Where is the Word "Canon" in the Scriptures?

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : Who says? You? Just because Yehudah quotes a tiny bit of it you then think it means all the writings of Enoch is supposedly to be Scripture??? : : : Oh? So if any New Testament writer quotes "a tiny bit" of an Old Testament book than that isn't another evidence that the book is scripture? : : <font color=purple><b> : : Thing is Clif, the B'rit Chadasha writers quote much more than an tiny bit of the Scriptures from the TaNaKh. : Man, you just LOVE to put words in my mouth. I said "A New Testament writer (singular)" and "'a tiny bit' of AN Old Testament book (singular)". You're trying to make it sound like I am denying that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament liberally. : : My point was that if Enoch was to be in the Bible it would had been there.... : Oh, so 1 John 5:7's inclusion in the KJV was YHWH's plan? : :or do you think HaSatan outsmarted or outwitted YHWH??? : Not YHWH, but many men and women, which is exactly what the scripture and what YOU have acknowledged. : : I am not saying Enoch should not be read and even studied but very carefully and with the ever present reminder it was not evidently a part of what Avinu wanted in our "Bible." : : </font></b> : So then YOU ARE a disciple of Athanasius the Catholic? You really believe that the Torahless, Jew-persecuting Athanasius did YHWH's will in limiting what inspired writings would be read by Catholic believers? : : : : : : Many Yehudim got it from the same place Goyim are getting it...they are being deceived. : : : Be more specific. Many 1st Century Messianic Y[a]HUdim... Art thou more wise than they? : : <font color=purple><b> : : No, I meant today...many Yehudim are being deceived right along with many non-Yehudim believers. : And I meant YESTERDAY? You think yourself so wise that you can reject what the earliest believers received as scripture? : : I have very seldom seen in all our studies of the ancient chachamim of the Demon Seed theories that is around today.... : I'll say it AGAIN! I'm not a Serpent Seeder! 1 Enoch says that the angelic offspring were exterminated in the flood, so I don't know why you keep bringing up this "straw man" called "Demon Seed." : :in fact I barely knew of this until about 5 years ago when a friend brought me a book that was wrote by some congregation in Arkansas called "The Demon Seed".... : Oh, so the fact that I live in Arkansas makes me a Serpent Seeder? : :so if there is so much of this supposed "teaching" within the ancient writings then I would like to know why it is so hard to find! : It isn't hard to find if you would stop saying that scriptures that were rejected by Athanasius are NOT scripture... : Could it be for the same reason that you don't find endless references to the flood in the scriptures? : :That angels had : Had what? C'mon, spit it out. : :Yes it is mentioned in the commentaries sometimes but usually in a negative sense...not as in agreement with. This is just what I have found so far. : : </font></b> : Yes, that is the opinion you have found so far. These commentaries aren't held to be scripture by you, are they? If so, I wonder why you reject what the early believers held as scripture. : : : : When you can show me good hard Scriptual evidence of a spirit being able to produce offspring then I will concede. : : : : </font></b> : : : I've shown you good hard (insert "so-called 'canonical' evidence" here) that they can eat and sleep. We have Y[a]HUdah saying it happened, a Midrash saying it happened, and 1 Enoch (which is scripture that a damned Catholic rejected) saying it happened. (not to mention the book of Jubilees which says that angels are circumcised and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs which says that angels procreated). : : <font color=purple><b> : : I guess our ideas of "good hard evidence" is quiet different. : : </font></b> : Yeah, I agree with the early believers. You agree with commentaries from the Middle Ages... : : : : :Man, it sure is occurring in a lot of different literary places for mere Greek mythology. : : : : Xmas and the pagan festivals are "in a lot of different literary places" too so should I consider it to be Scripture too??? Oy vey... : : : I thought that it was obvious I was referring to scripture as literature, not pagan works, but since it wasn't, I am saying it, now. : : <font color=purple><b> : : The problem is your idea of Scripture is not my idea of Scripture...I don't consider Enoch, Jubilees and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs as Scripture.. : Right, simply because Athanasius decided it wasn't and millions have been forced to gulp down his camel for almost 2,000 years. : :I guess your coming from a Morman background explains your willingness to accept "other" writtings as Scripture. : : </font></b> : You have to be able to spell "mormon" before you can use my mormon background against me. Fact is, Mormons don't accept 1 Enoch as scripture. They have their OWN book of enoch in the so-called Pearl of Great Price. Nice try. Attack my evidence by attacking my background. : : : : If Sha'ul's writings cannot be backed up with the Scriptures then out they should go...you can hold me to that. : : : Then you reject Paul's Midrash that Sarah represents those who are free from the Torah and that Hagar represents those who are in bondage to the Torah? : : <font color=purple><b> : : Quote literal Scripture and then I will comment.....Sha'ul is often taken out of context or misquoted. : : </font></b> : It reads just as I paraphrased it. He makes a Midrash calling Sarah a free woman free from the bondage of the Torah and Hagar a slave in bondage to the Torah. Hagar wasn't in bondage to Torah in the literal sense, so "Paul" made a Midrash that didn't stick to scripture. Therefore, you must reject it. : : : : : :Midrash is the discovery of meanings in the Scriptures other than literal... : : : That's most of "Paul's" method of interpreting scripture. Do you call "Paul's" writings Midrash? : : <font color=purple><b> : : Anyone's writings that expounds to extract the fullest meaning of... is Midrash.... : Even if I get an email from a lady who is spiritualizing Paul's writings which ALREADY spiritualize the Torah? That's spiritualization upon spiritualization, metaphor upon metaphor (line upon line?). The "fullest meaning" to be had is the meaning that the writer intended. That meaning is inspired enough that we don't need to go looking for another. : :but we are warned to test all with the Dvar...the difference with the Sh'liachim's writings [Midrashim] they are clearly inspired and led of the Ruach HaKodesh of YHWH. : : </font></b> : Even if they contradict the Torah? : : : : Midrash is one's interpretation of the Scriptures...some are right and some are wrong. : : : As determined by yourself, eh? : : <font color=purple><b> : : Yes, I have the Ruach HaKodesh to guide me.... : Oh, so when you decide that the Bible is good enough just as it is, you are going by the Ruach, NOT by the fact that the Bible has been in its present form for so long? (Even though you've admitted above that this latter observation is exactly what you base your conclusion on--thus kow-towing to Athanasius) : :isn't this what we as believers were promised?.... : Yes, which is EXACTLY why the bible can NEVER be complete... Whenever someone is truly inspired and gives a revelation or a prophecy, and that utterance is written down, THAT becomes scripture! : :to rely upon Avi's Ruach to guide us to His truth? : Sure... Why don't you dump your thousand year old Bible and ask YHWH to show you which books are inspired INDIVIDUALLY? : : Or would you rather I turn to you for the answers Clif? : I only advocate what you just promoted... going by the Spirit, not the council of so many apostates. : : I may and will ask for your opinion and help in understanding when needed but ultimately I will hear only my Shepherd Yahushua's voice. : : </font></b> : ' : I'm just trying to liberate a captive. I'm not trying to captivate you into accepting MY "canon." I say find out for yourself what YHWH wants you to receive... : : : : Sha'ul's writings are in the Bible... : : : WHOSE Bible? Athanasius the Catholic's! : : <font color=purple><b> : : Something just don't quiet sound right about this....you are so intense on wanting others to see that Enoch and many of the non-Scriptural writings are "Scripture" and yet you don't recognize the true Scriptures that are right there in front of you???? : : </font></b> : I'm talking about the Bible is in its present form. It was designed by Athanasius' conclusion... I don't reject ANY true scripture, but I don't accept ANY false scripture, either. : : : :Enoch's is not..enough said... : : : Not quite. Who would YOU be more ready to run to for true religion? The Essenes or the Catholics? The Essenes apparently held 1 Enoch as authoritative. : : <font color=purple><b> : : Tell me why...why do you think the Essenes held 1 Enoch as authoritive? : : </font></b> : Because they were zealous, Torah-keeping YaHUdim who weren't affected by Athanasius the Catholic or any Catholic council and because the Scroll of Chanoch was held as authoritative and inspired by the people at that time (either just prior to or during YaHUshua's ministry). : : : :nothing happens that is not in the plan of Avi..simple fact. : : : Right! So when the Name was stricken from the records of the scriptures, it was YHWH's plan? :What about when it was restored? Was that his plan? Then could it be that Athanasius' canon was His plan, but NOW it is His plan that ALL scripture be received, regardless of what Athanasius' decided THEN? : : : : <font color=purple><b> : : His Name was not stricten from the Scriptures. : I was trying to refer to the translations we've had with "records of the scriptures". I'll try to be more articulate next time. My fault. : : Appearances can be deceiving.....I truly believe we have the Dvar Elohim [TaNaKh & B'rit Chadashah] in it's purest form...right in front of our eyes...there has just been a Hellenistic covering for so long..but it is slowly being removed for those that are looking. : : </font></b> : Mere credulity. You have to be able to back up what you believe when dealing with what you think a text is or says. : : : : No, you need to "read my type" =) ...it is clear I am saying that opinions are opinions and interpretations are interpretations... : : : And YOU determine which is which, right? : : <font color=purple><b> : : Yes, with the leading of the Ruach...you saying you don't? : : </font></b> : We are still talking about Midrash, right? I usually let the writer tell me which is which. : : : : ~ 5 <i>But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that YHWH, having saved the people out of the land of Mitzrayim, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. : : : : 6 And the malakhim who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; : : : : 7 AS S'dom and Amorah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. : : : : </font></i> : : : Yes, notice he says "IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THESE" and "having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE FLESH"... : : <font color=purple><b> : : If the context of the paragraph is followed the "these" are referring to "S'dom and Amorah"...meaning the cities surrounding them were simuliar in that they also given to the same immoralities. The natural flow of the verses doesn't give reason to believe Yehudah is talking about the malakhim in verse 7....he referred to them when he was saying they fell [left their proper domain] by following after HaSatan and turning against Avi. : : </font></b> : : : : Now tell me Clif..why do you think verse 7 is speaking of vs 6? I think it is pretty clear that Yehudah speaks of the malakhim that fell.. : : : And WHY did they FALL? : : <font color=purple><b> : : When man leaves worship of the True Elohim are they not then considered "fallen"...fallen from the grace, left their "place" in Him....as the malakhim that turned to worship of HaSatan instead..they fell from YHWH's Grace. : : </font><b> : How do you leave true worship/service of Elohim without sinning somehow? : : : :then he goes on and tells of the sins of S'dom and Amorah and the CITIES around them that ones that are "similar" in that they gave themselves over to sexual immorality...not talking about the malakhim. : : : It IS including the Malahkim. : : <font color=purple><b> : : Disagree. : : </font><b> : : : : Is it because you are so engrossed with the Demon Seed theory : : : Yeah, right! I'm not a serpent seeder, so don't try to ruin my reputation by calling me one... Do you not recall that the Demon Seed theory debate YOU have been conducting with someone else? : : <font color=purple><b> : : To say malakhim can produce offspring is the same thing as "Demon Seed" because if they could then it would only stand to reason HaSatan could..no? Sorry if I mistook what you believe but I thought it was obvious. : : </font><b> : Demon Seeders say that the offspring of Satan is still living. I don't assert that because no scripture I've read says it. : : : : : Oh, I see. So if you happen to "like" the 15 steps of the Passover Seder (all mere Jewish tradition, taught by yourself), which are not given in Athanasius' canon, then it's ok, but if you happen to <b>dislike</b> what other traditional Jewish writings have to say, then YOU have the authority to reject them. : : <font color=purple><b> : : False accusation. Malakhim having sex with women and reproducing is not a traditional Jewish teaching.... : I just posted the Midrash saying it! And "Wrong! The Essenes had 1 Enoch!" : :sorry your wrong brother...just because you said it does not make is so...I can read and have and know you are wrong. : : </font></b> : : : : As for the Pesach Seder..it is Scripture and if you think it is not and think it is against Scripture then explain how the steps of the Seder teach against Scripture or Avi's ways? : : : WHERE do you find these 15 steps of in the scriptures? Anybody here remember the 15 steps anywhere in the scriptures? : : <font color=purple><b> : : I asked you to show how these steps are "against" the teachings of YHWH's Dvar...I'm still waiting... : : </font></b> : The Torah says not to add commandments to the Torah. That's ALL I need, Sister! : : : : This would be interesting....that's a put up or shut up Broooother. =) : : : : </font></b> : : : It's been up. http://qumran.com/ebionites/ : : <font color=purple><b> : : My comments about Pesach I had posted on Juanitas forum is what I found at your url [with some editing] : With QUITE A BIT of editing, because of all the non-scriptural tradition. : : and this is to disprove the steps of the Seder???? I don't get your drift...you said you liked these comments I made and asked my permission to use it in your Shabbat meeting... : Yes, and I did, with many corrections. : :I apologize and ask for Avi's forgiveness if I caused a misunderstanding of His Dvar with my commments.....and ask you why don't you remove them if you are so against the steps of the seder as being tradition... : Because in the page I expose them as mere tradition and not Torah. : Everlasting Love in YaHUshua... : Br. Clif

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: