Does anyone here supplement thier studies with books from any of the Apocraphy Texts? (paradise, punishment)

[Aschultz73]

I have viewed some of them, but not all. From those I have seen they are not worthy of being an authority on any subject. In fact most I have seen read more like the Koran than the Bible. An interesting point those who have not viewed the Koran miss.

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by ChristyGrl

I've read all kinds of scripture:

Apochrayphal texts
Nag Hammadi scripture
Dead Sea scrolls
Gopel of the Nazarenes
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
Etc....

You can't learn the truth if you only read what Rome wanted you to read (i.e. the bilble)....that is why we have the Spirit to guide us into ALL TRUTH!

There are many inferences in the New testament that proves the apostles read inter-testament scriptures.

[FreeThinkerInTex]

Originally Posted by Fundamentalist

Do you mean the apocryphal books? if so then the one argument is the Holy Spirit

yes sorry for the mispellings

[yeshuasavedme]

Originally Posted by Fundamentalist

Actually it wasn't just Rome, it also made it through the reformations so if it is the Holy Spirit that guides us to the truth why isn't it in the bible?

Because the Archbishop of Canterbury of 1885 cursed anyone who included it in the Church readings. It's all been political in the western world.
what "who" calls "canon"
Bible Study: Which Bible? Whose Canon?

[BudinAk]

Originally Posted by Fundamentalist

Actually it wasn't just Rome, it also made it through the reformations so if it is the Holy Spirit that guides us to the truth why isn't it in the bible?

Question (for everyone): Whose Bible?
The Catholics? The Protestants? The Jewish? The Ethiopian Orthodox? (The latter has the largest canon). They are all different...different number of books. (I could also mention others, such as those printed by the sects, cults, etc...) Likely all of these churches would tell you their particular Bible version is the "correct version". So...who would like to tell us which version is the "real" one, and why do you think so? Why shouldn't we go ahead and see what the "other" versions say? Who determines what is "inspired" scripture, from that which is not?



Bud

[FreeThinkerInTex]

Originally Posted by BudinAk

Question (for everyone): Whose Bible?
The Catholics? The Protestants? The Jewish? The Ethiopian Orthodox? (The latter has the largest canon). They are all different...different number of books. (I could also mention others, such as those printed by the sects, cults, etc...) Likely all of these churches would tell you their particular Bible version is the "correct version". So...who would like to tell us which version is the "real" one, and why do you think so? Why shouldn't we go ahead and see what the "other" versions say? Who determines what is "inspired" scripture, from that which is not?



Bud

Really, it would be nice to be on one accord.
Perhaps this is why Christianity (as other religions) has so many splinters.

[stanman13]

I have, and will continue to consider apocryphal books in my studies. When I seek knowledge on a subject, I will seek out as many sources as possible. There were too many political agendas at work during the selection of "inspired" texts for me to believe without doubt that these books were eliminated for any other reason. Some, upon closer study, I have determined to be not helpful. Others have been very helpful. I have read nothing in any book that convincingly suggests that any priest has a closer relationship with God than I can have myself, if I only seek it.

[yeshuasavedme]

Originally Posted by FreeThinkerInTex

Really, it would be nice to be on one accord.
Perhaps this is why Christianity (as other religions) has so many splinters.

Well, there is only one Church of Christ, really, and that is headquartered in heaven
[and is Zion above Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all], not headquartered on earth; and as we see in the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation, there were lots of backslidden "Churches" which still had some in them who were worthy to be "raptured" -and so it is today.
Paul warned The Corinthians about claiming to be "of men" by calling themselves after men's names; and all who call on the name of the LORD for salvation should take heed, but men insist on naming their groups after men.
Anyway, there won't be denominations in heaven.

[caucazhin]

WOW...sciotamicks I actually agree with you on something after us firing missles at each other over universalism...
One honestly sincere question though not to start another war with you...

I have read...
Both Books of Enoch
The Testament of the 12 patriarchs
The Apocalypse of Baruch
The Apocalypse of Abraham
The Apocalypse of Moses
The 1st & 2nd Book of Esdras

And not one of them remotely supports universalism...
Infact they do quite the opposite..........PEACE

[svenM]

among the apocryphal, or better to say apocalyptic writings, the book of Enoch seems the only one of significant relevance, some seem to consider it as holy scripture, so I have a question:

if the Book of Enoch were genuine, then it must have been written by Enoch himself, then it were one of the most ancient books of the bible, older then the book Exodus e.g. . Enoch were then the most emminent prophet that ever lived prior to Christ. We find however nowhere such testimony in the bible.

The book of Job is considered one of the oldest books of the bible by Jewish scholars as far as I can remember, Job might have lived three generations after Abraham, I may have to check this. Yet in the book of Job we find the ancient Jewish believe in a netherworld where the dead go without destinction made between the righteous or wicked (unlike the book of Enoch), similar as in the Psalms and the Torah, none of the (early) biblical writers seem to have been familiar with the prophecies of Enoch (Jacob, Moses, Job, David etc.)

Why this silence about Enoch if he were responsible for the book called after his name, Jesus never refered to this book, Jesus mentioned Daniel's prophecy (Mt. 24:15) but never the book of Enoch, for I think He had done as Enoch prophesied the end of the world and the great judgment.

In the apocryphal book of Sirach there is little mention made of Enoch:

Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations. (Sirach 44:16)

possibly the Book of Enoch did not even exist yet in Sirach's days and if, he obviously deemed it not inspired (he praises the famous men of faith from Chapter 44 onward), also the apostle Paul does mention Enoch similar slightly which he had propaply not done, if Enoch had all these visions described in the book ascribed to him (Hebrews 11:5).

As for Jude's quote:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14.15)

Jude's quote differs from the apocryphal book of Enoch

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones
To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him. (Enoch 1:9)

the apostle Jude omitted that the ungodly shall be destroyed, Paul also quoted some heathen philosophers as far as I know, that needn't mean anything.

For the subject of universalism, as far as I know, Origen considered the book of Enoch maybe inspired - though he is the most famous teacher of universalism in the ancient church, he is accused of having taught that the stars are living celestial beings, he might got such an idea also by the book of Enoch (Enoch 21:6).