Who Can Explain This Scripture?

[SonOfCaleb]

Your point was initially that it was Gnostic and demonic.
I showed that it was neither.

Im afraid you haven't. Your position is what you want to believe regardless of the facts. The same way Trinitarians believe in a unified God head despite the facts that the Trinity is pagan as an example. It is of course your perogative to believe what you want but your belief that its not gnostic or demonic simply doesnt dispel the facts that it is.

You said it wasn't canon. I showed that it is and was canon for the first Christians.

Id encourage you to do some research on how Bible books are deemed canon. You seem to think that because one denomination accepts it as canon then its canon. That position is entirely untrue and most of all unscriptural.
In regards to the point underlined again thats a complete an utter fallacy. I could write a 100 page thesis dispeling this extremely errant notion but i doubt it would disuade you from your insistence on the validity of the BoE. Even by secular standards there's not a shred of evidence that supports your assertion. Bearing in mind how erroneous your position is on the BoE and its alledged use by the first christians id have to call into question your integrity or highlight your ignorance of First Century Christianity which appears to be quite profound.

I agree about the Gnostic books not belonging in canon, I don't consider the book of Enoch to be of Gnostic origins.

Quite ironic. As the BoE was written when gnosticism first began....

You claim it isn't profitable as the inspired word of GOD because the author can't be verified, I posit that it could have easily been passed down verbally like the rest of the Jewish writings. Also, if your claim is that you don't trust it because you can't verify the author, then why trust any book in the Bible?

If it was passed down then why wasnt it used by the Jews during their religious instruction? In fact it couldnt it be used by them as it didnt exist until at least the 3rd Century BCE! A Book that claims to be older than Genesis, pre flood, and not one writer in the OT even mentions it? Its a known fact that the book is dated to circa 300BCE or later. These are known facts. Its not conjecture or things im making up to lend credence to my position. The reality is the BoE doesnt stand up to the most basic religious or secular scrutiny.
2 Timothy 3:16 says "ALL scripture is inspired of God". I believe absolutely in the veracity of the Bible and all 66 books of the Bible Canon that were established by the Hebrews and Greek scriptures. If the BoE was inspired of God it would have made the 'cut' into the oldest and mostly widely printed and read book known to man. Turns out God didnt care much for it. And neither do i.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Im afraid you haven't. Your position is what you want to believe regardless of the facts. The same way Trinitarians believe in a unified God head despite the facts that the Trinity is pagan as an example. It is of course your perogative to believe what you want but your belief that its not gnostic or demonic simply doesnt dispel the facts that it is.



Id encourage you to do some research on how Bible books are deemed canon. You seem to think that because one denomination accepts it as canon then its canon. That position is entirely untrue and most of all unscriptural.
In regards to the point underlined again thats a complete an utter fallacy. I could write a 100 page thesis dispeling this extremely errant notion but i doubt it would disuade you from your insistence on the validity of the BoE. Even by secular standards there's not a shred of evidence that supports your assertion. Bearing in mind how erroneous your position is on the BoE and its alledged use by the first christians id have to call into question your integrity or highlight your ignorance of First Century Christianity which appears to be quite profound.



Quite ironic. As the BoE was written when gnosticism first began....



If it was passed down then why wasnt it used by the Jews during their religious instruction? In fact it couldnt it be used by them as it didnt exist until at least the 3rd Century BCE! A Book that claims to be older than Genesis, pre flood, and not one writer in the OT even mentions it? Its a known fact that the book is dated to circa 300BCE or later. These are known facts. Its not conjecture or things im making up to lend credence to my position. The reality is the BoE doesnt stand up to the most basic religious or secular scrutiny.
2 Timothy 3:16 says "ALL scripture is inspired of God". I believe absolutely in the veracity of the Bible and all 66 books of the Bible Canon that were established by the Hebrews and Greek scriptures. If the BoE was inspired of God it would have made the 'cut' into the oldest and mostly widely printed and read book known to man. Turns out God didnt care much for it. And neither do i.

So do you consider those 66 books to be the inerrant word of GOD and no other book to be profitable for guidance?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfCaleb]

So do you consider those 66 books to be the inerrant word of GOD and no other book to be profitable for guidance?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

In terms of religious/Christian instruction the Bible is Gods own 'infallible' inspired word. I dont need anything else but those 66 books in matters related to spiritual instruction.
In terms of research or academic studies related to scripture i use many many sources. But for spiritual related matters the Bible is THE source.

 

[ttruscott]

They both brought sacrifices to God. Cain is never presented as an atheist. He is presented as a
religious man. He is actually a worshiper and a worshiper of God, the only God they knew about was the Creator God, and they knew the God who was Creator.

I must disagree with this "sympathy for the devil" attitude. 1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, refers back to Matt 13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. These weeds, the people of the evil one have been separated from the people of the kingdom sown by the Son of Man BEFORE they are sown, not created (the devil sows also) in the world.

By this we know that Cain's sacrifice of first fruits was NOT a worship of YHWH, but of Ba'al, either idolatry of Satan in the name of YHWH, or a total repudiation of YHWH, and that is why he was rejected. The murder was the first religious persecution in the first religious war on earth, not the passions of children. Gen 4:25 tells us that Seth replaced Abel so he was probably born the year after Abel died and Gen 5:3 tells us Adam was 130 years old at Seth's birth so, if Cain and Abel were born soon after their ejection from the garden, they could easily have been 125 or so years old themselves at the time of Abel's murder..

[In 125 years, the exponential increase in population from 2 persons would be huge! 125 years is between 9 and 10 generations, on the order of between 20 billion and 289 billion people, depending on deaths, would be in this model.]

This was the same religious war and degradation of society that Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah, saw in the years prior to the flood, a degradation fulfilled by violence. Actually Gen 5 supports the contention that Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Methuselah,Lamech, and Noah, all lived on the earth at the same time, and that Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, were all acquainted with both Adam and Noah.

 

[ttruscott]

Patrick,
Do you think Jesus was just name calling or was the devil actually the father? Remember, God can not lie!

If I may suggest:
The devil, Satan, is called the father of all demonic reprobate tares / goats because they followed him in his sin of rejecting YHWH's deity as the lies of a false god with no power over heaven or hell and his promises of salvation from sin were mere manipulations to get an unearned worship. They are the non-believers who refused to put their faith in the name of the Son and so are born condemned already. The sinful elect aka the good (elect) but sinful seed on the other hand have put their faith in Him but then later rebelled, probably against the judgement, forcing the postponement of the judgment, until they are reborn and made holy.

 

[ttruscott]

Matthew 22:30 states: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

This does not say that the angels we are said to sometimes entertain unawares do not have genitalia...it speaks to marriage, not sex since all marriage in heaven is with GOD.

 

[Ben Masada]

Not only did Adam's sin bring physical death, but Spiritual death in the sense, that man was separated from God through that deed.

Notice in John 8:44 it states: "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father" It doesn't say:"You are of your father Cain."

Jesus could not have been the one speaking in John 8:44 but the Hellenist who wrote that gospel. Jesus was a Jew and, Jews do not believe in the Devil. Satan or Devil is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. The text here of John 8 is speaking of the Devil as an anthropomorphic being and there is no truth to it.

 

[intojoy]

All who are not saved are of the evil one until salvation. Now, is the tense in this verse showing that Cain was not saved nor ever will be saved? I don't know. But at this point in the narrative Cain is an unsaved individual who is held captive by the devil.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In terms of religious/Christian instruction the Bible is Gods own 'infallible' inspired word. I dont need anything else but those 66 books in matters related to spiritual instruction.
In terms of research or academic studies related to scripture i use many many sources. But for spiritual related matters the Bible is THE source.

You didn't really answer the question completely.

Do you consider all other writings of the faithful except for the ones compiled by man to be part of the bible to be of no use spiritually, or of misdirection of some sort?

And how can you justifiably that if it is the case?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfCaleb]

You didn't really answer the question completely.

Do you consider all other writings of the faithful except for the ones compiled by man to be part of the bible to be of no use spiritually, or of misdirection of some sort?

And how can you justifiably that if it is the case?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I did answer it completely and quite clearly. As i said the Bible is Gods words. For spiritual instruction i only regard Gods words the Bible EG the 66 books to be suitable for spiritual direction. The Bible is THE authority in that regard. Nothing else matters to me.

 

[Ben Masada]

All who are not saved are of the evil one until salvation. Now, is the tense in this verse showing that Cain was not saved nor ever will be saved? I don't know. But at this point in the narrative Cain is an unsaved individual who is held captive by the devil.

One is not lost as long as he or she lives. As long as we breathe the breath of life we always have the chance to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow by repenting, and returning to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)

 

[intojoy]

I disagree Ben

 

[Apple7]

1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Cain is of the wicked one?

Heb 11.4 sheds light on what occurred in Gen 4.

Cain improperly worshiped The Triune God.