Missing Christian scripture - Enoch Parables - The parable of the mountains - part 1

a reply to: Akragon

I read it last night. It's cool to get a tiny peek into the customs and traditions the early churches followed.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

This is one of the many reasons i like reading texts from the early church... one can see opposing factions

I think this might be an amalgamation of a few sects of early christianty, which was why it was rejected

For example in this text there are two opposing factions in the ways of baptism...

a reply to: Akragon

What two opposing factions? Infant baptism didn't exist in the first century.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well... There are two ways to baptize in the NT

Three if you count John i suppose...

Both are used in this text, which means the writer found two texts and combined them...

IMO

a reply to: Akragon

I don't remember reading about two ways, you'll have to elaborate. The two ways that exist today are infant baptism and believer's baptism.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Alright...

When you've been to a baptism... how is it done?

In the name of "the Father, The Son, and the Holy ghost/spirit"

Yes?

a reply to: Akragon

Yes, or in Jesus name. But that just means "in the authority of".

I did learn in the Didache that in the first century they fasted before being baptised, that was interesting. The first 3 days of fasting sucks, after that it's easy.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Yes, or in Jesus name. But that just means "in the authority of".

ya but that was the only way it was done in the few instances in the NT...

In his name...

a reply to: Akragon

Well, Jesus said to do it in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To me that means nobody can be dogmatic about it, then it makes it about what is said rather than what it signifies. That the believer identifies with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Not a big deal for me. Peter said to do it one way, Jesus said to do it the other way. The important thing is doing it.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Is anything ever quoted from in the New Testament NOT from scripture?

That's kind of a trick question. Some people assume "scripture" to mean "canonical inspired by their god writing" when, in fact, it means something more like "it is written".

Titus 1?

12One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, and idle gluttons." 13This testimony is true. For this cause, reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not paying attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

I'm sure scholars have a list available of quotes and paraphrases and memes that come from sources not considered holy by the church.

I got to go now. I'll check in tomorrow.

I guess it is kind of a trick question but I dis say scripture and then put in parentheses that canon didn't exist when Jude's author penned it so he considered it scripture by quoting it in an inspired writing, even if he was unaware of the fate or God's purpose for the letter God did.

And the quote is spot on practically and undoubtedly from 1 Enoch. So God made that quote inspired and I don't believe in partially inspired scripture so Enoch is, to me, scripture. If I wasn't disguted with the idea of canon itself I would canonize in my mind.

But I refer to everything as scripture that I think is scripture so maybe I will use canon in quotations from now on to distinguish but only when I am refer to a time period when it existed. Tanakh is what I will use for the Old Testament.

But I also said 'not when dealing with God and prophecy ' because I know some Greco-Egyptian Hermetic traditions were quoted from by Jesus at least one time.

So Enoch is not canon outside of the Ethiopian Church but I consider it scripture now and believe it was part of the Tanakh or a priest and the privileged only book considered inspired.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Before Nicea there was no canon and each church had their own scriptures. It was one of the most popular books AND scripture.

Why do you think that? Nicaea had nothing to do with the Canon of scripture. It was convened to address the Arian heresy, settle a date for Easter, and to vote for bishops.

According to history the purpose of the first council was to address and finalize theology and an official Canon and the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and get one uniform book.

It took forever. Months to decide.

If I did happen to be wrong then canon came EVEN LATER because it was finalized on a certain post Nicene day or at Nicea, but no earlier.

Individual communities were free to have the books they chose and canon didn't exist as a doctrine.

Which is why we have more Apocrypha than canon. Censorship is all it was, under the guise of determining what was inspired, should be private or was Pseudepigrapha as if men are capable of determining the word of God and we should obey their mandates.

I bet you are not even Catholic but are putting faith in one of the most vile eras of the church to decide what is scripture FOR YOU.

Go right ahead and you will never know what you are missing: The truth, enlightenment and a relationship with God greater than you thought possible by trusting him. That Apocrypha that was meant for the first flames yet survived in volumes is HIS DOING.

That is FAITH rather than faith (in Constantine not God).

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

The Trinity was finalized by one guy, I forget his name but not Arius. No council just a creed CALLED the Nicene creed but it was written way after the council ended.

They discussed many things and one of them was canon law. Arius' Trinity was also discussed but canon originates with Nicea.

It was not even finalized then. I don't think that council accomplished anything important at all and they sound like they were confused and ignorant people.

originally posted by: DefeatDeceit888
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

The Trinity was finalized by one guy, I forget his name but not Arius. No council just a creed CALLED the Nicene creed but it was written way after the council ended.

They discussed many things and one of them was canon law. Arius' Trinity was also discussed but canon originates with Nicea.

It was not even finalized then. I don't think that council accomplished anything important at all and they sound like they were confused and ignorant people.

Canon law isn't NT canon of scripture. Canon law means list of rules etc. The books of the Bible were never discussed at Nicaea. That's a common myth. And the Trinity was accepted long before the 4th century, it was in the 1st century. Arius just was a heretic and was leading a bunch of people away in Alexandria and the Council met to decide it once and for all. Nobody voted with Arius except the guy who came with him.

The Council also established a uniform day for Easter and appointed bishops.

a reply to: NOTurTypical


Like I said, if you were paying attention, canon law was discussed but the canon itself wasn't finalized until later.

So back to what started this conversation the Biblical canon didn't exist pre-Nicea, and was even later that the Biblical canon was made.

Prior to that you could use whatever you wanted to as scripture within reason.

I don't like debating history with people who say things that aren't historically accurate. The IDEA OF canon didn't exist at all until around Nicea.


Now that this topic is settled how do you feel about adopting the Trinity from such corrupt a regime as Constantines KNOWING that it is not Biblical, meaning not real?

Or that it was men who MADE Jesus into a God when he was only the Messiah in the Bible?

I have dropped the beliefs of the "Christian" churches for the beliefs of the first Jewish Christians because it's closer to the Truth.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

You have a problem, the beloved disciple John uses the title "Logos" (Word) for Jesus in his gospel account and in the first chapter says both that the Logos was with God, and that the Logos was also God.

Jesus was both with God, and is God.

Now that this topic is settled how do you feel about adopting the Trinity from such corrupt a regime as Constantines KNOWING that it is not Biblical, meaning not real?

What?? Constantine was a 4th century Emperor of Rome. The first time the word "Trinity" was used in church literature was 200 years prior in the writings of Tertullian. (Trinitas)

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

You have a problem, the beloved disciple John uses the title "Logos" (Word) for Jesus in his gospel account and in the first chapter says both that the Logos was with God, and that the Logos was also God.

Jesus was both with God, and is God.

Who says that one paragraph from a book written in the third century makes Jesus God or the Word?

The Logos existed in Judaism BEFORE Christianity and well before the Gospel of John was written. It was borrowed and applied to Jesus who was human. One more thing ripped off by the Christians from Judaism and applying to suit their needs.

It comes from Plato. Or Pythagoras then Plato I don't remember but it is Greek philosophy and not Divine revelation.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And you telling me I have a problem is like you telling me I'm an astronaut.

Both equally untrue. I am doing what I am supposed to and don't fear hell anymore, worst case scenario I will reincarnate.

a reply to: DefeatDeceit888

Gospel of John was written 90-97 AD. Polycarp who was John's direct disciple and bishop of the church in Smyrna, quotes from it exensively in the early 2nd century. John wrote Reveltion, 1, 2, 3rd John and the gospel according to John from Patmos, he was released when Domitian died in 96 AD.

Secondly, as stated above, Constantine was a 4th century Emperor, the first Christian theologian to use the word Trinity (Trinitas) was Tertuillian, 200 years before Constantine.

You got to lay off the Dan Brown books, his literary works are found in the fiction section of every bookstore.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Do you just argue? Like even when you realize you are wrong you change over to a different argument and when you run out you do the "heretic" tactic because I don't believe a human was also God because the Bible disagrees with the Trinity doctrine and the first Christians didn't believe that. They may have mythologized Jesus but he wasn't God. Symbolic statements such as "I Am" and "I and my Father are one" don't make him God either. And the Trinity is polytheism. I am a Monotheist who believes in One God above All Existence and many Divine beings. The Holy Spirit is here until the end of time. Jesus had the Spirit and made it available through his teachings.

Now we all can have the Spirit, if I allow myself to boast I boast at having the Blessings of the Holy Spirit.