• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

toLiJC

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2012
3,041
227
✟35,877.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

Enoch was ascended as it was with Elijah the Prophet, Noah and his sons survived the "flood"

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Jesus was condemning the selfish avaricious, commercially- predatory attitude of the money changers and not the offering of the sacrifices as prescribed by Law. A little research as to why Jesus opposed the money changers prevents the hasty unwarranted conclusion that he opposed the Mosaic Law itself.

Why Did Jesus Drive The Money Changers From The Temple?
http://christianpf.com/why-did-jesus-drive-the-money-changers-from-the-temple/


Please also keep in mind that any violation of Mosaic Law would have rendered Jesus tainted and unworthy to die for our sins. In short, blamelessness was an extremely essential requirement. Jesus himself said that he did not come with the purpose of destroying the Mosaic Law but with the purpose of fulfilling it.

Another misconception is that Jesus was against the punishment of adultery via stoning as required by Law because he interceded on behalf of the woman who was about to be stoned. Such a view ignores the details of the situation. You see, the mob had deprived her of a trial and had violated the law by not going through the full process of law and so they themselves were sinning against law and had no legal right under the Law to stone her.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a clarifiication:

Were the Pharisees Condemned for Keeping the Law of God?

Jesus had problems with the Pharisees:

"He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, 'Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God'--then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines of God the commandments of men" (Mat 15:3-9).

Jesus also said, "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have handed down. And many such things you do" (Mark 7:13).

Jesus often called the Pharisees hypocrites (Mat 15:7;16:3;22:18;23:23,25,27,29; Mk 7:6). According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Greek word Jesus used that was translated as hypocrite means, "an actor under an assumed role."

The Pharisees didn't really want to be good, they just wanted to look good (Mat 23:25-27).

Why? Because "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (Joh 12:43).

Jesus condemned the Pharisees by saying, "you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Mat 23:28).

Jesus said the Pharisees were filled with lawlessness because they did not keep God's law (Mat 15:3-9;22:15-18;23:23), and that they mainly tried to appear rig
http://www.cogwriter.com/pharisee.htm

So Jesus was in no way opposing the Mosaic Law.
he was merely opposing additions and interpretations and popular traditions which violated it.
"Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?...and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take Him" (John 7:19,32).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
My experience has been that the writings of holy men become scripture and eventually Gods Word, making those writings a fetish or Bibliolatry. That being the case a pride and defensiveness developes among Bible worshipers which leads to stunting reforms and progress of the religion.
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,172
Florida
Visit site
✟811,723.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Enoch was ascended as it was with Elijah the Prophet, Noah and his sons survived the "flood"

Blessings
From John 3:3: "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven."

This goes against your notion that Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven.

We only have a few verses about Noah and a flood that claim to be from thousands of years before writing was invented circa 3200 BC (Egypt and Mesopotamia). I studied geology in college and did not find evidence of a global flood within the past 10,000 years. God may have rescued people from many floods, fires and other catastrophes.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,375
6,904
✟1,022,689.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Paul did not support the law in its entirety. He did not advise circumcising Gentiles, nor to make them bound to the laws of Moses.

No one was bound to it as it was replaced by the law of Christ. Paul lived under the new covenant not the old.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,375
6,904
✟1,022,689.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From John 3:3: "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven."

This goes against your notion that Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven.

Being taken to heaven is different than an immortal ascending into heaven themselves. Enoch and Elijah did go to heaven.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,


John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

It is believed by some that these verses support "soul sleep" that no one, not even David has ever ascended into heaven, therefore they must be still in the grave literally. It is also believed that these verses say that no one has ever "ascended" to the "third heaven" except Christ. However, is that really what is being addressed?

Many of us understand that all who die, wicked and good, ascend up to heaven to either side of that gulf. It is written that when that silver cord is parted that the spirit returns to God. Even Elijah ascended up into heaven via that "whirlwind" and he didn't even die so these verses have to have a deeper meaning.




Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above : )
Romans 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead)

I think this may be the key to understanding what the other verses mean. Paul has just explained what it means to "ascend into heaven". It's a figure of speech! It doesn't mean what the literal, plain reading of the words suggest.


Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens [that is, to bring Christ down from above] : but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, [that is, to bring Christ down from above], but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.


Its not about anyone being unable to ascend into heaven. Its about bringing Christ down and no one, not even David could do this; only Christ could.

You may have noticed I left off "which is in heaven" from John 3:13. That is because they are added. They were not spoken by Christ and are not in the manuscripts.

John 3:13
13 Kaí oudeís anabébeeken eis tón ouranón ei-meé ho
2532 3762 305 1519 3588 3772 1508 3588
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but
ek toú ouranoú katabás-- ho Huiós toú
1537 3588 3772 2597 9999 3588 5207 3588
from heaven, he that came down even the Son of
Anthroópou
444 <9999 > <9999 > <9999 > <9999 >
man which is in heaven.
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright (c) 1994 by Biblesoft)

9999 means it was added.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Actually, Elijah is reported as sending letters of correspondence from a certain geographical location after the ascension event.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That is undeniably true as is evidenced by the many so-called sacred writings which humans have produced. So the real issue is whether the Bible distinguishes itself in any conclusively significant way which elevates it above all these other books which also make claims of divine inspiration.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,375
6,904
✟1,022,689.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually, Elijah is reported as sending letters of correspondence from a certain geographical location after the ascension event.


Which doesn't mean he wasn't in heaven nor returned there.
 
Upvote 0

MennoSota

Sola Gratia
Dec 11, 2015
2,535
964
US
✟30,074.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private

[emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji107]
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Which doesn't mean he wasn't in heaven nor returned there.


Excerpt:
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I would say that the edited and redacted books of varying quality do contain more of the fragments of truth than any other existing work, and then there are the accounts of the incarnate Son of God on earth. But that doesn't make it written by God and far from perfect. The Scriptures reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. A false sense of sacredness has prevented the scriptures from being safeguarded by just a little common sense. Noah's flood was a fictional genealogical devise used by the Babylonion redactors used to trace their blood lines back to the incarnate Adam and Eve whom they assumed were the first humans. It was an enchanted age without any scientific knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The idea that Jesus was always precisely quoted years after the fact from eyewitnesses is, well, that would be a first in history!

Jesus left no writings behind himself lest they become a fetish as has the writings about Jesus.

We all go through the Son enroot to the Father, perhaps a word or two were not recalled when Jesus said “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

Maybe he said “No one has ever gone into heaven except through the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

Both Enoch and Elijah were translated to a place in heaven, they didn't die a natural death. There would be others that have done the same that we don't know about.
 
Reactions: ewq1938
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

I prefer to accept what Jesus is said to have said as an accurate description of what he actually said.
So I guess we differ in that area.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_407.cfm

BTW
There is absolutely nothing in Jesus' teachings which indicates that he was vehemently against his teachings being written down for posterity. If indeed he had been against it-then he would have clearly told his disciples not to do it.

Quite to the contrary:
Revelation 21:5

New International Version
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

That requires either of two things.

1. Casting doubt on what Jesus said

2. Preference for what evolutionists and higher critics say.

Well, I'll go with what Jesus said.
Higher critics are notorious for jumping to conclusions and then sheepishly having to eat crow every time their anti-biblical views are proven silly.

They once claimed that the Hittites did not exist an that the writer of Genesis made them up.
They cast doubt on the existence of Jericho and its fallen walls and considered the it a mere story.
The list is very long.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Evolution was the technique of creation. The 6 day creation story was simply a story for edification by the child like minds of Bronze Age sheep herders. Moses was a reformer of pervious beliefs and practices, the Babylonian redactors rewrote what Moses was purported to have written. It worked, but petrifying those stories as the word of God has stunted the growth of religion and betrayed the spiritual content.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
True, Jesus wasn't opposed to future writings, but he didn't personally leave any writings. During his time on earth there is no indication that he had anyone take notes. In fact there is an indication that the apostles thought he would soon return so there was no need to write books about Jesus. Years later when he didn't return then there was a need.
 
Reactions: Radrook
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Very good insight!
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Well, that is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it.
However, I do not hold that opinion. Neither do many others.

Authorship of the Pentateuch

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the allegation that the Noachian Flood account which Jesus considered historical fact was really nothing more than a copy of a silly story told by ignorants, here is a detailed rebuttal offered at Christian Apologetics for those who wish to read it.

DOES THE FACT THAT ONE ACCOUNT IS FIRST PROVE THE



Please also note that Israelites who wrote the Bible were not all sheep herders nor was it all written during the Bronze Age.

In any case who they might have been is considered irrelevant for the following reason:

II Peter 1:20-21, "You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

As for God using evolution to create living things?
I guess we differ there as well since the view I subscribe to is the following one.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0