Genesis), he would have lived several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the book attributed to him. Most scholars believe that the Book of Enoch was written in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The probable dates usually mentioned are between 150 and 80 BC.

St. Jude refers to this book in his epistle. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabas" uses the Book of Enoch as well as the second and third Century Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria. However, when the churches convened in 325 A.D. to compile the Holy Bible as we have it today; there was much discussion as to which scriptures and gospels to be included in the Holy Bible and which ones to be excluded. The Book of Enoch was disfavored because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels."

https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=30&catid=58

So do we accept it on the basis that others don't accept it or do we accept it based on other relevant information? I don't know about you, but whether some group of men who didn't write the bible, were not inspired to write any of it decided it was ok or not isn't enough for me.

If we eliminate entire books of the bible based only on whether or not they are controversial it is surprising they didn't cut out more. Talking snakes made it, a fish that ate a man made it. Even passages elsewhere that indicate fallen angels mated with human women made it.  Something about Enoch 1 made them queasy. Not a good enough reason to cut it out for me. Enoch himself was a pretty decent chap, didn't even die like the rest of us. His character wasn't in question, even by God Himself.

[David1701]

3 minutes ago, Starise said:

So do we accept it on the basis that others don't accept it or do we accept it based on other relevant information? I don't know about you, but whether some group of men who didn't write the bible, were not inspired to write any of it decided it was ok or not isn't enough for me.

If we eliminate entire books of the bible based only on whether or not they are controversial it is surprising they didn't cut out more. Talking snakes made it, a fish that ate a man made it. Even passages elsewhere that indicate fallen angels mated with human women made it.  Something about Enoch 1 made them queasy. Not a good enough reason to cut it out for me. Enoch himself was a pretty decent chap, didn't even die like the rest of us. His character wasn't in question, even by God Himself.

Did you read the whole quote?

Scholars don't even believe that Enoch wrote it, since the first known mention of it was not until thousands of years after Enoch had died.

Only the Ethiopian Orthodox accept it as Scripture, and they persecute genuine Christians.

It is only found in the Ethiopic language, which is a translation of a translation (Hebrew-Greek-Ethiopic).

There are giants in the Bible, but they are of a height that is physically possible (roughly 9-16 ft. tall); whereas, 1 Enoch has giants nearly a mile tall!

Large chunks of the teaching found in 1 Enoch are not corroborated by the Bible.

In other words, there are no valid reasons to include it in the Bible - none.

[The_Patriot21]

Aaaah. Another discussion revolving the book of enoch. I wont lie, its an interesting read and i enjoyed it and learned something from it....but its far from inspired. Theres a reason it wasnt included in the Bible, and it wasnt because of some conspiracy to water down Gods truth. Its because it contradicts scripture. 

If one wants to read it like say they would a good commentary, understanding that it is one mans opinions on certain events, and not necessarily gospel fact, then its excellent material.

But if they hold it up at the same level as the bible, then that is heretical in nature as its clearly not inspired, and claiming something is inspired when it is not, is, in at least my book, heresy.

[Kelly2363]

52 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Regarding your final sentence, I have to agree with you.

 

Erasmus would be turning in his grave if you said anything other.