Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Disaster And World Famine?

[yeshuasavedme]

Most ecclesiastical histories will give you an idea who, when, and how this was done. You can read up on it if you are interested. ..

I have already done my homework. I am asking you to show what year -and who made- the certain, particular 'list' you accept in its exact form, with no more evolution of it or change of it.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

] does not matter [/i]for my criticism.

Again, you make claims that are not in the Ethiopic Enoch, which is the oldest, continued to be copied and used, Enoch.
Jesus said what Enoch wrote: that in the kingdom of heaven, the saints will not marry nor give in marriage, for they shall be like =equal/companions of- the angels.
Did you even know Jesus said that? Did you even know Enoch revealed it, before the flood, even, by revelation?

Did you even know that Enoch wrote by revelation that the saints will be "one with the Father and the Son", in the kingdom of heaven, before Jesus said it.
There is a reason Jesus calls Enoch Scripture. He preached His Gospel from its revelations about Himself, as the Son of Man in heaven; who was God, with God, in mystery hidden, and who was to come and be revealed, and in whose name the redeemed of the sons of men would be saved.

 

[Tzaousios]

Again, you make claims that are not in the Ethiopic Enoch, which is the oldest, continued to be copied and used, Enoch.

So now you say that Enoch did not come to the gate, was not led on a tour of the heavenly precincts, was not given an esoteric gnosis by angels, and finally did not gaze upon the Shekhinah or Kabod of the Lord?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You are still quoting from the false Enoch.
Whatever Ethiopian Enoch says, I agree with....but that is not what you say, so far. You have these little twists and changes that are not what the Scriptures of Enoch say.

What is your point, anyway? How was Enoch's vision any different in manner than Ezekiel's, Isaiah's, or John's -or of any other of the prophets who saw the Glory of God sitting on the throne of Glory? Enoch went into the Holiest of Holies in heaven's temple, in his vision. Where did John go? Was John in the body or out of the body when He went into the throne room of heaven's temple?

What about Jesus being transformed on the Mount, and James, John, Peter, Elijah and Moses gazing on His Glory? -was it a vision? Did they see the Glory of the LORD?

All of the above saw Jesus' glory. Enoch saw Him before the incarnation as the Glory of God, sitting on the throne of glory, hidden in mystery, pre-incarnation, with God and who was God, and who was to come.
So did Isaiah see Jesus on the throne of glory, in vision, in heaven, being worshiped by angels, pre-incarnation.

Who did Ezekiel see, on the throne of Glory, in his vision? Was that Jesus, pre-incarnation, who was to come?

 

[Tzaousios]

Whatever Ethiopian Enoch says, I agree with....but that is not what you say, so far. You have these little twists and changes that are not what the Scriptures of Enoch say.

What I mentioned above appears in the version of Enoch that you read. There have been no "twists and changes" because I have already moved on from the other versions and said as much.

Are you miffed because someone has read Enoch and therefore it is not as esoteric and secretive as you thought it was?

What is your point, anyway?

My point is that the fact that Enoch went on an actual visionary experience, therefore in person and in the flesh, demonstrates that a fleshly human was permitted to enter the heavenly precincts and behold the Glory of God.

Therefore, it renders your argument about Christ's humanly flesh from Mary quite suspect. Whether Enoch was permitted to do so because of a regeneration of his flesh, or just because God favored him, it is definitely logical for Christ to have assumed human flesh and thereby recapitulated human nature, as the creeds attest.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

<edit>
The early Church not only had Enoch as other believers did, but also had the epistle of Barnabas in their collection of books. In the 4th century, there was a collection of manuscripts [that means Bible] which included Barnabas in its NT, and Barnabas called Enoch Scripture, as His Master Jesus, did.

wikipedia;
The Book of Enoch is considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4)[23] and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras,[24] Clement of Alexandria,[25] Irenaeus[26] and Tertullian,[27] who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.[28]

Barnabas 4:3 The last offence is at hand, concerning which the scripture speaketh, as Enoch saith. For to this end the Master hath cut the seasons and the days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His inheritance.

Barnabas 16:5 Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture saith; And it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction. And it came to pass as the Lord spake. Barnabas 16:6 But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in the place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it is written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - codex SinaiticusCodex Sinaiticus [SIZE=-1](4th century)[/SIZE]

This manuscript, usually designated S, was discovered in 1859 by C. von Tischendorf at the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai (in the south central Sinai Peninsula) after a partial discovery of 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex there in 1844. Though some of the Old Testament is missing, a whole 4th-century New Testament is preserved, with the Epistle of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas at the end. There were probably 3 hands and several later correctors.

 

[PaladinValer]

<edit>
The early Church not only had Enoch as other believers did, but also had the epistle of Barnabas in their collection of books. In the 4th century, there was a collection of manuscripts [that means Bible] which included Barnabas in its NT, and Barnabas called Enoch Scripture, as His Master Jesus, did.

False.

Jesus quoted the Septuagint. The NT writers quote or reference the Septuagint whenever the OT is quoted or referenced. The Early Church considered the Septuagint an inspired translation of the Hebrew and the Apostolic Witnesses and other Early Church Fathers used that translation practically every time.

Enoch was never a part of the Septuagint. No council or synod of the Early Church ever listed it as Scripture.

Evidence please.

 

[PaladinValer]

Furthermore, since it was also the Early Christian belief that dogma and canon could only be declared in council or synod, then any mention of any Father or witness, no matter how orthodox, who had a personal opinion of any book as canonical is of no merit.

The only Bible the Early Church considered of any serious worth and considered often to be inspired was the Septuagint. The same Septuagint the Eastern Orthodox use as their AV of the OT. 1 Enoch is not found therein. Furthermore, the Epistle of Barnabas was only an appendix in the Codex Sinaiticus. Furthermore, it isn't found in any other copy of the Septuagint, and we have Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrianus which don't include it. Since we know the Church didn't accept 4th Maccabees as it was only in the appendix, we can logically suggest the same about Epistle of Barnabas' place in the appendix.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

<edit>
The early Church not only had Enoch as other believers did, but also had the epistle of Barnabas in their collection of books. In the 4th century, there was a collection of manuscripts [that means Bible] which included Barnabas in its NT, and Barnabas called Enoch Scripture, as His Master Jesus, did.
​

False.

Jesus quoted the Septuagint. The NT writers quote or reference the Septuagint whenever the OT is quoted or referenced. The Early Church considered the Septuagint an inspired translation of the Hebrew and the Apostolic Witnesses and other Early Church Fathers used that translation practically every time.

Enoch was never a part of the Septuagint. No council or synod of the Early Church ever listed it as Scripture.

Evidence please.

No one said Enoch was part of the Septuagint....
<edit>
Enoch is not a Jewish writing, but is pre-Abraham, pre-Noah- which Abraham had.

Enoch tells the history of the world, in dream visions, and Barnabas referenced such in his Epistle, which epistle is included in the 4th century NT I cited.
and the Jews did have it and they did read it, as the DSS collection of Manuscripts prove, for the earliest copied manuscript of the DSS Enoch fragments date to the third century B.C -and that is only the materials used for copying, which date that early, and were used as sacred writing -Scriptures, by the Qumran Jewish community.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - codex SinaiticusCodex Sinaiticus [SIZE=-1](4th century)[/SIZE]

"This manuscript, usually designated S, was discovered in 1859 by C. von Tischendorf at the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai (in the south central Sinai Peninsula) after a partial discovery of 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex there in 1844. Though some of the Old Testament is missing, a whole 4th-century New Testament is preserved, with the Epistle of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas at the end. There were probably 3 hands and several later correctors. "

 

[ViaCrucis]

Enoch is second temple literature.

Facts are good things, you should really try to accept them sometime.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaladinValer]

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

<edit>

No one said Enoch was part of the Septuagint....

And therefore, it isn't a part of Holy Scripture.

Enoch is not a Jewish writing, but is pre-Abraham, pre-Noah- which Abraham had.

Nope. It is psuedepigraphal, originally five different documents redacted together in the 1st century bce, not any of them older than the late 4th century bce.

Enoch tells the history of the world, in dream visions, and Barnabas referenced such in his Epistle, which epistle is included in the 4th century NT I cited.

The Epistle of St. Barnabas isn't Scripture either. Furthermore, being cited or referenced by Scripture doesn't make a book outside the canon a part of the Holy Writ.

and the Jews did have it and they did read it, as the DSS collection of Manuscripts prove, for the earliest copied manuscript of the DSS Enoch fragments date to the third century B.C

-and that is only the materials used for copying, which date that early, and were used as sacred writing -Scriptures, by the Qumran Jewish community.

1. Didn't suggest the Jews didn't have it. Show me where I did.
2. The Jews rejected it as Scripture too.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - codex SinaiticusCodex Sinaiticus [SIZE=-1](4th century)[/SIZE]

"This manuscript, usually designated S, was discovered in 1859 by C. von Tischendorf at the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai (in the south central Sinai Peninsula) after a partial discovery of 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex there in 1844. Though some of the Old Testament is missing, a whole 4th-century New Testament is preserved, with the Epistle of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas at the end. There were probably 3 hands and several later correctors. "

Already preempted this. Reread what I said.

It isn't Holy Scripture. Any theology, especially that which contradicts the Creed, that you get from it, only proves the point. If it isn't inline with the Nicene Creed, it is absolutely outside orthodoxy and isn't even allowed to be promoted here.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

,,,

 

[PaladinValer]

<edit>Enoch is not a Jewish work, and is not part of anything connected to Jewish second temple period as far as Judaism is concerned.

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect.

It is, however, the work of Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam, as Jude the womb brother of Jesus also says, and is not in any way contradictory to the Tenach or NT Gospel of Christ, but both of those corroborate Enoch -esp Revelation.

Enoch wrote nothing. The book is a known psuedepigraphal book. It is not a part of canon and never was; not for Jews and not for Christians.

The Jews who banned Enoch in the first century were those who had rejected Christ as Messiah, as Tertullien also said;

so anyone who makes a claim that "the Jews did not consider it sacred writing" are not informed or are being deceitful on purpose for their own agenda.

So what? The canon is set only by synod or council, not by individuals, as I said earlier. You evidence is null and void.

And Barnabas is Scripture to many believers in Christ, and is in my collection of books, as it also was in the Codex Sinaiticus [SIZE=-1](4th century)
[/SIZE]The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - codex SinaiticusCodex Sinaiticus [SIZE=-1](4th century)[/SIZE]

Already preempted this. Evidence is therefore null and void.

 

[Jipsah]

What canon? What men? What year? When was it canonized? Why, and who did it? Has it changed? Who changed it?
You seem to have faith in vapor, for the comments you have made have no substance of fact to prove them.

Are you saying that there is no canon of Scripture? Really? I guess that's handy if you're constructing a new heresy, you can claim whatever you like as holy writ.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Are you saying that there is no canon of Scripture? Really? I guess that's handy if you're constructing a new heresy, you can claim whatever you like as holy writ.

I heard a professor from Talbot say "There's no such thing as new heresies, just old ones dressed up in space suits".

Carry on.

 

[Jipsah]

I heard a professor from Talbot say "There's no such thing as new heresies, just old ones dressed up in space suits".

For the most part I agree with him. We're always hearing about some nincompoop or the other "discovering" some new and astonishing (to them) doctrine that was discarded as heresy by the Church forever ago. But I've never heard one like YSM's before. Its Christology seems as unique as it is illogical, and its adherent(s) apparently don't claim for it to have anything at all to do with any canonical Scriptures. We may be witnessing the birth not only of a new heresy, but a new canon contrived to make it possible!

Carry on.

Aye aye, sir!

 

[Gnarwhal]

But I've never heard one like YSM's before. Its Christology seems as unique as it is illogical, and its adherent(s) apparently don't claim for it to have anything at all to do with any canonical Scriptures. We may be witnessing the birth not only of a new heresy, but a new canon contrived to make it possible!

Yeah you have me there, I completely agree, and I don't believe this an isolated incident by a long shot.

Aye aye, sir!

Actually it's HOOAH so... that's good... [trails off]

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

How on earth do you guys keep making posts that have no connect to what is said, and go on tangents of making straw men to knock down without actually reading what is posted, so as to dissimulate on what I say and believe!
You are amazing for not being able to actually answer the questions, and to make fantastic claims about the poster!

Someone makes accusations against Enoch and claims it is not accepted as inspired Scripture. I show it is, and was, and give many proofs of it as so in many places and even that the LORD Jesus called it Scripture.
The attacks keep coming, so I tire of it, and knowing that there is no consensus among the Christians worldwide, over the centuries of the Church of Christ on earth in its many sects, on what is canon, and that among even those making those claims here there is no consensus, and knowing that many do not even know the history of their own particular denomination's evolution of Scripture, then I am asking those questions of any of you, personally, who think you have a superior claim to the knowledge on what the Holy Spirit has made sacred Scripture.
Where did you get your list from?
When did it become the list it is in your particular denomination? Have any of the books been dropped in yours that were once in it?
How do you know?
Did Martin Luther agree with your lists? Do you agree with Martin Luther?

How about the Archbishop of Canterbury of the KJV 1611 version? Do you go with his list? How about the Archbishop of Canterbury of 1885? Do you go with his list? Which one had the proper authority to add or take away books from the list, or did neither of them have it? Why or why not?


What about the first RC book lists? Have any of them evolved, been added to or dropped? When, Why?
Do you read history of the Church outside of the list you choose? Why do you, if so? After all, they are "extrabiblical".

Does the Holy Spirit play politics and does He change His mind? Did the Holy Spirit wait hundreds of years to stamp His approval on the Bibles =collections of books, which people were using from the beginning of the Believing Church, and to ban some for some, but to not ban some for others?
Many of the early Church writers called Enoch Scripture, and did so centuries before some men argued over it and banned it in some places, for some people.

I am not some people. I use it and am glad for it. Jesus sanctioned it.

Great post sister.......there are other Holy Writs, imo Inspired Works of God as well. Jasher is one......all in line with the Word, Enoch of course, as mentioned in the Holy Scripture many times over, Barnabas another which you have pointed out.

Don't know how they derailed your thread, but I stand with you that we must ADVISE our brothers and sisters to be ready for whatever the Lord's Will is for them, to in essence, open their ears to hear and their eyes to see.

Then again, many believe that it just may be their destiny to suffer moreso in the GT than the Lord would have them too. Perhaps they feel they need more refining by fire of tribulation. Then again, don't we all.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Just a reminder to ya'all:

Flaming and Harassment
&#9679; Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.

MOD HAT OFF​