/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>648553

I haven't read the apocrypha yet so I can't tell you, but bumping for interest.

The Book of Jude makes references to the Book of Enoch and some other apocryphal book about Moses.

>>648559

The book of enoch isn't in the apocrypha.

>>648555

Literally every single book in the apocrypha except bel and the dragon in it would make God a liar if they were true, which they aren't true. Hence why they are counted as seperate from the Bible, even if included with Bibles on occasion like with the original printing of the 1611 KJV.

>>648553

All the books of the apocrypha, save bel and the dragon, would make God a liar if they were true, which they are not true and thus not the word of God. That's why it is called the apocrypha, literally : of doubtful authenticity https://archive.fo/LQ62S https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal https://archive.fo/KOr2b

>>648559

No, it says what Enoch preached. It doesn't say "as it is written in the book if Enoch".

>>648553

>Official position of protestantism is that the extra books aren't quoted by apostles

Incorrect.

>>648608

Okay, what?

Then what are they? "Quoted but that doesn't mean anything and Catholics still stuck them on for no reason?"

>>648629

Maybe you should spend anytime at all researching what you're arguing against instead of just coming up with some strawmen you can easily knock down?

>>648633

Eh, age.

>>648553

Thats a post-facto justification

the original justification was that because the Jews didn't use the Deuterocanon therefore the Christians shouldn't,because surely the Jews have older manuscripts? And if those lack the Deuterocanon why should we use as canon what the Apostles didn't?

But as time went on it was found out that the Church did in fact have it correct in terms of canon, because the Septuagint was in fact earlier than any Hebrew manuscript and we also found much of the Deuterocanon alongside other canonical books as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls

which indicated that the Church was correct in asserting that the Israelites had also used the books as canon.

But in reference to your question, I'm unsure about them directly quoting from the Deuterocanon however the wording on most OT quotes in the Gospels and such indicate that the Apostles generally quote the Septuagint, not the Masoretic or proto-Masoretic. This indicates that the Apostles probably accepted the Deuterocanon as canon, considering that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanon.

Furthermore we know that they were only really removed from Jewish canon *after* Christ's resurrection and such.

>>648553

>Official position of protestantism is that the extra books aren't quoted by apostles.

lolwut? The apostles could have quoted it as literature/history with some truth in it. Paul quoted pagan philosophers like Epimenides. Doesn't make their works canon.

>Mat. 11:13 - For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

APOCRYPHA TIGGERS BTFO

>>648708

Can you please calm down and explain the significance of this?

I would come in with a argument since I already know how this is going to go down, but since I know nothing, I'll listen to the argument again.

>>648708

>>648713

>>648714

You know the law and the prophets are the Old Testament right? The apocrypha itself denies its own inspiration by denying the existence of prophets at that time.

>>648717

Deuterocanon is seven books and two version of protocanon books. Deuterocanon Esther speaks nothing about it's inspiration (protocanon nethier). Deuterocanon Daniel just as protocanon Daniel do the same. Likwiese for Judith. Baruch (and Letter of Jermiah), Sirach Wisdom and Tobit all claims thier inspiration.

Closest thing is two passages in both Maccabees. First one goes like this “there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”

The author is reporting a past event that began when prophetic activity ceased for a while. Such time periods are not unusual. Even in the Bible inspired prophecy / prophetic writings are not continuous states – rather they stand out precisely because they are unusual (e.g., Moses, Elijah, Jesus, the Apostles). That the author of 1 Maccabees is reporting on one such time period is no is no indication that prophets would never come on the scene again (cf. 1 Maccabees 14:41). Also notice that those are all in past tense.

And of course Psalm 74:9. Self Explanatory.

Second is " Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me" from 2 Mac. But it's just common humbling style like one in 2 Corinthians xi. 6. Not every Holy authory have to be 100% certian. See 1 Cor. 7:40.

>>648713

>Whoever has not read or hear Wisdom and Sirach at least once in their life is absolutely blind

yeah, Church Fathers/any theologian before the Reformation always quote Sirach/Wisdom

>>648751

the 1st issue is that Protestants mess up the biblical separation of Mind/Body/Will, confusing the Mind of the writer with the Holy Spirit influencing (or becoming one) with their will, which is why you see them take issue with 2 Mac.

The 2nd issue with Protestant interpretation, is that they take everything literally, even when Hosiah literally tells us the Holy Spirit will speak through the prophets using similitude (metaphors).

so in disregarding "Apocrypha" they end up taking weirdo stances on theology that ends up messing other things in their understanding

>>648572

>literally : of doubtful authenticity

It's literally an anglicization of the Greek word for "hidden." That the term has become infused with Protestant polemics should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of that contrived definition.

>>648759

What bothers me most about their exegesis is that they're lead by the nose by the modern numbering conventions found within contemporary translations of the Bible. So they end up hurling little nuggets of scripture at people to support whatever argument they're trying to make while ignoring the larger context of the passage they're quoting from.

>>648774

>So they end up hurling little nuggets of scripture at people to support whatever argument they're trying to make while ignoring the larger context of the passage they're quoting from.

Kind of like how Caths always quote 2 Timothy 3:16 by itself and leave out verse 17?

Face it, we all can quote as many or as few verses or fragments of verses that we want. Please find a better objection.

>>648717

This guy has it right. They admit to not being prophets there. So nothing is taken to be the word of God.

>>648553

>>648713

Not seeing the direct quoting that's easily found in NT.

>>648851

>Kind of like how Caths always quote 2 Timothy 3:16 by itself and leave out verse 17?

>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

>That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

…where do we always quote 3:16 and leave out 3:17? In what argument?

>>648851

>Face it, we all can quote as many or as few verses or fragments of verses that we want. Please find a better objection.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>>648932

Amen.

>>648930

Two or three days ago, this very thing happened. In post 647282. That's why it was on my mind. Below is the text in question copied from that post:

>The Bible gives us everything we need for our theology.

This is unbiblical in itself.

I never understood where this doublethink came from when even in English II Timothy 3:16 clearly says 'profitable' and not 'sufficient'.

>>648945

>In post 647282

Rule 33.

>>648751

>protocanon

This sounds like some anti-Christian (((liberal))) category like "proto-orthodox"

>Baruch (and Letter of Jermiah), Sirach Wisdom and Tobit all claims thier inspiration

They don't but it wouldn't matter if they did. The quran claims its own inspiration.

>The author is reporting a past event that began when prophetic activity ceased for a while. Such time periods are not unusual

So why does the author find it so unique as to record it?

>That the author of 1 Maccabees is reporting on one such time period is no is no indication that prophets would never come on the scene again

Of course, a prophet did come, Jesus Christ.

>Also notice that those are all in past tense.

It never says anything about a prophet coming after that time so this is moot

>But it's just common humbling style like one in 2 Corinthians xi. 6

You're gonna have to point out where in 2 Corinthians 11:6 Paul acknowledges the possibility of error in the epistle

>Not every Holy authory have to be 100% certian

Absolutely they do, if it is from God it is sure and it is nothing but blasphemy to say otherwise

>See 1 Cor. 7:40.

The only thing you could be referring to is "I think that I too have the Spirit of God", which, very consistent with Roman interpretation elsewhere, fixes solely on the specific words used with nothing but contempt for the question of authorial intent. If we stop trying to make the bible say what we want it to and instead ask ourselves what he is saying, it's obvious that it's sarcasm. One would never come to a literal interpretation of words like this if it were just someone speaking to them instead of a bible verse they can twist to their own purposes.

>>648932

>he said, privately interpreting the verse

>>648908

This is stupid argument. Judges, Ruth, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon is not quoted ethier.

>>648954

>This sounds like some anti-Christian (((liberal))) category like "proto-orthodox"

Protocanon and deuterocanon are both catholic terms from middle ages. Before that we just called all 73 books "canon".

>They don't but it wouldn't matter if they did. The quran claims its own inspiration.

It is you who says "apocrypha itself denies its own inspiration". I corrected you.

>So why does the author find it so unique as to record it?

Ask Psalmist he did the same Psalm 74:9

>Of course, a prophet did come, Jesus Christ.

And John Baptist before him, and Simeon before him, and Anna before him, and whoever wrote Wisdom before him and Sirach before him etc. Judith, Esther, Tobit Daniel, Baruch with Letter and were all wirtten even before that.

>It never says anything about a prophet coming after that time so this is moot

It never says anything about a prophet not coming after that time so this is moot

.You're gonna have to point out where in 2 Corinthians 11:6 Paul acknowledges the possibility of error in the epistle

First you have to point out where author of Maccabees says that he might made error. All he does is to say that maybe his style was not as good as it could have been. Just like Paul who says that he is indeed "rude (untrained, idiótés) in speech". Not to mention letters of other apostles whose literary style is not so perfect to say the least.

>Absolutely they do, if it is from God it is sure and it is nothing but blasphemy to say otherwise

Good thing that you are not the one who says what is blasphemy and what's not.

>The only thing you could be referring to is "I think that I too have the Spirit of God", which, very consistent with Roman interpretation elsewhere, fixes solely on the specific words used with nothing but contempt for the question of authorial intent.

Paul "thinks" that he have spirit of God. Or rather he is humble enough to say it that way. To condemn Maccabees and prise Paul is hypocrisy.

>If we stop trying to make the bible say what we want it to and instead ask ourselves what he is saying, it's obvious that it's sarcasm.

When read in context (vv 25.-40.) possibility that Paul uses sarcasm here is absolutely zero. He is serious in his advice. It's very serious matter mariage and even more serious virginity.

>One would never come to a literal interpretation of words like this if it were just someone speaking to them instead of a bible verse they can twist to their own purposes.

If someone whom I know is wise man and man with Spirit of God during conversion would start by saying "No one told me this but hear my advice - you know that I am wise thanks to God" then proceed with advice and end by saying "I think that I siad it in accordance to God's will" then it's natural conclusion that he dounts a little his inspirtation.

>>649106

>It is you who says "apocrypha itself denies its own inspiration"

It does

>Ask Psalmist he did the same Psalm 74:9

Missing the necessary recognition that a psalm is poetry but that 1 Maccabees is intended to be a literal history. The psalmist isn't saying there are literally no prophets, he's using poetic hyperbole to express the hopelessness of Israel at that time.

>It never says anything about a prophet not coming after that time so this is moot

Not an argument

>All he does is to say that maybe his style was not as good as it could have been

He's saying that he might have failed to communicate his intended, which is error

>Paul "thinks" that he have spirit of God. Or rather he is humble enough to say it that way.

And it's sarcasm. What you're trying to twist him to say is the opposite of his intent, he's expressing the certainty of it not the doubt. Like if I were to say "I'm pretty sure I'm correct", this would be sarcasm to express my certainty of being right

>He is serious in his advic

Not an argument.

>>649106

>Protocanon and deuterocanon are both catholic terms from middle ages. Before that we just called all 73 books "canon".

Really? And is this change due to the mythical Luther who we are told, made Catholics to call start calling it deuterocanon? I'm impressed how much influence he had there.

>It is you who says "apocrypha itself denies its own inspiration". I corrected you.

Doesn't the deuterocanon include itself with the New Testament? So if we all agree that Matthew 11:13 is scripture, that settles it.

>Ask Psalmist he did the same Psalm 74:9

>Not every Holy authory have to be 100% certian. See 1 Cor. 7:40.

You're proposing that these two passages are not certainly the inspired words of God?

>and Simeon before him, and Anna before him, and whoever wrote Wisdom before him and Sirach before him etc. Judith,

Where are they in scripture?

>>649113

>It does

As proven above that's false >>648751

>Missing the necessary recognition that a psalm is poetry but that 1 Maccabees is intended to be a literal history. The psalmist isn't saying there are literally no prophets, he's using poetic hyperbole to express the hopelessness of Israel at that time.

I could say that same about author of 1 Maccabees, that he is using hyperbole. Or I could go with literal meaning of the text and say that both authors express similar peroid in time, when there was no prophet among them which would of course not mean that they themselves are not under inspriration.

>Not an argument

You were the first who made this laughable jump in logic:

<Author says that there was no prophet in that time

<That means that he says that prophet will not come

>He's saying that he might have failed to communicate his intended, which is error

He says "Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me".Or to use different translation that's may be easier to understand for you: "

All that author says is that he might have not written this book well or as Paul speaks about his letter he might be "rude in speech".

>And it's sarcasm. What you're trying to twist him to say is the opposite of his intent, he's expressing the certainty of it not the doubt.

I will proceed to copy whole passage of Paul to show that you are wrong. Again I will use easier translation, just for you.

25 Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is worthy of trust.

26 Considering the present distress, I think it is better for a man to stay as he is. 27 Do you have a wife? Then don't try to get rid of her. Are you unmarried? Then don't look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you haven't committed a sin; and if an unmarried woman marries, she hasn't committed a sin. But I would rather spare you the everyday troubles that married people will have.

29 What I mean, my friends, is this: there is not much time left, and from now on married people should live as though they were not married; 30 those who weep, as though they were not sad; those who laugh, as though they were not happy; those who buy, as though they did not own what they bought; 31 those who deal in material goods, as though they were not fully occupied with them. For this world, as it is now, will not last much longer.

32 I would like you to be free from worry. An unmarried man concerns himself with the Lord's work, because he is trying to please the Lord. 33 But a married man concerns himself with worldly matters, because he wants to please his wife; 34 and so he is pulled in two directions. An unmarried woman or a virgin concerns herself with the Lord's work, because she wants to be dedicated both in body and spirit; but a married woman concerns herself with worldly matters, because she wants to please her husband.

35 I am saying this because I want to help you. I am not trying to put restrictions on you. Instead, I want you to do what is right and proper, and to give yourselves completely to the Lord's service without any reservation.

36 In the case of an engaged couple who have decided not to marry: if the man feels that he is not acting properly toward the young woman and if his passions are too strong and he feels that they ought to marry, then they should get married, as he wants to. There is no sin in this. 37 But if a man, without being forced to do so, has firmly made up his mind not to marry, and if he has his will under complete control and has already decided in his own mind what to do—then he does well not to marry the young woman. 38 So the man who marries does well, but the one who doesn't marry does even better.

39 A married woman is not free as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, then she is free to be married to any man she wishes, but only if he is a Christian. 40 She will be happier, however, if she stays as she is. That is my opinion, and I think that I too have God's Spirit.

If you think that it's sarcasm you have serious reading problem.

>>649154

>Not an argument.

It is you who gave zero arguments for your claims

>Like if I were to say "I'm pretty sure I'm correct", this would be sarcasm to express my certainty of being right

Not in context as shown in last paragraph here >>649106

>>649126

>Really? And is this change due to the mythical Luther who we are told, made Catholics to call start calling it deuterocanon? I'm impressed how much influence he had there.

"Mythical Luther" was one who started to use term "apocrypha" for them even though historicaly and etymologicaly it makes no sense

>Doesn't the deuterocanon include itself with the New Testament?

I am not sure what you mean by it. DC is part of OT. Though there are who call few books in NT, like Letter of James, Deuterocanonical as well because some like Luther denied their inspiration.

>So if we all agree that Matthew 11:13 is scripture, that settles it.

That Deuterocanon is Scripture? Yes, we could use this verses to support it against Talmudic lie of "400 years of silence"

>You're proposing that these two passages are not certainly the inspired words of God?

No you dum-dum. I am proposing two things:

<that inspired author may not be prophet and say about times when there are not prophet yet he himself is inspired (Psalm 74:9)

<that inspired author may express doubts about his inpiration be it from humbleness or other reasons (1 Cor. 7:40)

What's up with your readings skills?

>Where are they in scripture?

>Simeon and Anna

Luke 2

>Sirach

Book of Sirach

>Author of Wisdom

Book of Wisdom

>rest of books

In thier books.

>>649155

>"Mythical Luther" was one who started to use term "apocrypha" for them even though historicaly and etymologicaly it makes no sense

And he also made Catholics start to call it deuterocanon? Is that your claim?

>I am not sure what you mean by it.

I mean that nobody is claiming to believe it but not believe the New Testament. So you must also believe that. So then the words of the Gospel according to St. Matthew can put this to sleep. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

>What's up with your readings skills?

You wrote that "it's natural conclusion that he dounts a little his inspirtation."

So in other words, you are trying to say Paul wasn't sure. I am just trying to figure out exactly what you're saying here before moving any further.

Because if this is what you're saying (and I'm not sure if it is) you are incorrect.

You have to remember that Paul writing these was a very honest man. If he thought he had the Spirit, then he really did think so. If you want to say he was wrong in thinking that, you've pressed your case too far.

As for Psalm 74, did you read verse 8? Verse 8 and 9 is describing what some people said in their hearts, not a fact.

>Luke 2

Didn't we just read that all the prophets and the law prophesied until John? Why are you placing other people from the New Testament before John?

>>648574

They must have had his sermons on VHS, then.

>>649203

Or the Holy Spirit actually revealed a mystery to him? Do you think it could possibly be?

>>649194

>And he also made Catholics start to call it deuterocanon? Is that your claim?

No. Learn to read. Though I admit, it wasn't term made in middle ages but during counter-reformation. Sixtus of Siena was this man.

>I mean that nobody is claiming to believe it but not believe the New Testament.

Hellenistic Jews did before they converted or died out.

> So you must also believe that.

There is jump in logic here that is beyond me.

>So then the words of the Gospel according to St. Matthew can put this to sleep. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Notice that Prophets prophesied until John, not stopped after last of the twelve minor ones.

>You wrote that "it's natural conclusion that he dounts a little his inspirtation." So in other words, you are trying to say Paul wasn't sure.

True. From which you cannot logically conclude: "these two passages are not certainly the inspired words of God"

>ou have to remember that Paul writing these was a very honest man. If he thought he had the Spirit, then he really did think so. If you want to say he was wrong in thinking that, you've pressed your case too far.

I am saying that while writing this Paul "thought" that he had Holy Spirit. Not "knew". Him actually having Holy Spirit in this moment is relevant as much as to conclude that Holy Authors were not always 100% sure of thier inspiration even though they were inspired.

>As for Psalm 74, did you read verse 8? Verse 8 and 9 is describing what some people said in their hearts, not a fact.

Verse 8 is describing what attackers thought, not the nation, which is evident from words: They said in their heart, the whole kindred of them together: Let us abolish all the festival days of God from the land. Why would attackers mentioned from verse 3 onwards had need to cry that there is no prophet of God nor signs of Him in Israel? If you want to see boarder context of verse 9 it would be verse 10: How long, O God, shall the enemy reproach: is the adversary to provoke thy name for ever?

>Didn't we just read that all the prophets and the law prophesied until John? Why are you placing other people from the New Testament before John?

Because they were prophets who prophesied before John. You did read Luke 2, did you?

>>649154

>As proven above that's false

It's still true despite your protest

>I could say that same about author of 1 Maccabees, that he is using hyperbole

Sure, you could say it, it would have nothing to do with the text of 1 Maccabees, but you could say it.

>Or I could go with literal meaning of the text and say that both authors express similar peroid in time, when there was no prophet among them

Yes you could do that too, problem is that not only is it a strenuous interpretation of the psalm to make it relevant, but it also contradicts several books of the Old Testament which tell us there were prophets at that time (the Babylonian captivity, probably early in it, see verses 3-7 of the psalm).

>You were the first who made this laughable jump in logic:

Except I didn't, and even though I pointed out it is a strawman ("Of course, a prophet did come, Jesus Christ"), you decided to ignore that fact and persist in it.

>He says "Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me".Or to use different translation that's may be easier to understand for you: "

Did you forget to make an argument?

>All that author says is that he might have not written this book well

What he actually said is "And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto", or "If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do", or "If it is well written and to the point, I am pleased; if it is poorly written and uninteresting, I have still done my best". Poorly written meaning failing to communicate as intended.

>I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is worthy of trust.

Keeping in mind when Paul says the Lord he specifically means Jesus, what does the Lord's mercy have to do with trustworthiness? It is because he is being inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is alltrustworthy.

>my opinion

His opinion is inspired

>But I would rather

>What I mean, my friends, is this

>I would like

>I am saying this because I want to help you. I am not trying to put restrictions on you. Instead, I want you to do what is right and proper

Completely irrelevant

>If you think that it's sarcasm

It is, and you haven't made an argument.

>>649253

>It's still true despite your protest

Then show me where Baruch, Tobit, Additions to Esther and Daniel, Wisdom and Sirach (I've dealt already with both Maccabees) deny their inspiration. Because I am sure that you are not stupid enough to think that deutecanon came as packed deal.

>Sure, you could say it, it would have nothing to do with the text of 1 Maccabees, but you could say it.

ut it would be infinitely closer to text than going from statement A "There was no prophets during that time" to conclusion Z "that means that book I am writing is not inspired"

>Yes you could do that too, problem is that not only is it a strenuous interpretation of the psalm to make it relevant, but it also contradicts several books of the Old Testament which tell us there were prophets at that time (the Babylonian captivity, probably early in it, see verses 3-7 of the psalm).

I can take the very same critique and say that even though author of Maccabees even though stating that there was no prophets it is strenuous interpretation to claim that it's but hyperbole since several books of the Old Testament which tell us there were prophets at that timet, Sirach and whoever wrote Wisdom or rather second part of it.

>Except I didn't, and even though I pointed out it is a strawman ("Of course, a prophet did come, Jesus Christ"), you decided to ignore that fact and persist in it.

Exept you did in the very first sentence of this post.

>Did you forget to make an argument?

When person A says "person B said <X then Y>" quotation from person B "<Z so V>" is sufficient argument. But let me dumb down.

Author of 2 Maccabees is saying this:

<I wrote a Book

<I might have done the great literally job

<This is what I wanted

<But I am humble enough to say that I might have not be great with words

<Sorry if that is the case

>Poorly written meaning failing to communicate as intended.

And that does not make it any less inspired. For Paul was "rude in speech" and according to Peter his letters are "hard to understand".

>Keeping in mind when Paul says the Lord he specifically means Jesus, what does the Lord's mercy have to do with trustworthiness? It is because he is being inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is alltrustworthy.

And that still does not change the fact that in this instance Paul doubted his inspiration a little bit for he is saying it (according to himself) not "from the Lord" but of himself.

>His opinion is inspired

But he himself still doubts it. Look, you are missing the point. We DO NOT discuss IF Paul was inspired. We discuss that Paul THOUGHT the he MIGHT be uninspired IN THIS PARTICULAR TIME.

>Completely irrelevant

It is relevant for it shows that Paul doubted a bit his inspiration.

>It is, and you haven't made an argument.

Proper discussion is that one making claim provides evidence. You didn't do it and still I gave whole context. Show us then how the tone of this passage can even HINT that Paul is sarcastic here.

>>649288

>Then show me where Baruch, Tobit, Additions to Esther and Daniel, Wisdom and Sirach (I've dealt already with both Maccabees) deny their inspiration

Maccabees denies the existence of prophets at that time.

>Because I am sure that you are not stupid enough to think that deutecanon came as packed deal.

No prophet no scripture

>I can take the very same critique and say that even though author of Maccabees even though stating that there was no prophets it is strenuous interpretation to claim that it's but hyperbole since several books of the Old Testament which tell us there were prophets at that timet, Sirach and whoever wrote Wisdom or rather second part of it.

Keep up those English lessons

>Exept you did in the very first sentence of this post

I'm not surprised you intend to continue knocking down the same strawman

>When person A says "person B said <X then Y>" quotation from person B "<Z so V>" is sufficient argument

Are you having an autistic fit or something?

>And that does not make it any less inspired

It is a failure that cannot be in the words of God.

>For Paul was "rude in speech" and according to Peter his letters are "hard to understand"

Irrelevant

>And that still does not change the fact that in this instance Paul doubted his inspiration a little bit for he is saying it (according to himself) not "from the Lord" but of himself.

>But he himself still doubts it. Look, you are missing the point. We DO NOT discuss IF Paul was inspired. We discuss that Paul THOUGHT the he MIGHT be uninspired IN THIS PARTICULAR TIME.

>It is relevant for it shows that Paul doubted a bit his inspiration.

Still no arguments

>Proper discussion is that one making claim provides evidence

And you haven't made an argument

>You didn't do it and still I gave whole context

Quoting the disputed text verbatim is not an argument

>Show us then how the tone of this passage can even HINT that Paul is sarcastic here.

You go ahead and make an argument and then we'll talk

>>649211

It's obviously an allusion to a literary record extant at the time. Paul was writing to readers. You don't reference a sermon that the listener has never heard, that you know they have never heard, at least not in passing like that. Obviously Paul's audience was familiar with whatever sermon attributed to Enoch that Paul is citing. The only way that Paul's audience would be familiar with Enoch's sermon is if it was recorded in text for them to read later, since Enoch left Earth a long time before Paul was writing. So the citation is either to some lost collections of sayings by Enoch that is never referenced elsewhere in surviving manuscripts, or the Book of Enoch. Paul was probably referring to the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was not an obscure work at the time of Paul's writing, so it's reasonable to conclude that he was alluding to it.

>>649303

>Maccabees denies the existence of prophets at that time.

Ignoring the fact that sacred author don't have to be prophet - All those books save second part of Wisdom was written before time mentioned in Maccabees.

>No prophet no scripture

Salomon, men who wrote 2-4 Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah or even Luke etc. disagree.

>Keep up those English lessons

Says one who cannot understand simple sentences.

>I'm not surprised you intend to continue knocking down the same strawman

It cannot be strawman if you literally claim that author describing historical period of time in which there was no prophets by it claims that he is not inspired. Not to mention that you claim that deuterocanonicals are packaged deal.

>Are you having an autistic fit or something?

Are you? Or maybe you don't understand basic logic? You claimed that author of second Maccabees denied his inspiration. I quotes said author in which he said that he is sorry if his literally style is not so perfect.

>It is a failure that cannot be in the words of God.

Then Pauline epistles are not Scripture for Peter says: "in all Paul's epistles are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

>Still no arguments

You cannot just claimed that everything that you don't like is not argument. You have to prove it. We still DO NOT discuss IF Paul was inspired. We discuss that Paul THOUGHT the he MIGHT be uninspired IN THIS PARTICULAR TIME. And those passages STILL show that Paul doubted a bit his inspiration.

>Quoting the disputed text verbatim is not an argument

On the contrary, I showed context of his words and highlighted points of interest that beyond doubt show that tone of those words are not sarcastic, on the contrary, they are serious.

>You go ahead and make an argument and then we'll talk

I did. Context of is Paul's advice. He says that this advice is not from the Lord but of think. i.e. he is not sure if he is inspired. But he does not rule out possibility of his inspiration. But even though he still over and over highlights that this is his own adivce not direct revelation form God.

If someone whom I know is wise man and man with Spirit of God during conversion would start by saying "No one told me this but hear my advice - you know that I am wise thanks to God" then proceed with advice and end by saying "I think that I siad it in accordance to God's will" then it's natural conclusion that he doubts a little his inspirtation.

I am eagerly wait to see how much of arguments will you ignore this time. For it will show how wrong you are.

>>649373

It's Jude, not Paul.

>>649380

>Ignoring the fact that sacred author don't have to be prophet

Noting the capitulation, you are mistaken. Ephesians 2:19-21

<So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

All scripture passes through the hands of prophets under the old law, and the hands of apostles under the new.

>Salomon, men who wrote 2-4 Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah or even Luke etc. disagree.

Proofs?

>Says one who cannot understand simple sentences

Your simple sentences are simply unintelligible.

>It cannot be strawman

straw man/ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

>you literally claim that author describing historical period of time in which there was no prophets by it claims that he is not inspired

The form of the text is that the time of non-prophecy extends to the days of the author.

>Not to mention that you claim that deuterocanonicals are packaged deal

They were all written in the same period (400 years of silence)

>Then Pauline epistles are not Scripture for Peter says: "in all Paul's epistles are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

A difficult passage is not the same as that which fails to communicate its message. The former still succeeds to communicate, it just requires more effort to understand, while the latter is inarticulation.

>You cannot just claimed that everything that you don't like is not argument

It is not an argument because it fails to interact with me or the text, it is more like initial assertion of position rather than argument.

>And those passages STILL show that Paul doubted a bit his inspiration

And you STILL haven't made an argument for that claim. Telling us that is your position is not an argument, quoting the text verbatim without exegesis is not an argument.

>I showed context of his words and highlighted points of interest

Yes, you quoted the text verbatim without giving an argument for your interpretation even though I did for mine.

>they are serious

And this is a strawman which deserves contempt, as if though my position is that Paul is just joking around and not being serious. Paul is seriously using rhetorical sarcasm.

>I did. Context of is Paul's advice

Once more, the verbatim words of the disputed text is not an argument.

>He says that this advice is not from the Lord

Namely, Jesus. It means that he was not deriving the teaching from the earthly ministry of Jesus.

>i.e. he is not sure if he is inspired

Quite the leap in logic.

>But even though he still over and over highlights that this is his own adivce not direct revelation form God

Where does he do that again?

>"No one told me this but hear my advice - you know that I am wise thanks to God"

That's not like how he said it. He denied that anyone received a command to teach thus from Jesus, that it is his opinion as one inspired by God.

>end by saying "I think that I siad it in accordance to God's will"

That's also not what he said. He said "I think that I too have the Holy Spirit", so his ending is more like "I'm pretty sure I'm correct".

>>649373

>It's obviously an allusion to a literary record extant at the time.

Maybe if you don't believe that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, that would have to suffice as the explanation.

>The only way that Paul's audience would be familiar with Enoch's sermon is

What if they weren't? What if it was part of the wisdom of God revealed by the Spirit at the time? How do you think Paul knew in 1 Cor. 15 that "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," and the significance of Adam and Christ as talked about in that chapter? Was that obviously taught in some lost collection of sayings according to you?

Couldn't it also be that supposed book of Enoch is not scripture at all, but it just took the quotes here to make it seem like it was the source?

>>649483

>>649483

>Noting the capitulation, you are mistaken. Ephesians 2:19-21 All scripture passes through the hands of prophets under the old law, and the hands of apostles under the new.

If we understand it as reference to the old and new testament as books, not doctrines, then we must understand it in broadest sense possible since we still have new and old testament authors who were nethier prophets nor apostles.

>Proofs?

Solomon, author of Proverbs, Kohelet, Song of Songs was not a prophet (unless of course you accept that he wrote first part of WIsdom then he is but only then).

Ezra and Nehemiah of whom 1 and 2 Esdras come were not prophets.

People who wrote 2-4 Kings were not prophets.

Luke was not prophet. He wasn't apostle nethier.

>Your simple sentences are simply unintelligible.

I was talking about sentences from 1&2 Maccabees here. I am not Baptist Orgien, I did not write them

>The form of the text is that the time of non-prophecy extends to the days of the author.

To quote myself: author describing historical period of time in which there was no prophets by it claims that he is not inspired.

All prophets are inspired. All inspired authors are inspired. Not all inspired authors are prophets. Inspired author who is describing time that there were no prophets do not deny his inspiration.

And I am kind enough to ignore this blatant lie that you present, since in 1 Maccabees 9:27 authors say that there were no prophets "among them" not "among us"

>They were all written in the same period (400 years of silence)

400 years of silence in anti scriptural, talmudic lie. Simeon the Prophet was old man and he lived during that period. Anna the Prophetess too. And "all prophets prophesied until John" not "until Malachi"

Not to mention that Judith was written by high priest before fall of Jerusalem, Tobit was wirrten during Assyrian captivity and Baruch (and Letter) during Babylonian one.

>A difficult passage is not the same as that which fails to communicate its message. The former still succeeds to communicate, it just requires more effort to understand, while the latter is inarticulation.

And then tell me my friend where does author 2 Maccabees says that he "failed to communicate its message". All he did is to say that his book may be "poorly written and uninteresting". Or to use synonym "idiotos in speach".

>And you STILL haven't made an argument for that claim. Telling us that is your position is not an argument, quoting the text verbatim without exegesis is not an argument.

To quote myself again, maybe you didn't see it:

He says that this advice is not from the Lord but of him. i.e. he is not sure if he is inspired. But he does not rule out possibility of his inspiration. But even though he still over and over highlights that this is his own adivce not direct revelation form God.

>Yes, you quoted the text verbatim without giving an argument for your interpretation even though I did for mine.

You ignored context and just jumped in logic saying that if Paul say that he is by mercy of God worthy o Trust he means that he thinks that he is inspired (i.e. he speaks of Lord) even though the very sentence reads: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion.

>>649617

>And this is a strawman which deserves contempt, as if though my position is that Paul is just joking around and not being serious. Paul is seriously using rhetorical sarcasm.

Definition of sarcasm

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Both satire and irony have inherent humour in them.

But even more importantly, you still ignore the context of this advice. Why would Paul use satire or irony here. He is not discussing something, nor gives correction. He is just giving advice and he is saying that according to him those are his personal thoughts.

>Once more, the verbatim words of the disputed text is not an argument.

But ignoring context is argument for your lack of genuineness.

>Namely, Jesus. It means that he was not deriving the teaching from the earthly ministry of Jesus.

Parallel use of phrase "commandment of the Lord" in chapter 14 proves that it have nothing to do with earthly ministry of Christ but it's about inspiration by His Spirit.

>Quite the leap in logic.

<"This is MY advice not something from the Lord"

<It means that he is 100% sure that this is inspired commandment from the Lord!

>Where does he do that again?

<I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as

<I would rather

<What I mean

<That is my opinion, and I think that I too have God's Spirit.

>That's not like how he said it. He denied that anyone received a command to teach thus from Jesus, that it is his opinion

And if you would stop there you would be right. But you added

>as one inspired by God.

Even though he says that "I' do not have a command from the Lord"

>That's also not what he said. He said "I think that I too have the Holy Spirit", so his ending is more like "I'm pretty sure I'm correct".

And that's my point. He is "pretty sure" but not certain.

We came full circle so I would put this discussion to rest.

>>649566

Does the Bible contain any allusion to any other works at all?

Or are all apparent allusions instead direct revelations of God to the author of long lost words never heard by the audience?

Did the writer experience a vision of Enoch? Don't you think he would have described such a vision in more detail? Wouldn't the writer have tried to avoid confusing readers as to whether he was making an offhand reference to a popular work via mentioning its author's name (a vanishingly rare practice, I'll admit) or instead nonchalantly dropping a direct revelation by God of the words of a dead man in passing?

>>649631

If you think any Scripture is "in passing" then I don't know how to answer you.

I take it very seriously, and I also take the prophecies about God preserving every word as literal. That means that there are no hidden gnostic oral traditions or lost scriptures. When scripture says God does preserve his word "from this generation for ever," I regard that as true.