What really are Stars?

[Lulav]

Lulav said -----"But this disconnect seems to be what each believes to be Torah. The Ketubah, the things the LORD told Moses to tell the people to which they replied, all you have said we will do.
That was their collective 'I do' in the marriage. Those are the law and instructions. The history is Torah in a sense but not what I was referring to."

All 5 of the books of Moses are Torah. This includes history, examples, choices ... and of course some absolutes. Torah means "instruction," and all of it is that.

I guess you missed where I said that above?

The context is what was given at Sinai. The ketubah was their agreement to do all Moses said after speaking with the Almighty, whose voice and presence they feared.

No, the giving of Torah was at Mt Sinai in Arabia. This is the Torah that Moses wrote down. That is what a Ketubah is, it is the Marriage contract or covenant, this is the covenant that God made with Israel and to which was brought down from God from the top of the mountain by Moses.
The 'Pentatuch' is not the Ketubah; the whole of it isn't the covenant/Marriage contract.
The covenant that was later broken and spoken of in the Prophets was not the story of Adam, or the flood or the wars of Abraham etc. That is background story of how Israel came to be, from the beginning. But the covenant is separate from that. A covenant is made between two. The LORD God spoke what he would do and what, to be his wife would Israel be required to do.

The only scripture they had at the time was the Tenach, and especially the Torah. That is what was taught (and still is) every Shabbat. It's our foundation; all of it.

I agree, it is the foundation, but not all 5 books. I guess it's better to refer to the 613 as opposed to The Torah, which actually are one and the same but there is a difference between instructions and history or backstory.

 

[dani'el]

NO, the giving of Torah was a Mt Sinai in Arabia. This is the Torah that Moses wrote down. That is what a Ketubah is, it is the Marriage contract or covenant, this is the covenant that God made with Israel and to which was brought down from God from the top of the mountain by Moses.
The 'Pentatuch' is not the Ketubah; the whole of it isn't the covenant/Marriage contract.
The covenant that was later broken and spoken of in the Prophets was not the story of Adam, or the flood or the wars of Abraham etc. That is background story of how Israel came to be, from the beginning. But the covenant is separate from that. A covenant is made between two. The LORD God spoke what he would do and what to be his wife would Israel be required to do.

You're getting a little bit confusing here. The Torah, our Instruction, is the name applied to the first five books of the Bible. You are changing it to mean only what was given at Sinai. You can't just change the definition to suit you. Now when you say the Kethubah was given at Sinai, we could find common ground for discussion. But it sound like we are agreeing that all of the first five books were not just dictated to Moses at Sinai. Or am I misreading that too?

I agree, it is the foundation, but not all 5 books. I guess it's better to refer to the 613 as opposed to The Torah, which actually are one and the same but there is a difference between instructions and history or backstory.

Well, there are a couple of things wrong there. First off most of MJ considers all of Torah (the first 5 books) to be the foundation. This is what all writings are compared to before they are accepted as scripture, even in most of Christianity; let alone MJ and Judaism. Not just the "Kethubah." What about progressive revelation? Things like the establishment of the Temple at Yerushalayim as the only acceptable place for sacrifices, and all the evolutions that went through after Sinai? That is not just history, that is instruction on the level of a commandment.

I think there are a lot of terminology issues here that, if cleared up might (or not) show more agreement in our views.

As to the 613 mitzvoth, those are a construct of Rabbinical Judaism, and so are not binding on us as MJ. They are based on scripture, but most of them are not found in scripture. They are in the Talmud, but not as a list. You'd have to do a lot of reading to find them, even there. They were mostly established as fences on the Torah, and later took on the same or greater status as Torah with some sects. There is nothing wrong with fences, unless they are leevated above the Torah itself or make it too burdensome (which they do, even for many Jews). If it is in the Torah then yes, I/we are responsible for it. But I have a book of those mitzvoth, and at times the rabbi's got 2 or even 3 mitzvoth from just part of the same scripture.

Rabbinical Judaism is nothing like any of the Jewish sects in the first 2 centuries CE. When the Temple was destroyed the Pharisees took over, they being the largest sect by far; and the rabbis took over. They were worried Judaism would splinter and so they wrote the Oral Torah, which was halacha, in stone. It could no longer change, which it was designed to do. So now we have 613 (actually just the parts that apply to us, but still pretty burdensome- and I take exception to their being equal to the Torah itself). So the 613 are a non-sequitur as far as I am concerned.

 

[Yahudim]

You're getting a little bit confusing here. The Torah, our Instruction, is the name applied to the first five books of the Bible. You are changing it to mean only what was given at Sinai. You can't just change the definition to suit you. Now when you say the Kethubah was given at Sinai, we could find common ground for discussion. But it sound like we are agreeing that all of the first five books were not just dictated to Moses at Sinai. Or am I misreading that too?


Well, there are a couple of things wrong there. First off most of MJ considers all of Torah (the first 5 books) to be the foundation. This is what all writings are compared to before they are accepted as scripture, even in most of Christianity; let alone MJ and Judaism. Not just the "Kethubah." What about progressive revelation? Things like the establishment of the Temple at Yerushalayim as the only acceptable place for sacrifices, and all the evolutions that went through after Sinai? That is not just history, that is instruction on the level of a commandment.

I think there are a lot of terminology issues here that, if cleared up might (or not) show more agreement in our views.

As to the 613 mitzvoth, those are a construct of Rabbinical Judaism, and so are not binding on us as MJ. They are based on scripture, but most of them are not found in scripture. They are in the Talmud, but not as a list. You'd have to do a lot of reading to find them, even there. They were mostly established as fences on the Torah, and later took on the same or greater status as Torah with some sects. There is nothing wrong with fences, unless they are leevated above the Torah itself or make it too burdensome (which they do, even for many Jews). If it is in the Torah then yes, I/we are responsible for it. But I have a book of those mitzvoth, and at times the rabbi's got 2 or even 3 mitzvoth from just part of the same scripture.

Rabbinical Judaism is nothing like any of the Jewish sects in the first 2 centuries CE. When the Temple was destroyed the Pharisees took over, they being the largest sect by far; and the rabbis took over. They were worried Judaism would splinter and so they wrote the Oral Torah, which was halacha, in stone. It could no longer change, which it was designed to do. So now we have 613 (actually just the parts that apply to us, but still pretty burdensome- and I take exception to their being equal to the Torah itself). So the 613 are a non-sequitur as far as I am concerned.

Forgive me, as this is not directly in line with the OP or your position or the so-called Oral Torah. But I am curious. What do you think of the books the predate Torah? Take Enoch for example, as it certainly addresses angels...

 

[dani'el]

Forgive me, as this is not directly in line with the OP or your position or the so-called Oral Torah. But I am curious. What do you think of the books the predate Torah? Take Enoch for example, as it certainly addresses angels...

Enoch- I am going to guess there are a few threads here about that book. It is pseudepigrapha; part of the Jewish apocryphal tradition which thrived in the centuries just before and after Yeshua. In particular it thrived after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD.

You say it predates Torah. There apparently was "a" book of Enoch before Torah, and fragments of it remained and were seemingly incorporated into the book we now have. And the entire book was apparently still existent at the writing of Jude, as it is quoted there: "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: “Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy ones" Jude 1:14. But those books were likely lost when the Temple was destroyed. Another possibility is that the (much later) writer of Enoch and the writer of Jude quote from a common source; meaning Jude wouldn't reference Enoch at all.

"Written scripture began with Moses" is a common argument against Enoch as being scripture. To be fair, I am of the opinion that it is possible part of what Moses did was oversee the compilation of various works already in existence. Not sure how they would have survived 400 yrs of captivity in Egypt. Perhaps someone like Melchizedek had kept them (just speculating here). So (you might ask), if I believe that, why couldn't God have preserved the book(s) of Enoch like that too? Well, had that happened then they would have been compiled as part of the Torah, which is the charge Moses was given.

Another problem is many scholars believe, based on writing style and references to later events the book of Enoch was written by more than one author over the centuries before and after Yeshua. Some scholars of course say differently, so I suppose we'll have to choose which scholars we believe.

Then there was the common practice, and it was considered ok, to honor an earlier sage or prophet by giving him credit, assigning his name to your own work. There were of course people like Isaac Luria, author of the Zohar (the book on which Kabbalah is based) who claimed ancient authorship (he was 16th cen AD), and his purpose was clearly financial gain. Most writings we do not know the authors intent, and so I'll refrain from assigning intent to the author(s) of Enoch.

You asked what I think- I can't give you a definitive answer based solely in fact, as I am not a scholar. And the scholars themselves argue endlessly over this without resolution. But that is what I think, based on looking at both sides and my own observations and reasoning. Past that Enoch (the book) holds less interest for me than "See Dick and Jane." At least I learned to read from that one.

 

[Yahudim]

​

Enoch- I am going to guess there are a few threads here about that book. It is pseudepigrapha; part of the Jewish apocryphal tradition which thrived in the centuries just before and after Yeshua. In particular it thrived after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD.

You say it predates Torah. There apparently was "a" book of Enoch before Torah, and fragments of it remained and were seemingly incorporated into the book we now have. And the entire book was apparently still existent at the writing of Jude, as it is quoted there: "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: “Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy ones" Jude 1:14. But those books were likely lost when the Temple was destroyed. Another possibility is that the (much later) writer of Enoch and the writer of Jude quote from a common source; meaning Jude wouldn't reference Enoch at all.

"Written scripture began with Moses" is a common argument against Enoch as being scripture. To be fair, I am of the opinion that it is possible part of what Moses did was oversee the compilation of various works already in existence. Not sure how they would have survived 400 yrs of captivity in Egypt. Perhaps someone like Melchizedek had kept them (just speculating here). So (you might ask), if I believe that, why couldn't God have preserved the book(s) of Enoch like that too? Well, had that happened then they would have been compiled as part of the Torah, which is the charge Moses was given.

Another problem is many scholars believe, based on writing style and references to later events the book of Enoch was written by more than one author over the centuries before and after Yeshua. Some scholars of course say differently, so I suppose we'll have to choose which scholars we believe.

Then there was the common practice, and it was considered ok, to honor an earlier sage or prophet by giving him credit, assigning his name to your own work. There were of course people like Isaac Luria, author of the Zohar (the book on which Kabbalah is based) who claimed ancient authorship (he was 16th cen AD), and his purpose was clearly financial gain. Most writings we do not know the authors intent, and so I'll refrain from assigning intent to the author(s) of Enoch.

You asked what I think- I can't give you a definitive answer based solely in fact, as I am not a scholar. And the scholars themselves argue endlessly over this without resolution. But that is what I think, based on looking at both sides and my own observations and reasoning. Past that Enoch (the book) holds less interest for me than "See Dick and Jane." At least I learned to read from that one.

Well, at least you found one of them. Thanks. Now back to the OP.

 

[Lulav]

Forgive me, as this is not directly in line with the OP or your position or the so-called Oral Torah. But I am curious. What do you think of the books the predate Torah? Take Enoch for example, as it certainly addresses angels...

Job is also said to pre-date the giving of the Torah/Ketubah.

 

[Paul4JC]

Job is also said to pre-date the giving of the Torah/Ketubah.

......"different mathematicians have calculated that Job lived and wrote somewhere about twenty-one hundred and fifty years before Christ, which carries us back more than one thousand years before Homer and the Greeks, and a millennium and a half before Thales, the first of the Greek philosophers. And yet, already in the time of Job the heavens were astronomically laid out and arranged in the manner just described, with the Zodiac formed, the constellations named, the figures of them drawn and recorded, and the same accepted and celebrated by God's people as the particular adornment of the sky in which to read the Almighty's glory."


The Gospel In The Stars By Joseph. A. Seiss (pg15)

 

[Paul4JC]

The Mazzaroth Gospel in the Stars​

https://www.bible.com/events/598790
Job 38:32 (KJV)
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

1. What is Mazzaroth?.....

 

[dani'el]

Job is also said to pre-date the giving of the Torah/Ketubah.

......"different mathematicians have calculated that Job lived and wrote somewhere about twenty-one hundred and fifty years before Christ, which carries us back more than one thousand years before Homer and the Greeks, and a millennium and a half before Thales, the first of the Greek philosophers. And yet, already in the time of Job the heavens were astronomically laid out and arranged in the manner just described, with the Zodiac formed, the constellations named, the figures of them drawn and recorded, and the same accepted and celebrated by God's people as the particular adornment of the sky in which to read the Almighty's glory."


The Gospel In The Stars By Joseph. A. Seiss (pg15)

I thought I had replied to Lulav earlier, but I must have messed up and not got it. Hope this goes better as my reply will apply to both.

Yes. There is of course some argument, but Job is thought by most (and I agree with you both) to predate the written Torah by many years. So might the original book of Enoch; and if it was in the Temple (which I say is a possibility) but lost when the Temple was destroyed, then both books would have had to have been preserved by a source Moses never encountered.

I have my beliefs and opinions, and I clearly offer them as such. We don't really know, other than this is what we were given as part of our canon. I know many who want to acknowledge other writings as scripture. But while I agree thre are things we may learn from other writings, they are not scripture and should never be taken as such.

The book(s) we now have called by the name "Enoch" are very much in error. I will cite many flat-earthers using this as basis for their arguments. There is already a thread discussing this; suffice to say I disagree with them and Enoch. But they won't suffer death for their beliefs, so ... . Others use it to try to change the dates of God's feasts. Again, I disagree, but then I am not that certain we have it all right anyhow so ... . My concern comes because they want to change or modify scripture which the dates are based on, and flat earth beliefs holds all believes up for ridicule. These are not the only problems I have with it, but then as I've said I am not a scholar.

Some include what we have as canon, however neither Judaism nor Christianity held it as such. It was however used extensively in many heretical movements such as the Manichaeans. Founded by Mani, a Babylonian/Iranian and self styled prophet who called himself “Apostle of Light” and supreme “Illuminator.” He mixed Judaism (and possibly early Christianity, but not sure) with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and other religions. It is used to try to make Judaism and Christianity acceptable to Islam, but to my knowledge hasn't worked on any significant scale. That fringe movements like this love Enoch is enough to make me very suspicious of it.

I do have it (and books of the Ethopian Bible) on my shelf. I've read at least parts of most of them. And since Enoch has been thrown up to me many times by Messianics looking for some deeper, esoteric knowledge, I have read it. And I do not like it. My opinion, yours may vary. You may even disagree. All I'll say to that is fine, but if you are looking to convince me of something, quoting Enoch will not get the job done.

 

[Lulav]

Interestingly the book of Enoch as well as Jasher actually give more explanation of the heavenly bodies, the stars, moon, sun and a time clock.

Both of these books are mentioned in the books included in the canon and I don't think should be disregarded so easily.

Fragments of the book of Enoch were found in Qumran. I believe those who lived there were ones who might have been the ones that trained up John, Yeshua's cousin. His parents were elderly and he needed to be pure and the Pharisees and Sadducees were not the ones to do it. John was of the true Zadokian Priesthood.

I have my own thoughts on the book of Enoch which I might share soon in it's own thread.

 

[daq]

I thought I had replied to Lulav earlier, but I must have messed up and not got it. Hope this goes better as my reply will apply to both.

Yes. There is of course some argument, but Job is thought by most (and I agree with you both) to predate the written Torah by many years. So might the original book of Enoch; and if it was in the Temple (which I say is a possibility) but lost when the Temple was destroyed, then both books would have had to have been preserved by a source Moses never encountered.

I have my beliefs and opinions, and I clearly offer them as such. We don't really know, other than this is what we were given as part of our canon. I know many who want to acknowledge other writings as scripture. But while I agree thre are things we may learn from other writings, they are not scripture and should never be taken as such.

The book(s) we now have called by the name "Enoch" are very much in error. I will cite many flat-earthers using this as basis for their arguments. There is already a thread discussing this; suffice to say I disagree with them and Enoch. But they won't suffer death for their beliefs, so ... . Others use it to try to change the dates of God's feasts. Again, I disagree, but then I am not that certain we have it all right anyhow so ... . My concern comes because they want to change or modify scripture which the dates are based on, and flat earth beliefs holds all believes up for ridicule. These are not the only problems I have with it, but then as I've said I am not a scholar.

Some include what we have as canon, however neither Judaism nor Christianity held it as such. It was however used extensively in many heretical movements such as the Manichaeans. Founded by Mani, a Babylonian/Iranian and self styled prophet who called himself “Apostle of Light” and supreme “Illuminator.” He mixed Judaism (and possibly early Christianity, but not sure) with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and other religions. It is used to try to make Judaism and Christianity acceptable to Islam, but to my knowledge hasn't worked on any significant scale. That fringe movements like this love Enoch is enough to make me very suspicious of it.

I do have it (and books of the Ethopian Bible) on my shelf. I've read at least parts of most of them. And since Enoch has been thrown up to me many times by Messianics looking for some deeper, esoteric knowledge, I have read it. And I do not like it. My opinion, yours may vary. You may even disagree. All I'll say to that is fine, but if you are looking to convince me of something, quoting Enoch will not get the job done.

Flat-earthers only really started using Sefer Henok very recently, which mostly began when many Christians started believing flat-earth theories that began flourishing online, a short time span that amounts to less than a decade at this point. This appears to be a very recent development, but those who use Sefer Henok to support flat-earth theories interpret Henok in the same way that they also interpret the scripture: it is therefore the mindset, not the writing. "Take heed therefore how you hear", (Luke 8:18a).

 

[dani'el]

Both of these books are mentioned in the books included in the canon and I don't think should be disregarded so easily.

Mentioning part does not imply agreement with the whole. Furthermore, the Temple being in place 1st cen authors would have had access to a much larger library which may have included even more segments of the original than found at Qumran.

I have my own thoughts on the book of Enoch which I might share soon in it's own thread.

Fair enough. I posted my opinion, labeling it as such, so it would be kinda difficult to try to deny you yours. However, as to easily disregarding it; the temptation is to make a witty comment and let it go. But as I said, I have it on my shelf, have read it, and have looked into it. I also can judge the character of those who've tried to teach it to me in person. They tend to glom onto any and everything that makes them look like they have more knowledge than the dedicated Messianic leaders who just dig further into scripture. This includes things Like Talmud and Zohar. Talmud I have no problem with, as long as it is treated as commentary; but Zohar is pure mysticism. And I've read quite a bit of that; and it is insane! And there are other issues.

I have little time (how much depends on God), so I want it to count. I study the 66 book Bible as scripture, other writings either to fill in details on thought processes, customs, etc; or as commentary. And I am very selective about what I invest my time in. Always have been like that, but now more than ever. So some books get short shrift, others are not even considered.

You may invest your time and effort where you like. I put mine where I am sure it will count.

(sorry for the bold- it came up that way and I can't get it off)

Daniel 7:25a,b He will speak words against the Most High and try to exhaust the holy ones of the Most High. He will attempt to alter the seasons and the law;​

​

I doubt ha'satan will orchestrate this all at once. He will copy God when He prepared the way for Yeshua and sent books and movements to prepare the way. One of these satanic efforts I believe to be this pseudepigraphic work, the later book of Enoch. This spawns movements to challenge other Messianics and attempt to change the divine calendar, as well as many other issues.​

​

And I don't disregard all books just because they did not make it into scripture. For example, I have found no wrong in the book of Judith. It apparently was thought other books taught all the lessons therein. I disagree, as I learned for example that Jews could eat with Gentiles as long as they knew and trusted whoever cooked their meal. And the book also reinforced many other lessons. So it COULD have been included in canon. But I do not agitate for this. I simply accept it and I myself will read, and enjoy the book on my own. Then there are 1 & 2 Maccabees which have some really bad ideas, but there is much good there. I can read and draw out these things while applying a LOT of discernment to others. On the other hand there are what, about 7 or 9 additional chapters to the book of Ruth? I don't recall (I could look but it's not worth the effort to reach up and take down the book). A few years back I not only read these, I studied them, 1 chapter each week under a Messianic rabbi who wanted them added to the canon. I labeled that effort as pure heresy and, as you can probably guess I do not study under him any more. He won't even speak to me, which is fine. I just don't have the time, and increasingly have less energy to waste on this kind of thing. So yes, I can very easily disregard Enoch and many other works.​

(sorry for the bold- it came up that way and I can't get it off)
.

​

 

[Lulav]

I'll just answer to this as Shabbat is coming neigh. I will reply to the rest, later

Mentioning part does not imply agreement with the whole. Furthermore, the Temple being in place 1st cen authors would have had access to a much larger library which may have included even more segments of the original than found at Qumran.

So with that criteria when Yeshua quoted a bit of Scripture but not the whole we can then surmise that he wasn't in agreement with the whole?

Luke 4:17--- quoting Isaiah 61

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of our God’s vengeance, to comfort all who mourn,
3 to console the mourners in Zion—to give them a crown of beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, and a garment of praise for a spirit of despair.

 

[dani'el]

For some reason it cut off most of your post, and won't load it for me. Probably me, since I am sure computers were put on the earth specifically to test my resolve not to cuss. But I'll answer what is there:

So with that criteria when Yeshua quoted a bit of Scripture but not the whole we can then surmise that he wasn't in agreement with the whole?

No, that does not logically follow. He may or may not agree with everything said in any writing, yet that would in no way stop Him agreeing with some part of what is said. In our exchange alone we've disagreed on many points, yet some I have agreed with. I don't simply reject everything you say.

I'm sure you know this, but a reminder: Paul quoted the Cretan poet Epimenides, a pagan, in Titus 1:12: “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” However we can not conclude from that Paul was a pagan, or that he agreed with everything Epimenides said. He was simply making a point, and he used one of their (Cretans) own to do it.

 

[Lulav]

For some reason it cut off most of your post, and won't load it for me. Probably me, since I am sure computers were put on the earth specifically to test my resolve not to cuss. But I'll answer what is there:

No, that does not logically follow. He may or may not agree with everything said in any writing, yet that would in no way stop Him agreeing with some part of what is said. In our exchange alone we've disagreed on many points, yet some I have agreed with. I don't simply reject everything you say.

Actually it didn't I used a bold for the part Yeshua read and 'grayed out' the rest he didn't.
But it was your premise that "Mentioning part does not imply agreement with the whole."
You can't say that without a caveat.

I'm sure you know this, but a reminder: Paul quoted the Cretan poet Epimenides, a pagan, in Titus 1:12: “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” However we can not conclude from that Paul was a pagan, or that he agreed with everything Epimenides said. He was simply making a point, and he used one of their (Cretans) own to do it.

Yes, it's ashame that pagan quotes are in the canon, and not just there, I believe there's more in Acts as well.

But using that as an example, not only quoting it by repeating a lie. Surely not ALL cretans were always liars, evil beasts or lazy gluttons.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Well hopefully we can get more powerful telescopes and see what stars really are. In the meantime, here are photos of the sun which absolutely destroy the whole "giant ball of gas powered by nuclear fusion" theory. These were taken by NASA's own SOHO satellite(airship?), using a 171 angstrom filter. Now I'm well aware of the CGI NASA spews out, but these appear to be legitimate. NASA seems to pretend these photos don't exist. Notice the crater in both photos, taken 2.5 minutes apart:

 

[Lulav]

Is that a close up of a particular spot on the sun?

 

[Paul4JC]

I thought I had replied to Lulav earlier, but I must have messed up and not got it. Hope this goes better as my reply will apply to both.

Yes. There is of course some argument, but Job is thought by most (and I agree with you both) to predate the written Torah by many years. So might the original book of Enoch; and if it was in the Temple (which I say is a possibility) but lost when the Temple was destroyed, then both books would have had to have been preserved by a source Moses never encountered.

I have my beliefs and opinions, and I clearly offer them as such. We don't really know, other than this is what we were given as part of our canon. I know many who want to acknowledge other writings as scripture. But while I agree thre are things we may learn from other writings, they are not scripture and should never be taken as such.

The book(s) we now have called by the name "Enoch" are very much in error. I will cite many flat-earthers using this as basis for their arguments. There is already a thread discussing this; suffice to say I disagree with them and Enoch. But they won't suffer death for their beliefs, so ... . Others use it to try to change the dates of God's feasts. Again, I disagree, but then I am not that certain we have it all right anyhow so ... . My concern comes because they want to change or modify scripture which the dates are based on, and flat earth beliefs holds all believes up for ridicule. These are not the only problems I have with it, but then as I've said I am not a scholar.

Some include what we have as canon, however neither Judaism nor Christianity held it as such. It was however used extensively in many heretical movements such as the Manichaeans. Founded by Mani, a Babylonian/Iranian and self styled prophet who called himself “Apostle of Light” and supreme “Illuminator.” He mixed Judaism (and possibly early Christianity, but not sure) with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and other religions. It is used to try to make Judaism and Christianity acceptable to Islam, but to my knowledge hasn't worked on any significant scale. That fringe movements like this love Enoch is enough to make me very suspicious of it.

I do have it (and books of the Ethopian Bible) on my shelf. I've read at least parts of most of them. And since Enoch has been thrown up to me many times by Messianics looking for some deeper, esoteric knowledge, I have read it. And I do not like it. My opinion, yours may vary. You may even disagree. All I'll say to that is fine, but if you are looking to convince me of something, quoting Enoch will not get the job done.
I thought we are talking about the stars. If pagans take what God has created to use for evil, does not mean the original purpose was does that make them pagan.

I thought I had replied to Lulav earlier, but I must have messed up and not got it. Hope this goes better as my reply will apply to both.

Yes. There is of course some argument, but Job is thought by most (and I agree with you both) to predate the written Torah by many years. So might the original book of Enoch; and if it was in the Temple (which I say is a possibility) but lost when the Temple was destroyed, then both books would have had to have been preserved by a source Moses never encountered.

I have my beliefs and opinions, and I clearly offer them as such. We don't really know, other than this is what we were given as part of our canon. I know many who want to acknowledge other writings as scripture. But while I agree thre are things we may learn from other writings, they are not scripture and should never be taken as such.

The book(s) we now have called by the name "Enoch" are very much in error. I will cite many flat-earthers using this as basis for their arguments. There is already a thread discussing this; suffice to say I disagree with them and Enoch. But they won't suffer death for their beliefs, so ... . Others use it to try to change the dates of God's feasts. Again, I disagree, but then I am not that certain we have it all right anyhow so ... . My concern comes because they want to change or modify scripture which the dates are based on, and flat earth beliefs holds all believes up for ridicule. These are not the only problems I have with it, but then as I've said I am not a scholar.

Some include what we have as canon, however neither Judaism nor Christianity held it as such. It was however used extensively in many heretical movements such as the Manichaeans. Founded by Mani, a Babylonian/Iranian and self styled prophet who called himself “Apostle of Light” and supreme “Illuminator.” He mixed Judaism (and possibly early Christianity, but not sure) with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and other religions. It is used to try to make Judaism and Christianity acceptable to Islam, but to my knowledge hasn't worked on any significant scale. That fringe movements like this love Enoch is enough to make me very suspicious of it.

I do have it (and books of the Ethopian Bible) on my shelf. I've read at least parts of most of them. And since Enoch has been thrown up to me many times by Messianics looking for some deeper, esoteric knowledge, I have read it. And I do not like it. My opinion, yours may vary. You may even disagree. All I'll say to that is fine, but if you are looking to convince me of something, quoting Enoch will not get the job done.

I thought I had replied to Lulav earlier, but I must have messed up and not got it. Hope this goes better as my reply will apply to both.

Yes. There is of course some argument, but Job is thought by most (and I agree with you both) to predate the written Torah by many years. So might the original book of Enoch; and if it was in the Temple (which I say is a possibility) but lost when the Temple was destroyed, then both books would have had to have been preserved by a source Moses never encountered.

I have my beliefs and opinions, and I clearly offer them as such. We don't really know, other than this is what we were given as part of our canon. I know many who want to acknowledge other writings as scripture. But while I agree thre are things we may learn from other writings, they are not scripture and should never be taken as such.

The book(s) we now have called by the name "Enoch" are very much in error. I will cite many flat-earthers using this as basis for their arguments. There is already a thread discussing this; suffice to say I disagree with them and Enoch. But they won't suffer death for their beliefs, so ... . Others use it to try to change the dates of God's feasts. Again, I disagree, but then I am not that certain we have it all right anyhow so ... . My concern comes because they want to change or modify scripture which the dates are based on, and flat earth beliefs holds all believes up for ridicule. These are not the only problems I have with it, but then as I've said I am not a scholar.

Some include what we have as canon, however neither Judaism nor Christianity held it as such. It was however used extensively in many heretical movements such as the Manichaeans. Founded by Mani, a Babylonian/Iranian and self styled prophet who called himself “Apostle of Light” and supreme “Illuminator.” He mixed Judaism (and possibly early Christianity, but not sure) with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and other religions. It is used to try to make Judaism and Christianity acceptable to Islam, but to my knowledge hasn't worked on any significant scale. That fringe movements like this love Enoch is enough to make me very suspicious of it.

I do have it (and books of the Ethopian Bible) on my shelf. I've read at least parts of most of them. And since Enoch has been thrown up to me many times by Messianics looking for some deeper, esoteric knowledge, I have read it. And I do not like it. My opinion, yours may vary. You may even disagree. All I'll say to that is fine, but if you are looking to convince me of something, quoting Enoch will not get the job done.

I thought we are talking about the stars. If pagans take what God has created to use for good, for evils e.g. the zodiac, that does not mean the original divine purposes and meanings are devoid. In the many mythologies of the world, you will find many different false interpretations of the mazzaroth, which they use in pagan divination. I have to agree with brothers who teach that the original meaning was given to Adam, and passed down through his sons, The seventh from Adam was the first to put into writing astrological meaning and the first to prophesy.

[ As stated above it’s a whole other topic for its own OP. If you choose to ignore such writings that is your choice. That is like ignoring all and any writings, books, or sermons and liturgies you come across outside of canon. Then we should not even be posting here and close this forum since our words today are not “canon” and so cannot be used. Furthermore, we should all refrain from saying anything to anyone because our words are not canon. As ridiculous as this sounds, is how it sounds to me that certain pseudopigraphal books can be just blindly ignored even when their content lines up with Holy Scripture. For me, such writings are clearly synoptic with Biblical “canon” and should be utilized to their max as much as one might use any other Bible study tool. Furthermore, even though they were not canonized by a certain group we call church fathers, others whom we could also call church fathers* accepted these and freely quoted from them. There are various canons according to different church traditions.

see chart: Biblical canon - Wikipedia

*This is A Collective Post of Early Church Fathers and Others Mentioning The Book Of Enoch OR mentioning Fallen Angels mating with Human Women : The Book of Enoch? ]

Though I don’t know much and am still learning, I appreciate that you Messianic believers show tolerance towards others and that one can speak their mind. In other areas of CF one is quickly condemned and attacked, by many Christians for having different views, so again thank you.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Is that a close up of a particular spot on the sun?

Yes. Do you see the crater? The sun has a solid surface. This means the entire cosmology of the universe must be scrapped and redone from scratch. The sizes and distances of stars are all based on the assumption that our sun is an average star, made of hydrogen plasma, and powered by nuclear fusion(science fiction). These photos obviously destroy that assumption.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Often it came down to not so worried about me, but what would happen to him if I wasn't around.

I can relate to that.

It was as if he knew he was about to die, and expended everything he had to come say good by and be with us one last time before he passed. Truly something that we have never forgotten, and makes you pause an think of what they do know and do perceive as you say.

People say animals don't understand, but I believe they're more intelligent than we give them credit for.