Did They Need It?

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 9th, 2013, 1:31 am #51

Once again, MEN decided that Enoch and other books were not Scripture.
Old Rocky and most "elders" make CERTAIN that they fleece the widows and honest wage earners to PROCURE them a preacher who will NOT teach that which has been taught. And musicians who make certain that NO TEXT is sung as commanded and exampled until the Reformation.

So, how many of the 66 books -- especially the prophets and apostles does Rocky make certain are presented AS COMMANDED.

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
1Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.


Now, it takes LOTS of P.hds to whine THERE AIN'T NO CENI so I gonna SELL you that which is NOT COMMANDED.

If you had nothing but the book of Enoch you would understand that musical performance is said to be SATANIC. How many sermons would you need to say, NO, God commanded instrumental worship.

In the words of Paul, the MANY fleeced Corinth because "fools love to be fooled." ain't it the trut?

Oh! holy Rocky Top: it DON'T say "thou shalt not SANG the letters after you rewrite them." Guess I will never learn.

Quote
Like
Share

B
B

January 9th, 2013, 1:49 am #52

Yes, maybe they will be found on "Gold Plates" and "B" can move to Salt Lake City?
Well, since Dave obviously can't do it, maybe Rocky could use some of his zip-bang "wit" and show us where the Scriptures explicitly state that the "complete" canon consists of 66 books.

Or, maybe Rocky would find it much easier just to "ease on down the road" to Salt Lake City and commune with the LDS crowd for a few years.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

January 9th, 2013, 2:16 am #53

Dave says that 66 books comprise the "complete" canon, but only because mortal men SAID those were the books of the canon. Dave, who believes the decision of fallible men long ago, STILL cannot (and never ever will) show us where the Scriptures state that the canon is absolutely complete with 66 books. For all we know, God, in His own good time, intended for man to discover other inspired books. Since the books in what we now call the "canon" were not all written at the same time, then it's possible that other books await man to come to his senses and recognize that they were also inspired and, hence, belong in the canon.

But Dave will continue to think, "Nope, nope, the canon is ONLY 66 books. That be IT, no more! All them other books be of the devil, especially Enoch!"
In a minor kind of way, as we dig up more manuscripts, the later revisions of the Bible include much more (and as well less) scriptures with more evidence that comes to out knowledge. That is, Mark 16, and John 8, are not in all the early manuscripts.

Enoch is different from new evidence, in that the book has been around for some time now.

The councils in the fourth century did have their agendas, and what is worrisome is that they may have excluded some books just because they did fit into the church hierarchical structuring. But I personally don't know any books that fit into this category--because those that did not fit into the hierarchical structuring are also the same books that appear to be inauthentic--that is not early enough, or not directly or indirectly connected to some great figure, such as Paul or Peter.

The Nag Hammadi texts were uncovered in the 1900s, but the pre-Nicene "church fathers" had long ago decided that these texts were contrary to the earliest writings.

One test was always used [at least we hope]--that the book had to be in doctrinal agreement with books that we have in our present New Testament. Then there is also the problem, that all are aware of--do our current 26 books agree with one another. We always agree that one rule of understanding them is this--take the explanation where they all agree with one another.

The books also had to be "authentic"--that is endorsed by time [that is they had to be early books]--and at least indirectly connected to some early leader, such as Paul or Peter. And books are still being debated as to whether they are adequately connected to early dates and early leaders.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

January 9th, 2013, 3:28 am #54

Did Jesus have to supply wine for the wedding for the wedding to be a success? Was He fulfilling the desire to continue a tradition of having wine at the marriage celebration?
Which leads one to another thought.....considering the above dilemma and thought....would Jesus object to the tradition of instrumental music (compared to the tradition of voice only)? We don't need instruments to worship God (no more than they needed wine for a Marriage celebration), but the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship to God (no more than wine would hinder a meainingful marriage celebration)......now would they???





HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

=========================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]David Fields, let's be honest and unashamed: claim [ ]the message you authored.[/color]
B, oh B....how many times, when explaining your position of a capella ONLY vocal singing, have you used the following Scripture

Revelation 22
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Tis what happens, B, when you abuse Scripture....it comes back to bite you.
This same Scripture would/will be used to prove the final and COMPLETE Word of God.

As far as you wanting to add more.....no one will stop you.

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]_____Dave Fields________
[Poster]
[/color]
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on January 9th, 2013, 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Rocky
Rocky

January 9th, 2013, 4:36 am #55

Well, since Dave obviously can't do it, maybe Rocky could use some of his zip-bang "wit" and show us where the Scriptures explicitly state that the "complete" canon consists of 66 books.

Or, maybe Rocky would find it much easier just to "ease on down the road" to Salt Lake City and commune with the LDS crowd for a few years.
"B" I will stick with the 66 books of the Bible. I have faith in God and the Church fathers. This is my last post on this subject.

ps: No one is looking, you can come off that limb if you want to!
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 9th, 2013, 4:37 am #56

B, oh B....how many times, when explaining your position of a capella ONLY vocal singing, have you used the following Scripture

Revelation 22
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Tis what happens, B, when you abuse Scripture....it comes back to bite you.
This same Scripture would/will be used to prove the final and COMPLETE Word of God.

As far as you wanting to add more.....no one will stop you.

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]_____Dave Fields________
[Poster]
[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

The Bible mentions several names of books, some of which are in the Bible and some of which are not in the Bible. What are the chances that the biblical canonizers will include the following books once or if ever they're found?[/color]

<ol>[*]the book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13)
</li>[*]the book of the acts of Solomon (I Kings 11:41)
</li>[*]the book of Nathan the prophet (I Chron. 29:29)
</li>[*]the book of Gad the seer (I Chron. 29:29)
</li>[*]the book of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (II Chron. 12:15)
</li>[*]the book of Jehu the son of Hanani (II Chron. 20:34)
</li>[*]the book of the records of thy fathers (Ezra 4:15)</li>[/list]
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

January 9th, 2013, 5:00 am #57

B, oh B....how many times, when explaining your position of a capella ONLY vocal singing, have you used the following Scripture

Revelation 22
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Tis what happens, B, when you abuse Scripture....it comes back to bite you.
This same Scripture would/will be used to prove the final and COMPLETE Word of God.

As far as you wanting to add more.....no one will stop you.

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]_____Dave Fields________
[Poster]
[/color]
Dave, oh Dave, you keep ASSUMING that Genesis through Revelation is the "complete" canon, as mortal men have decided. Don't you know that Revelation does NOT state that there are only 66 books in the biblical canon? Don't you know that Revelation does NOT state that it is the last and final book of God's Word? Revelation simply warns not to add to or take from what is written in the Word of God. So, Dave, how do you know for sure that what we have is THE COMPLETE canon, THE COMPLETE Word of God? Can you not prove somewhere in the Scriptures that the "complete" Word of God is limited to only 66 books?
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

January 9th, 2013, 5:09 am #58

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

The Bible mentions several names of books, some of which are in the Bible and some of which are not in the Bible. What are the chances that the biblical canonizers will include the following books once or if ever they're found?[/color]

<ol>[*]the book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13)
</li>[*]the book of the acts of Solomon (I Kings 11:41)
</li>[*]the book of Nathan the prophet (I Chron. 29:29)
</li>[*]the book of Gad the seer (I Chron. 29:29)
</li>[*]the book of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (II Chron. 12:15)
</li>[*]the book of Jehu the son of Hanani (II Chron. 20:34)
</li>[*]the book of the records of thy fathers (Ezra 4:15)</li>[/list]
I understand that Luther did not like James and Revelation.

He did not like James because it did not support his "faith" idea of salvation, and placed works in a good light--or at least, so he thought.

Revelation was also not a good book to him, because it contained vengeance. Grace only people might have some trouble with it, since God does not to tolerate evil, and punishes evil people.

Some don't like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts 1, because they were written before Pentecost. A signficant number of our persuasion don't like the Hebrew scriptures, for the same reasons that others don't like the Gospels and Acts 1. The books of Timothy warn us that we should "rightly divide" or "handle aright" the Word of God.

Many times we use our beliefs to control what we want the books to say, rather than use the books to control what we believe.

It would be wonderful to be able to obtain some of those lost books mentioned in the Old Testament.
Quote
Share

B
B

January 9th, 2013, 5:10 am #59

"B" I will stick with the 66 books of the Bible. I have faith in God and the Church fathers. This is my last post on this subject.

ps: No one is looking, you can come off that limb if you want to!
Those "church fathers" were mortal men, fallible, and subject to bias.

BTW, I gather that neither you nor Dave ever found any place where the Scriptures state that the "complete" biblical canon, the "complete" Word of God, is limited to only 66 books. No one has, and no one ever will, so don't beat yourself up over it too badly.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

January 9th, 2013, 5:13 am #60

"B" I will stick with the 66 books of the Bible. I have faith in God and the Church fathers. This is my last post on this subject.

ps: No one is looking, you can come off that limb if you want to!
I believe that both "B" and "Rocky" would hide the 66 books in a jar under a rock, like the Nag Hammadi texts were hidden, should some earthly power seek to destroy or eradicate them.

They would both do that. They would save the books for posterity.
Quote
Share