Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.

[jaybird]

Now answer my question.

You don't believe the Holy Bible is exactly as God Almighty wanted it?

the holy bible im assume meaning the protestant non catholic bible? i have no idea if its the way the Most High wants it, He did not tell me and i dont speak for Him as if i am a prophet of the Most High, that IMO would be bold and arrogant.
i can only speak for the facts i have learned,the scriptures we have today are just fine, nothing wrong with them, but IMO there are more.

 

[God's Truth]

the holy bible im assume meaning the protestant non catholic bible? i have no idea if its the way the Most High wants it, He did not tell me and i dont speak for Him as if i am a prophet of the Most High, that IMO would be bold and arrogant.
i can only speak for the facts i have learned,the scriptures we have today are just fine, nothing wrong with them, but IMO there are more.

If people have things added to the Bible that your Bible does not have, we can look at it and see if is a good addition to what we have. We know that the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch, and we know that it has major mistakes. So why add it to your trusted Holy Bible?

 

[jaybird]

If people have things added to the Bible that your Bible does not have, we can look at it and see if is a good addition to what we have. We know that the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch, and we know that it has major mistakes. So why add it to your trusted Holy Bible?

do you realize how long ago Enoch lived? Moses wrote Gen, was he there in the garden with Adam? did Jesus write the gospels? Enoch is the teachings of Enoch, held in oral tradition and eventually written down. to say its not a real scripture because it was not written by Enoch himself is a silly argument.
give me one of these errors.

 

[freelight]

Knowing the landscape, helps to better understand the evolution......

Knowing the landscape, helps to better understand the evolution......

According to the establishment of Church canon!

Still a human institution or organization subject to human imperfection, sin, corruption, subterfuge and other agendas (often influenced by socio-politics of the day, especially in the 4th century during the Arian Controversy onwards), no matter how pious their inventions and canons 'appear' to be. And so interesting that protestants uphold their mother-church for her canons, creeds and dogma, but then selectively choose their own doctrines and pet dogmas to suit themselves, as any other religionist of any other tradition is free to do. It would be just as well in the vein of 'progression revelation' to also reject some pet-dogmas within protestantism, as we go forward in truth.

That a standardized (perhaps 'sanitized' as well) canon was fairly established by the 4th-5th century doesn't necessarily prove or establish its 'inspiration', but that it was held by a collective consensus as being the books 'acceptable' to be included for religious instruction, or as 'scripture', but the 'canons' probably varied among different groups within the first 3 centuries, as great variety existed within the growing faith-tradition, with many branches in the messianic movement, and the legends, mythos, STORY of Jesus, in its various archetypes and modalities.

And still, you cannot limit the INFINITE to a book, much less any number of books, no matter what human stamp of approval or rejection is granted. "the letter kills, the Spirit gives life".

The Apocrypha, intertestamental literature, non-canonical, gnostic gospels may be just as valuable in their teachings on different levels than the 'canonized' writing, and add more dimensions and colours to the actual demograph and cosmology of the culture during those times, let alone being a 'bridge' from the OT to the NT dispensations, providing glimpses into the flora and fauna of the land. I recommend a greater liberty of knowledge here, and then a greater admittance of ignorance, if you would be so courageous to be a student of truth, or a disciple of the 'Christ' who is a universal power and presence, and not just limited to one body or tradition. The 'Christ' is that light in every soul, and its essence is love, wherein the seed of immortality, perfection and eternal progress lies. Christ sets free in his divine nature, he never puts one in dogmatic or ritual bondage, neither does he capitivate or keep his beloved by fear, manipulation, force or condemnation. Whenever a religion goes about that way, it begins its own degeneration and spiral downward, and actually becomes 'anti-christ' in its ethos.

 

[freelight]

All truth is 'hidden' to a degree in esoteric theology, so its all 'apocryphal'......

All truth is 'hidden' to a degree in esoteric theology, so its all 'apocryphal'......

The Apocrypha doesn't give cause really about the fear of different teachings making different gospels; however, there are books in the Apocrpha that makes it obvious that the writer is not speaking from eyewitness accounts, and not speaking the words of God, but are speaking about their own understanding of the truth.
There are some questionable things, however, and it is used to make some false doctrines.
Overall, it does not add to knowledge of God and it gives a diary of second hand believers, IMHO.

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but second hand reports of heresay (oral tradition or other) written decades if not longer after the supposed events. Only the gospel of John hints at the author being the one whom Jesus loved, which could well be Lazarus and not John.

By your own standard we maybe should reject those and accept them for mostly religious fictions, speckled with a little historical facts and topography woven thru-out. No matter, it still becomes but a religious writing (deem it however 'historical' or 'mythical' or some blend therein), and its all HOW one interprets the STORY. - thats the ticket that takes you anywhere, whatever 'train' you choose to board.

Also only 7 of the epistles of Paul are deemed 'genuine' by most scholarly concensus, while all the other letters attributed are doubted or obviously 'pseudographical'. We could us the word 'forged' as well, but that may step on some religious toes - Bart Ehrman wrote a good book on the subject.

 

[freelight]

The purpose of the one true God in manifesting Himself is to summon all mankind to truthfulness and sincerity, to piety and trustworthiness, to resignation and submissiveness to the Will of God, to forbearance and kindliness, to uprightness and wisdom. His object is to array every man with the mantle of a saintly character, and to adorn him with the ornament of holy and goodly deeds.

Bahá’u’lláh - (Gleanings From the Writings of

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

:thumb:

A universally true, integrous and truly principled statement on the actual motive and focus of what true religion aspires towards.

 

[freelight]

anyone can say that but Jesus says we know them by their fruit.

Definitely,...and a 'muslim' by definition is one who submits, strives to be in surrender to God's will, to the DOING of God's will. All the prophets and Jesus teach this as fundamental to their religion.

 

[freelight]

love is not jealous.............

love is not jealous.............

God says He is a jealous God.

Rather capricious and petty for the 'God' of the cosmos to claim jealousy ?, no matter how one metaphorically interprets the word, or its context. That 'God' is the source of all love, truth, wisdom, power, beauty, goodness, life...is well enough, without going too far to make that 'God' in the image of man, subject to various whims and jealousies.

 

[God's Truth]

do you realize how long ago Enoch lived?

Of course.

Moses wrote Gen, was he there in the garden with Adam?

We don't even know who wrote the book of Enoch.

did Jesus write the gospels? Enoch is the teachings of Enoch, held in oral tradition and eventually written down. to say its not a real scripture because it was not written by Enoch himself is a silly argument.
give me one of these errors.

Did angels build the ark or did Noah as stated in the Holy Bible?

 

[God's Truth]

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but second hand reports of heresay (oral tradition or other) written decades if not longer after the supposed events. Only the gospel of John hints at the author being the one whom Jesus loved, which could well be Lazarus and not John.

You are wrong about that.

Luke 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1:21 Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.

By your own standard we maybe should reject those and accept them for mostly religious fictions, speckled with a little historical facts and topography woven thru-out. No matter, it still becomes but a religious writing (deem it however 'historical' or 'mythical' or some blend therein), and its all HOW one interprets the STORY. - thats the ticket that takes you anywhere, whatever 'train' you choose to board.

You are speaking untruth about the Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible is God breathed and written according to eye witnesses, and, it is the Old Testament prophecies revealed.

As 2 Peter 1:20-21 says. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 16:25-27 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him–to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Also only 7 of the epistles of Paul are deemed 'genuine' by most scholarly concensus, while all the other letters attributed are doubted or obviously 'pseudographical'. We could us the word 'forged' as well, but that may step on some religious toes - Bart Ehrman wrote a good book on the subject.

There is nothing false in the Holy Bible. Nothing that contradicts. You are just trying cause doubt and suspicion and promote other books that are not established and protected as God's Word.

 

[God's Truth]

Rather capricious and petty for the 'God' of the cosmos to claim jealousy ?, no matter how one metaphorically interprets the word, or its context. That 'God' is the source of all love, truth, wisdom, power, beauty, goodness, life...is well enough, without going too far to make that 'God' in the image of man, subject to various whims and jealousies.

You go against the written Word of God.

You don't like the scriptures of the Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible says that God is a jealous God.

That is about Godly jealousy.

You might promote homosexual marriages and claim you are not jealous of your spouse being with another; but how dare you compare your perverted love to God's love.

 

[jaybird]

We don't even know who wrote the book of Enoch.

your not getting the point, Moses was not a contemporary of Adam yet he writes the story.

Did angels build the ark or did Noah as stated in the Holy Bible?

Noah built it. no problems there. i believe angels helped him, that would not change anything, it would not mean Noah did not build the ark.
just because Gen does not mention the angels does not mean it didnt happen, it also answers some questions:
how did a man and three sons accomplish such a building project?
how did they gather all those animals?

 

[God's Truth]

your not getting the point, Moses was not a contemporary of Adam yet he writes the story.

You are the one not getting the point. The point is that we know though that Moses wrote it. We don't know who wrote the book of Enoch.

Noah built it. no problems there. i believe angels helped him, that would not change anything, it would not mean Noah did not build the ark.

Angels helped Noah? If angels helped Noah why did it take so long to build?
Why doesn't the Holy Bible say angels helped? Why does the book of Enoch say the angels built it?

just because Gen does not mention the angels does not mean it didnt happen, it also answers some questions:
how did a man and three sons accomplish such a building project?
how did they gather all those animals?

The Holy Bible tells us, and the book of Enoch says something different.

 

[jaybird]

You are the one not getting the point. The point is that we know though that Moses wrote it. We don't know who wrote the book of Enoch.

nope, its still going over your head. im running out of ways to explain it lol.
it makes little difference who wrote it, who wrote it down has nothing to do with what Enoch taught. neither Jesus nor the 12 wrote most of the NT books, if we went by your philosophy 90% of the NT should not be scripture, its an absurd argument.

Angels helped Noah? If angels helped Noah why did it take so long to build?
Why doesn't the Holy Bible say angels helped? Why does the book of Enoch say the angels built it?


The Holy Bible tells us, and the book of Enoch says something different.

show me in book of Enoch where it says Noah did not build the ark, i will save you the time and tell you it does not say that.

 

[God's Truth]

nope, its still going over your head. im running out of ways to explain it lol.
it makes little difference who wrote it, who wrote it down has nothing to do with what Enoch taught. neither Jesus nor the 12 wrote most of the NT books, if we went by your philosophy 90% of the NT should not be scripture, its an absurd argument.

We know who wrote the scriptures, but we do not know who wrote the book of Enoch.

It has errors anyway.

I don't need to add to the Holy Bible a book that I have to scrutinize and make excuses for.

show me in book of Enoch where it says Noah did not build the ark, i will save you the time and tell you it does not say that.

Does the book of Enoch say anything to you about the ark? Yes or no.

 

[popsthebuilder]

We know who wrote the scriptures, but we do not know who wrote the book of Enoch.

It has errors anyway.

I don't need to add to the Holy Bible a book that I have to scrutinize and make excuses for.




Does the book of Enoch say anything to you about the ark? Yes or no.

Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: 2. '〈Go to Noah〉 and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. 3. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.'

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[jaybird]

We know who wrote the scriptures, but we do not know who wrote the book of Enoch.

what does that mean? does it mean Enoch did not teach anything in the book, if so how did you come up with such a conclusion?

It has errors anyway.

you have yet to show one

I don't need to add to the Holy Bible a book that I have to scrutinize and make excuses for.

scrutinize because it is not roman council approved? and where does Jesus teach all authority has been given to these councils?

Does the book of Enoch say anything to you about the ark? Yes or no.

post 1752

for more than a thousand years corrupt church leaders taught against Enoch, their biggest argument was the book was not written until 800-1200 years after Jesus, then in the 1940s the DSS were found and wow! did those guys look stupid, not only did the Enoch scroll match the so called "false" Enoch book, it also proved Enoch was older than any NT book as well.

 

[God's Truth]

what does that mean? does it mean Enoch did not teach anything in the book, if so how did you come up with such a conclusion?


you have yet to show one


scrutinize because it is not roman council approved? and where does Jesus teach all authority has been given to these councils?



post 1752

for more than a thousand years corrupt church leaders taught against Enoch, their biggest argument was the book was not written until 800-1200 years after Jesus, then in the 1940s the DSS were found and wow! did those guys look stupid, not only did the Enoch scroll match the so called "false" Enoch book, it also proved Enoch was older than any NT book as well.

I think you would accept any writing no matter what.

 

[freelight]

You cant prove Moses wrote anything, or is not partially or wholly fictional....

You cant prove Moses wrote anything, or is not partially or wholly fictional....

We don't even know who wrote the book of Enoch.

Many books in the Bible do not claim any particular authorship or even identify an author by name, some do. Some are merely assumed, assigned or ascribed to a particular person by tradition, OR 'attributed' to a particular notable, when actually written by a disciple or pupil of that 'school' or 'tradition', but in some cases we cannot know with certainty.

The Book of Enoch as an inter-testamental work may mirror back to an earlier Enochian school, as certain groups of Essenes recognized and kept some of the records, which Jude attests to, while also quoting a scene from another apocryphal work concerning Satan and the archangel Michael contending over the body of Moses. You cannot discount or ignore the significant influence and reflection inter-testamental and apocryphal works gives us of the merging theology of the times. It is possible Jesus and his companions may have been acquainted with the Book of Enoch, whose teachings parallel some aspects of his own, from which he also bore allusion to his own prophetic mission as the 'Son of Man'.

We dont know who really wrote many books in the OT, as some are only attributed to various persons by traditional assumption, heresay, legend, etc., and not by any clear identification of a particular scribe. There may be some supporting evidence to assume some authorship and its probability, as well as possibility that some may be pseudographical (forged) more or less.

A writing is as valuable as it presents itself to be in content and context of a given venue, then further subject to the interpretation of its readers.

 

[freelight]

One Fount, many streams..................

One Fount, many streams..................

You are wrong about that.

Luke 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1:21 Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.

Can you show where Luke himself writes as an eyewitness himself to the events written about? Can you show where in the synoptic gospels where the author of the 'narratives' (stories) are identifying themselves as personal eye witnesses of the events? They are second hand reports, heresay, stories, religious narratives, allegorical parables, etc. The gospel of John only alludes to the author being a disciple Jesus loved, ...this could have been a 'John' or Lazarus whom he raised, we DO NOT KNOW for sure who wrote the works, or if multiple scribes had a 'hand' in it, as John has been redacted. On the whole, and individually...we do not know for certain who wrote the gospels, despite names "by tradition" being 'ascribed' to them. - dont forget as well, only 7 letters attributed to Paul are considered 'genuine', the rest are doubted or more clearly pseudographical.

You are speaking untruth about the Holy Bible.

Just facts, and rational observations, unless you can prove them otherwise.

The Holy Bible is God breathed and written according to eye witnesses, and, it is the Old Testament prophecies revealed.

We cannot fully know if many of the books of the Bible were actually written by the 'names' of the persons ascribed to those books, in both OT and the NT. - you can research evidence and probable authorships, but you cant claim a book is written by an 'eyewitness' when the evidence does not support it, or there is no way to know with certainty.

As 2 Peter 1:20-21 says. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 16:25-27 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him–to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture held sacred by 'tradition' and the 'faith' of the believers, of course has its place in the 'belief-system'. (note it only applies as long as someone operates in the 'grid-lock' of the system, plugged into its matrix).

There is nothing false in the Holy Bible. Nothing that contradicts. You are just trying cause doubt and suspicion and promote other books that are not established and protected as God's Word.

Back to square 1 here

I accept truth, wisdom, illumination....wherever it can be found, and its source is ever in the omnipresence of God, both within and without this physical temple, available to this sentient being, a living soul whose very life-source is 'God'. All souls attuned to the Universal One, worship the same Source, drawing from One Well, one Father-Mother-God.