Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Netcurtains3, Nov 24, 2002.

  1. Netcurtains3

    Netcurtains3
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    why does the new testament quote from the worlds first science fiction book - The Book Of Enoch?
    Jude 14-15. Surely such casual quoting implies something?

    If the bible was written by a Protestant Fundamentalist I am sure such a phrase would not have got past the editor especially since it clearly states that the REAL Enoch is saying these words.

    Lets face it, what went into the bible was decided by pretty ordinary people who just happened to have the ability of affording pen and paper. The richest christian groups wrote the most bibles (I guess). The richest groups (potentially) had the most members and thus we must be Catholic or rewrite the bible.
    Its your choice
     
  2. Chrift

    Chrift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless of Jude's reason for quoting Enoch, the fact that he does, doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. His quote doesn't conflict with, but supports what scripture tells us.

    examples...
    Matthew 25:31; Daniel
    7:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 I hope this helps [​IMG]

    God bless!

    [ November 24, 2002, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Chrift ]
     
  3. Netcurtains3

    Netcurtains3
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi
    You said "but supports what scripture tells us".
    Where in the bible, apart from Jude, does it say Enoch said this? Surely you're mistaken?
     
  4. jasonW*

    jasonW*
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know. What do you think it implies?

    Oh, I see now. You are saying the bible is wrong and that we can't trust it. Got it. Answer: Nope.

    That's it? That is your definition of 'what went into the bible'? The only criteria? What ever happend to 'of God', 'guided by the Holy Spirit'? You sure you are a catholic? Other catholics on this board might not be too happy with you right now.

    I'm not even sure this is a complete thought. What does this do to prove your position in anyway? No offense, but these assertions are pretty simplistic, misguided and not founded in something we like to call 'logic'.

    I am beginning to wonder if you are just here to stir up trouble. Not as a catholic (which I doubt, actually), but as someone playing the role of a catholic just to ruffle feathers. We've seen it before.

    jason
     
  5. Netcurtains3

    Netcurtains3
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Jason,
    You are being a bit rude and getting into sophistry rather then valid theological arguments.

    Calm down and perhaps say a prayer before you respond to posts. Seriously it can help. If you feel cross, perhaps wait 24 hours or so until you calm down.

    I am not a liar. Catholics are most definitely NOT (well on the whole) sola scripture. I am a Catholic (not a "good" catholic in the sense of saying Rosaries etc and getting involved - but a pretty normal catholic nevertheless).

    Being 39 (ish) I don't appreciate being called a liar. Cut the sophistry and stick with theology and or history.

    Prayer

    [ November 24, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
     
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you net. I believe you are very typical of what the Catholics believe. They don't believe the Bible is the Word of God or is accurate. If they did, they wouldn't need anything but the scriptures.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Net, I would be interested in knowing which of the four congregations you are a member/attend on a regular basis,,,,Millmead?

    What you are saying is not the theology of the senior pastor. I fail to understand where you get this from. It is certainly not from any of the congregations which make up the Guildford Baptist Church.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  8. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Net,
    Some responses are below each of your quoted sections.
    Yes, it does imply something. I have not read the Book of Enoch, so I don't know what all it says. I know it did not show up in history, that we are aware of, until the first century B.C. It was also not included by the Jewish people in their reckoning of inspired literature, if it did show up before that. However, when it did appear, it appeared to be well-respected, and it was certainly well-known by the time of Christ.

    So there are some choices here:
    1. Some writings by Enoch had been around for millennia and had finally been put together as a cohesive account.
    2. Some words of Enoch's had been known for millennia and were included in a largely fictional book.

    Whichever may be true, the words were recognized as from Enoch of long ago, and Jude was quoting them. The fact that Jude quoted them lends credence to them as authentic, but does not say anything concerning the Book of Enoch itself.

    For an example that might make more sense, consider Julius Caesar. Many think immediately of Shakespeare rather than the actual history of the man who really lived. And Shakespeare takes a great deal from true history and then adds from his imagination. That does not negate the fact that Julius Caesar was a real man and that certain of the events and even words were really the way it happened. But that fact does not validate the entire play as history.

    Also, it should be noted that what Jude is quoting is a general prophetic statement which Jude is then applying to the end times. It is not as though this sort of statement regarding future judgment were not prevalent in the Bible! In other words, this quote from Enoch is not presenting anything either new or different!

    The Bible was written by over forty different authors over several thousand years! No one person or group wrote it. And, as both a Protestant and a fundamentalist, I can assure you I personally have no problem at all with the idea that the real Enoch may have said those real words!

    I think you need to study a little Bible history here, friend. The books of the Old Testament were around LONG before the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The books of the New Testament were written by eye witnesses, Luke, and Paul. Long before the councils confirmed them, those books recognized as inspired by God were known, read, used, quoted.

    The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with any of it.
     
  9. Netcurtains3

    Netcurtains3
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Jim1999,

    I am not a member of the Guildford Baptist church. The web site registration questionaire asked me "where is my nearest Baptist Church" - it did not say "which baptist church do I go to" - the two are obviously very different questions. If you look at your HELLO section from time to time you will see that I made it clear that I am a Catholic (but I was an Elim Pentacostalist as a teenager and an Anglican as a "twenty something". The mistake is in the web site questioning - not me (at least that is how it seems to me)). But if you want me to edit out "my nearest baptist church" I would be very willing to do so.

    I don't post on any of the Baptist only threads.

    [ November 24, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
     
  10. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, Net,

    It might be a good idea to change your profile to read Catholic Church....that area really means what Baptist Church do you attend. It is a little deceiving, although all your posts have been clear that you profess to being a Roman Catholic.

    Thanks again, for the clarification.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  11. IlovetheBible

    IlovetheBible
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Are you saying the authors of the Bible are rich? I hope not.

    I also see that you don't have any answers for JasonW's questions. He wasn't being rude in the least, he was stating the obvious.
     
  12. Netcurtains3

    Netcurtains3
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Helen and Bro Adam,

    Helen - thanks for answering my question.
    I have now looked up a few things about bibles and early popes. The first pope (apart from Peter) who would appear to be a recognised historical figure is: Pope St. Clement I. He was pope from about AD88 to AD97.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
    The New Testament was completed by about A.D.100.

    Bro Adam - Perhaps I did over do the "rude" bit - lets leave it at that.
    The rich bit.
    Rich, not necessarily in terms of the wealthiest backers but possibly rich in terms of the numbers of ordinary people willing to cough up a few bob to help in the bible writing work. The organisation that has the most "few bobs" will probably produce the most bibles. Rome, during the Roman empire had about FIVE MILLION people in it (my 12 year old tells me - I think the net says similiar).
    Other bibles - like the Coptic or sinai bible with there extra or different books in them obviously had smaller print runs (as it were). In a sense the bible is the work of the holy spirit AND democracy. Rome was the centre of Christianity simply because of its huge size.
    What became of the Didache? It is AD140-ish?

    Yes I do think the bible is NOT God - Jesus (Yeshua) is the WORD and the bible does not contain the entire word (as it says some where that "there were many more things Jesus did that are not written down"). For example the Bible does not have the Trinity in it but I am a Trinitarian. The Nicene Creed (either the original Orthodox or the modern Catholic are both Trinitarian).
     
  13. IlovetheBible

    IlovetheBible
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yes the Bible does tell us about the Trinity. In fact Genesis itself, the very beginning of Genesis in the story of creation tells us about the trinity.
     
  14. Netcurtains3

    Netcurtains3
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Bro Adam,
    I can't see any clear cut trinity in Genesis. God appears to be "talking to a small group" - elohim - but that is not three.

    I think the best witness of Trinity is Jesus. He said the smallest number of Christians needed to make a Church was TWO ("where ever two or three of you are gathered together in my name there I'll be in your midst" - 2 + Jesus = 3).

    Talking of smallest numbers - the Universe itself is in a sense (more or less) trinitarian. There are Three Qwarks in a Proton. Hydrogen (the stuff of the 'Big Bang') has no Neutron just a Proton. The funamentalist (lol) building block of the universe is trinitarian as the qwark is the SMALLEST particle of matter and there are ALWAYS three in a proton. A Hydrogen atom is made up of a single proton (three qwarks).

    Or of course the Nicene Creed says God is "Light From Light" - There are just three primary colours in HUMAN light that lets us see more or less all other colours (well more or less).

    The guy who was dead against religion was Sigmund Freud. He subconsciencely (lol) split the human brain up in a Trinitarian way - Id, ego and super-ego.

    I guess matter itself (superficially) looks Trinitarian at first glace - Liquid, Solid and Gas.

    Is this lot correct - not quite (but nearly).

    Is the bible 100% correct or does it have some glitches?

    IMHO I think if the Bible has any glitches then Jesus left them there for us to think about what they could mean.

    Pray.
    Net

    [ November 24, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
     
  15. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Adam,

    You wrote, "Yes the Bible does tell us about the Trinity. In fact Genesis itself, the very beginning of Genesis in the story of creation tells us about the trinity."

    The Trinity was not revealed before Jesus Christ came into the world. Else, the Jewish people would believe in the Trinity, which they do not. The concept is foreign to them.

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,

    Just because they don't believe in something doesn't mean they weren't exposed to it.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Joe,

    So you're saying that God revealed himself as Trinity before Jesus Christ came to Earth in the Incarnation?

    If so, that's a pretty huge leap to take.

    God bless,

    Carson
     
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not saying that per say either. Only pointing out that the argument of unbelief or silence is probably the weakest argument out there for your point. For example, with the kinda logic you used, one could say that the Jews were never exposed to Yeshua because they rejected him and many don't believe in him even today. You see what I mean?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. IlovetheBible

    IlovetheBible
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The Bible is 100% correct. It is completely infallible, and free from any error. It is divinely inspired. Do you think thousands of men, woman and children would freely die for a lie? Do you think the Apostles would be martyred for Christ if he was a fraud?

    Think about these verses of the Bible, on the Bible:

    Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    The Bible itself is its own burden of proof, it is the our final authority in all doctrinal matters, all teaching, all correcting, because it is given by the inspiration of God. Unless you believe God to capable of being wrong. In which case he would cease to be God.

    2 Tim. 3:16 (KJV)
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    The very Bible you critisize will be your burden of proof on the day of judgement.

    Romans 2:16 (KJV)
    In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
     
  20. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Adam,

    I agree with your premise. However, your way of arguing the premise is flawed. How many Muslims have not only died, but murdered others in the process, for a lie? Again, not disagreeing with your premise, only the way you try to argue your point.

    Joseph Botwinick
     

Share This Page

Loading...