Featured The book of Enoch, scripture or not?

History is uninspired and therefore subject to error. It is incomplete and therefore can never be final. It is limited to personal bias, knowledge of men.

Isaiah 8:16-18 is not subject to historical inquiry as it is accepted as scripture on all sides. It speaks directly to the issue of completing the Biblical canon and quoted by New Testament writers and most importantly by the final writer and the final book of the New Testament canon. I will take Isaiah's word over yours or over your uninspired scholars.

Not so, especially when they contradict those who did write by inspiration.

As I have told you before on several occassions, I can quote your own sources to contradict your own sources since you will not accept the scriptures.

However, it is obvious, or should be, that all the New Testament was completed in the life time of the Apostles and thus the canon was complete regardless how uninspired "heretics" viewed it or not.

God never gave the OT canon to be settled by post-first coming saints but he gave it to Israel (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:5) as the guardians of the OT Canon and they did not accept the apocrypha as scripture. Jesus did not accept it as scripture as Jesus identified the first prophet to be Abel and the last to be Zechariah when he spoke about Israel rejecting ALL the prophets. Hence, rejected as prophets those between Zechariah and Matthew and some some of these writings recorded sufferings as well but NOT AS PROPHETS.

As in the case of Old Testament prophets the oral was replaced by the written record and the oral traditions were never regarded as inspired by Jesus or any of the Apostles but cited as having ERROR in them and corrected. No "scriptures" were ever corrected by Christ and the Apostles.

 

Here is an interesting challenge to the inspiration of Enoch

http://www.brainout.net/EnochTest.htm

 

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Don't sound like murder and theives was the reason to me?

 

In Romans 1:22-29 there is a descending spiral of depravity an homosexuality is toward the bottom of that descending spiral.

Seems strange that Jude would say Sodom and Gomorah are set forth as "EXAMPLES" of the most severe judgement of God for the very things you claim on the basis of a non-scriptural writing that was not their real grounds for destruction. We know Jude is inspired and so that would seem to be another proof that the apocrypha was not inspired.

 

And here your problems begin and how your false delemma is problematic. Let me explain. With regard to a discussion about God a man (singular) may be in error especially if they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. And this becomes a valid point when discussing a meaning of a text of Scripture. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing what may be assertained from eyewitness to events that happened long ago. For instance neither you nor I were alive during the sinking of the Titanic. And I think all the people who survived are now passed away. However, irrelevant to what they believe about God a consensus of eyewitness to the event of the sinking of the Titanic which were recorded in writing can give us a reliable understanding of the event. The fact that archeologist are able to verify the eyewitness accounts to the sinking of that ship by sending robotic submarines to that ship only supports the accounts. In the same way we can assertain certian things about the compilation of scripture from ancient eyewitness and their documentation.

This expresses how incongruent your approach is. Obviously this is prophetic statement but how it can be applied can be diverse. For instance to which time period is Isaiah referring. It seems the prophesy is more closely related to the imminent invasion of the Assyrians and the condemnation of the Northern Kingdom. And the specific verse you mention follows a principle of trusting in the lord and follow his law (Torah). Also, One could take the passage to mean "Let some faithful witnesses keep this prophecy, that when it is verified, all may be convinced." Using the King James version it says "seal the law" which specifically means Torah. This is cannot therefore be taken as a statement regarding the whole of Canon. It certianly cannot be used to distinguish which books are considered canon.

two points. First of all who do you consider "inspired" in 100-400 AD? Secondly, Another false delemma in that by "contradict" you mean hold to your view of how you interpret scripture. Which you are colored by the era and culture you currently exist rather than any experience of that actual time. So in fact they may not be "contradicting" but rather expressing what they consider to be entirely congruent with scriptures.

Another false delemma. I accept the scriptures. What I reject is your personal interpretation as can be seen by the many Christian denominations interpretation of scriptures is as diverse as are the people who offer their opinions about them. The fact that you can quote one person you fail to offer the consensus of that persons time period among all the writing available. "Given" that a person may be falible when you have a majority of witnesses to a particular event the more often repreated account has more reliability. And that is where your argument goes off.

And where you problem lies is that though all the documentes were writen what was considered inspired wasn't settled until much later. And the fact that there was no consensus for this during the early church is evidence of it.

Not true. They may not have later considered apocrypha scripture after the progression of Christianity but certainly the fact that the only recorded even of Hannukah is recorded in Macc. certainly when quoting the OT Non palestinian Jews and Christians quoted from the LXX which contained these books.

False argument in that non of the apocryphal personalities are considered prophets.

It seems you need to read Matthew 23 again

Place of Oral teaching. Also how about Matthew 2:23

The written word no where says that therefore it must be Oral teaching.

 

God's Word is not bound! God's Word does not need human verification to be God's Word. What a document does need to be regarded as God's Word is INTERNAL witness that harmonizes with what has already been confirmed by God as His Word - Isa. 8:20.

I used the immediate context to answer all these objections before and the conclusion was that you simply stopped responding BECAUSE every objection you made about the immediate context of Isaiah 8:16 proved by the context to be bogus and you are simply repeating your bogus arguments.

If you would care to once again enter into a contextual debate on Isaiah 8:16 - pleeeeeeeease do.

Isaiah 8:16 is placed in a prophetic context of Christ (Isa. 7:14 to Isaiah 9:6) and Isaiah 8:14-15 and verse 18 are directly applied to Christ and his apostles by New Testament writers. So you are OUT OF CONTEXT!

Thus "the law" in that propehtic context refers to the whole Old Testament and is how Christ and the Apostles often referred to the whole Old Testament (Mt. 5:16-17). The "testimony" refers to precisely what the apostolic office was established for - to be a WITNESS of Christ and the last book of the Bible - the Book of Revelation claims to be such a "testimony" which takes the reader from the time of John to eternity an closes with a seal thus in keeping not only with Isaiah 8:16 but with Isaiah 8:18 in regard to the Apostles (Heb. 2:3-4, 12) and the next revelation from heaven being the second coming of Christ (Isa. 8:18; Rev. 21:20-21).

 

No one! All you can produce is writings during that no one else considered inspired either.

What???????????

No you do not! You accept them with QUALIFICATIONS and your qualifications repudate them.

And look at Rome's track record! Pathetic! And should I yeild to your personal interpretations? lol.

Again, real scriptures do not need majority opinions as they are the Word of God in spite of majority opinion. They have INTERNAL evidence that correspond to previous confirmed scriptures (Isa. 8:20).

I am sure your arguments make sense in your own mind but I see no sense at all in them.

Another nonsensical argument.

Another nonsensical argument. Have you read Matthew 5:20-48 and other similar texts where ORAL TRADITIONS are being repudiated, exposed for error! That is hardly the evidence of INSPIRED sayings.

 

You also trust in a Bible that includes Macabees and other uninspired books.