Is New Revelation Necessary/Scriptural

[masterlee]

The importance of the books of Gad, the relevance of Enoch, cannot be dismissed easily just by saying they are not included in the Bible, and therefore cannot be considered scripture. You are ignoring the facts--the prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testaments were more than familiar with these books. They considered them sacred. How are we better able to judge these books than they? You are obviously saying that man, infallible man, are better able to interpret the value of these works than those who are taught by God to discern the truth of all things. Salvation is individual, therefore ANY individual that writes the Words God gives them are SACRED SCIPTURE to that person. Therefore the words that God reveals to us TODAY are the means of our Redemption. No man can be saved without his grace, after all we can do. Therefore I ask you to pray about my words, exersize a grain of faith. If you ask in sincerety, fully believing to recieve, I promise you that you will gain a testemony of these things. If you do this you will be filled with gladness, knowing that scriptures are being engraved upon your heart, and you will know for yourself that which will save you from the second death. Do not take this step lightly, for a new responsibilty is required of the truthbearers of Christ.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by masterlee

The importance of the books of Gad, the relevance of Enoch, cannot be dismissed easily just by saying they are not included in the Bible, and therefore cannot be considered scripture.

And I haven't done that. I haven't been given sufficient reason to consider them scripture. I'm afraid someone just saying, "they are sacred" is not a reason to believe them to be sacred. It's irrespobsible on my part, and yours because you have no idea what they say.

I also keep saying I have Enoch on me. I'm ready to put it back in the bible should you give me sufficient reason to do so.

Paul, in Acts 17:28, quotes from Aratus (Phaenomena 5). Are you ready to accept Aratus, a Greek pagan poet, as scripture simply because Paul mentions him once? Paul, in Titus 1:12, quotes from Epimenides. Is Epimenides, another Greek pagan, now to be considered scripture? Surely you would answer "no" to both of those, and if so, you must alter your standard. If you don't alter your standard, you must accept pagan literature as scripture in order to remain consistent. I doubt, and hope, you won't be proclaiming Zeus by the end of the thread. Fortunately, I don't accept things as scripture simply because they are mentioned in passing, or even quoted in part, and so I won't be a Greek pagan by the end of this thread.

You are ignoring the facts--the prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testaments were more than familiar with these books.

Most of these books are mentioned once in passing, which indicates to me they aren't that important at all. Most of them say things along the lines of, "oh, this list of capable soldiers is written in Gad's book too", like a throw away comment. Most of the most obscure ones, like Gad the Seer, are mentioned in historical books like Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings, which indicates that the books are probably nothing more than historical documents and not prophetic like a Daniel, Ezekiel, or Isaiah. And which of these obsucre books are mentioned in the prophetic writings? There is also no indication at all that there was wide familiarity with a book like Gad the Seer's. You keep asserting things without sufficient reason to believe your assertions.

They considered them sacred.

You keep saying that, and you can say it, but that's exactly what I've been calling into question. There is no indication that they considered them sacred. There are numerous psalms that sing about Torah and numerous writings that that draw on things found in the Torah, which makes it rather obvious that the books of the Torah are sacred to lots of peoeple, but I can only find one obscure reference to a book by (for example) Gad the Seer. That's not what someone who considered the book sacred would do.

[Islander]

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church.

Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth..

I suggest God thru the Spirit would be the ultimate authority on what record is sacred and thus of value to enhance our faith, spiritual growth and ability to get closer to the Savior.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by Islander

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church.

I guess it's a good thing that the Council of Nicea didn't compile the canon then.

Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

Yep.

ht tp://w ww.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.h tml
"There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others"

So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth..

I'm a fan of sound judgment too.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

I guess it's a good thing that the Council of Nicea didn't compile the canon then.




Yep.

ht tp://w ww.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.h tml
"There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others"




I'm a fan of sound judgment too.

You are ignoring the point that I am trying to make. That we have gone thru a process of selection for the (OT/NT) scriptures and a definition of the tenets of Christianity that was not infallible or even sacred. And you are attempting to do the same by using "judgment" as the catalyst for the process of selecting what is sacred writ or not. Not only is it "judgment" subjective and flawed, it assumes a general body of knowledge, theological and historical awareness that most Christians today do not have.

In case you forgot or are purposefully ignoring it, ALL the letters in the NT are the words of the prophets and Apostles of God to His people. They provided the guidance, knowledge and insight, the truthful and correct interpretation of God's word and doctrine to the saints in the early Church. That is what we do today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints thru the prophet, seers and revelators.

[masterlee]

Yikcigmij, it is not man that can determine what is sacred: the only sources that can be trusted are for this are God and the servants that he has sent. I have a testamony of the truth of this for God has revealed it to me by the Holy Ghost. But do not take my word on it. Pray. The Lord can reveal anything whenever someone truly has faith. Take the test of faith. Tell me, dost not this makes your heart burn within you. Does this give you a testamony. If not, I suggest that you are too hardhearted and devoid of the spirit of God to feel this still small voice of that sacred spirit of revelation.

On another note, may I ask, which Book of Enoch do you have. I'm just curious. I particuliarly like the Greek version. The most common, ands most well known is the Ethiopic one. The smallest fragments belong to the Hebrew books of Enoch.

Some other good sources I like are Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Documents.

As for the other sources that you mention, I do not immiediatly discount the pagan refferences. Even a pagan can tell the truth. The search for truth should not end just because the source isn't of your faith. I happen to study all religions. No matter where I search I see truth. It is not necessarily all true, but thats why you must rely on the Spirit of God to see them rather than rely on your own wisdom. Even an evil man can teach us somethging useful, if only to live diferently than him.

[abqfriend]

I am Roman Catholic on this site. While there were many disagreements at the Council of Nicaea as other councils, let's not throw stones at history or those that made it. Much good-in my opinion was accomplished at this and other Church Councils.
To say the council had "nothing sacred or spiritual about it"-is an afront to many Christians in general and me specifically.
We may disagree on doctrine-but let's not throw stones at others or put one's slant on the history of the Church.
Throwing stones never brings people together-it just keeps them apart.
-Carol

Originally Posted by Islander

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church.

Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth..

I suggest God thru the Spirit would be the ultimate authority on what record is sacred and thus of value to enhance our faith, spiritual growth and ability to get closer to the Savior.

[masterlee]

I would be pleased to admit that statement, providing they were inspired in thier decisions. Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it. If they were inspired, then why didn't they come to the right conclusions. In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions. This is to say that God is nothing--for the only thing that can exist under those requirements is nothing. They tell us that God is three beings but one as well. I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction. Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by masterlee

Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it.

Why do you think that?

Also, why does the LDS church use the exact same OT and NT canons that protestants do? If the councils were apostate, it seems they managed to stop being apostate long enough in AD 393, 397, and 419 (68 - 94 years after Nicea) to compile the correct canon. Why not go back and add Enoch to the LDS canon if it's really inspired?

In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions.

Is that a quote from Nicea or is that from Aquinas?

They tell us that God is three beings but one as well.

That's not quite what it says.

I see this thread is swirling into a trinitarian/Nicea issue, even though Nicea didn't canonize scripture. That's cool.

I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction. Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination.

Let's be honest, Nicea members weren't stupid, ignorant drunkards who spent the entire proceedings in a stupor. They probably knew of a few verses (leaving Divine names with proper transliteration):

Deut 4:16: I say this so you will not corrupt yourselves by making an image in the form of any kind of figure. This includes the likeness of a human male or female,

Deut 4:35 You have been taught that Jehovah alone is Elohim – there is no other besides him.

Deut 4:39 Today realize and carefully consider that Jehovah is Elohim in heaven above and on earth below – there is no other!

Deut 6:4 Listen, Israel: Jehovah is our Elohim, Jehovah is one!

I'm going to venture a guess that Nicea knew of these verses and others like these and knew they could either deny these verses, for whatever reason, or uphold all of scripture.

Deut 32:39 “See now that I, indeed I, am he!” says Jehovah,
“and there is no other Elohim besides me.
I kill and give life,
I smash and I heal,
and none can resist my power.

Jehovah says it's His power and no "elohim" besides Him. Has Jehovah just usurped Elohims power and taken Elohims worship? I think it's made abundantly clear to Moses on Mount Sinai:

Exodus 19:16 On the third day in the morning there was thunder and lightning and a dense cloud on the mountain, and the sound of a very loud horn; all the people who were in the camp trembled. 19:17 Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet Elohim, and they took their place at the foot of the mountain. 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was completely covered with smoke because Jehovah had descended on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a great furnace, and the whole mountain shook violently. 19:19 When the sound of the horn grew louder and louder, Moses was speaking and Elohim was answering him with a voice.

Ok...so both Elohim and Jehovah are there on Mt. Sinai with Moses. Moses is speaking to Elohim and Elohim is speaking back. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Jehovah makes a bold move there on Sinai just a few verses later:

Exodus 20:2 “I, JEHOVAH, am your ELOHIM, who brought you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.
20:3 “You shall have no other ELOHIM before me.

Why doesn't Elohim object to this? Jehovah says HE is Elohim, then He forbids the worship of other Elohim. Why doesn't Heavenly Father object? Jehovah just forbid us to worship Heavenly Father! Elohim doesn't object because Jehovah is Elohim. He's not lying in Exodus 20:2 (or in Mosiah 12:33-37 where it's repeated word for word by Abinadi).

Nicea was probably aware of things like this (probably not the Abinadi quote though) and knew better than to posit more than one god. Jesus claims were pretty bold, yet it's clear that there is only One God. What do you do with the information found in the New and Old Testament and the Deuterocanon? Scripture is clear that there is one God, yet Jesus made some rather blasphemous remarks and actions, and was raised from the dead in spite of what should have been blasphemy and a free ticket strait to Sheol. What is a council to do with that?

God has revealed the information over many years, surely He left it such that we (or Nicea in this case) could apply the command to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind (Deut 6:5) and come to an understanding on what God has revealed about Himself. The answers are there in scripture. Rather than just say Nicea was a bunch of drunk, rowdy apostates (a genetic fallacy btw), why don't we check and see if their creed can actually be collaborated with what God has already revealed to us. I believe it can.

Now, having said that, and to try to get back on topic somewhat, Nicea still didn't compile the canon. The canon was finalized later by the Synod of Hippo (AD 393) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). Were those 3 councils also drunken apostates? If they were apostate, why does the LDS OT and NT canon match the protestant rendition of it? Of course, if there wasn't a total apostasy by that point, and/or those 3 councils got it right, then maybe Nicea deserves a fresh look and another shot.

[masterlee]

You go in depth to call Jesus our Heavenly Father--and He was:just not in the same sense as you use it. In the Gospel of John, John calls Jesus the Word: quothe "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God...The same was in the begining with God." {John 1;1-2.} "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt umoung us..." {John 1;14.} In this reference it also reads in verse 3 that "all things was made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." This means that God used Jesus as the Creator of all of us. This makes Him our Father. And once a father always a father. Thus he is the Eternal Father or Elohim. Does this mean that Jesus and his Father are one and the same? No!! They each retain their individual itentity, but that doesn't mean that Christ hasn't earned His title as the Messiah, the Son of God.

As for our, us Latter Day Saints, use of scriptures, we fully acknowledge that the Bible is only as correct as it is translated correctly {Read our Articles of Faith sometime.}. We also have a collection of translated passages from the Bible that Joseph Smith was instrumental in bringing to light.

As for what I'd put in the canon, I would only repeat that Revelation, either from God or his servants can decide what is sacred. Enoch is a very useful text, and despite the facts that there will be errors therein, deserves to be acknowledged as a text that inspired the ancient apostles to hold it in esteem and set the mood for religious furvor for centries after it was written.