The Rapture!

yeshuasavedme said:

You came here in Dec 2010. You have 360 posts as of this writing. You have the same tired false claims that another poster has had, who attacked the book of Enoch continuously, without foundational reasons for doing so. You use the same anti Enoch web sites that she did, and you never ever acknowledge that your false claims are refuted soundly by the Word of God, by me, when I reply to the false claims you make that have no foundation.
I will not reply to you anymore, as I suspect you are one and the same as that poster, and that you are only here to make false claims, without ever having honest dialogue about what is written.
I asked you many questions that you have not answered, either, which proves that you have no heart for the Word, but only to accuse falsely.

Click to expand...

when I came here, and the amount of threads I have posted , or the fact that others have done the same in disagreeing with the validity of this book has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have shown , that this book in a number of areas of it's writings does NOT agree with inspired scripture. There are many who feel the same, God himself did not preserve this book or allow it to be added to his holy word, that right there should be the redest of red flags about this spurious writing.

you imply that God
Forgot one of his servant's writings that he himself commanded the servant to write down
that God had certain "motives" for keeping part of his inspired word from being included with the rest of it
God cannot preserve his written word
God wanted us to guess what is inspired and what isn't
God wanted to confuse believers about this book

the list just goes on with implications that you make..............

this book is pseudopigrapha, spurious writings by someone using the "pen name" of Enoch, God's servant Enoch did NOT write it, it is not inspired, it is not included in the inspired writings of scripture and simply reading some of it's content it's understood why God made sure that it wasn't included within his HOLY WORD and despite all your rantings of how it is "sacred" when compared to scripture it fails the test.

Manasseh_ said:

when I came here, and the amount of threads I have posted , or the fact that others have done the same in disagreeing with the validity of this book has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have shown , that this book in a number of areas of it's writings does NOT agree with inspired scripture. There are many who feel the same, God himself did not preserve this book or allow it to be added to his holy word, that right there should be the redest of red flags about this spurious writing.

you imply that God
Forgot one of his servant's writings that he himself commanded the servant to write down
that God had certain "motives" for keeping part of his inspired word from being included with the rest of it
God cannot preserve his written word
God wanted us to guess what is inspired and what isn't
God wanted to confuse believers about this book

the list just goes on with implications that you make..............

this book is pseudopigrapha, spurious writings by someone using the "pen name" of Enoch, God's servant Enoch did NOT write it, it is not inspired, it is not included in the inspired writings of scripture and simply reading some of it's content it's understood why God made sure that it wasn't included within his HOLY WORD and despite all your rantings of how it is "sacred" when compared to scripture it fails the test.

Click to expand...

Wow...excellent point.

makeupgirl said:

Wow...excellent point.

Click to expand...

What is excellent -in your own words, and can you prove it by Scripture?

Enoch is Scripture, Jesus said so when He rebuked the Sadducees for being ignorant of it and its doctrines, and He also called it "The Wisdom of God", in another place.
Enoch is included in the collection of books [which is what the word "Bible" means] of the Ethiopian Church, and has been from the beginning of the Gospel in Ethiopia because the Gospel in Ethiopia was received by Jews who had Enoch, just as the early Christians also did, and they did not follow Rome and ban it in the 4th century after the Church had begun in the first century.
If one claims that Rome is the foundation for what they call "Bible", then one must include all of what Rome does, and I doubt that the person does, whom you think wrote so well, in ignorance of what is and what was and by whom is called "scripture [as in sacred], and so your claims are very disingenuous as to how you accept "Scripture". If you do not accept what Rome accepts, then you follow the Archbishop of Canterbury of 1885, who decided to ban the Apocrypha from the Bible, which was in all Protestant Bibles translated to English since the 1300's. So in essence, you follow Rome or your follow the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of year 1885, and either way, you are not informed on what the early Church used and called Scripture [as in Sacred], nor informed of the fact that the Apocrypha was in the first English translation Bibles for over 300 years.
So you are in a bit of a shame-faced "pickle", not being informed of the history of the Church and of the Bible.
Here is an education for you on what is called "Bible" [which means collection of books], by Christian believers around the world.
Bible Study: Which Bible? Whose Canon?

FYI: the oldest copies of Enoch date back to before any of the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, except for the book of Isaiah, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The oldest copies of the Greek Septuagint do not date back to the oldest copies of the Book of Enoch, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Hebrew Scriptures used for the first English translations date only to 1000 AD.

yeshuasavedme said:

FYI: the oldest copies of Enoch date back to before any of the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, except for the book of Isaiah, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The oldest copies of the Greek Septuagint do not date back to the oldest copies of the Book of Enoch, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Hebrew Scriptures used for the first English translations date only to 1000 AD.

Click to expand...

so you're implying that the book of "enoch" is like a good wine ? gets better with age, so this book with more age becomes sacred ?

Lisa*Lisa said:

Hear ye.........hear ye.............hear ye!!!!!!!!!

I am now going to speak many words of wisdom and truth!

I have finally figured this whole thing out!

The answer is this........



YOU CAN"T FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!!!!! NOBODY CAN!!!!!

END OF STORY!

Click to expand...

..... ............

Phaedron777 said:

First off, pre-trib rapture is busted. We are already mid trib. It began 2008. Christians are being persecuted everywhere and the antichrist was revealed as early as 2008. His name is Maitreya.

Jesus of Nazareth and Maitreya the Christ

Of course you should do more research then that. He claims to be the savior of not just Christianity, but the one every religion is waiting for.

The abomination of desolation in the holy temple (let him understand) is the human body, which has many times been called the true temple of God. It describes a falling away, and demonic possession of various leaders.

Click to expand...

As long as the pre-trib rapture theory is busted, that sounds good to me........


,

yeshuasavedme said:

What is excellent -in your own words, and can you prove it by Scripture?

Enoch is Scripture, Jesus said so when He rebuked the Sadducees for being ignorant of it and its doctrines, and He also called it "The Wisdom of God", in another place.

Bible Study: Which Bible? Whose Canon?

Click to expand...

yeshuasavedme said:

FYI: the oldest copies of Enoch date back to before any of the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, except for the book of Isaiah, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The oldest copies of the Greek Septuagint do not date back to the oldest copies of the Book of Enoch, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Hebrew Scriptures used for the first English translations date only to 1000 AD.

Click to expand...

I am beginning to be of the view that it is inspired.
Here is a thread on the 10 weeks contained in it that I found rather interesting and insightful.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-10-weeks-of-enoch-inspired-or-not.8031939/#post-71876262
DO you believe the book of Enoch is inspired? [poll thread]

1. No
   5 vote(s)
   21.7%
2. Yes
   11 vote(s)
   47.8%
3. *
   I have read it, but have no opinion
   2 vote(s)
   8.7%
4. I haven't read it
   3 vote(s)
   13.0%
5. I intend to read it
   1 vote(s)
   4.3%
6. I don't intend to read it
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
7. other
   3 vote(s)
   13.0%