/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21651032]

Why is it not in the Bible even though it was quoted in Jude?

[Anonymous No.21651075]

>>21651032
Azazel kept it out.

[Anonymous No.21651692]

>>21651032
I struggled with this for a long time, then I came across Proverbs 22:28,
>Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.
So I came to conclusion that if I trusted God enough to preserve His word up to this moment, then surely He is also able to preserve what books entail the record. No one, except Origen I believe, acknowledged Enoch as canon. Not even the Jews. That doesn't mean I can't read it and enjoy it and learn from it, it just isnt as high tier as the Bible as it comes to trust worthiness and inspiration. Hope this helps friend

[Anonymous No.21651741]

>>21651692
Wouldn't moving the landmark include shortening it? Meaning that the act of taking it out of the canon would be the act you are condemning with this quote? I would think that the reference to it in the bible would be the predecessor claim of authenticity to any official claiming that it isn't authentic right? Also what about the role of satan in christianity? Isn't it possible that the claim that the book of Enoch is apocryphal is a trick played by the devil to trick christians into disregarding parts of the word of god?

[Anonymous No.21651752]

You could make the argument against Enoch in that its dating makes it impossible to actually be the Enoch described in Genesis, but authorial historicity really matters very little with Bible books considering 2 Peter made it in.

[Anonymous No.21651778]

>>21651752
You could also make the argument that commonly used dating techniques aren't as sound as anthropologists and historians would have you believe. Which makes it hard to understand why any doctrine that claimed to be christian and revealed by the divine wouldn't make it into the cannon. I mean.. what would even be the criteria at that point? How well it agrees with other accepted material? What if that accepted material was the false one and not the other way around? How it feels in the hearts of those who embody the holy spirit? What if those people are charlatans sent by the devil to trick us? And so on.

[Anonymous No.21652168]

>>21651778
>How it feels in the hearts of those who embody the holy spirit? What if those people are charlatans sent by the devil to trick us? And so on.
The word of truth isn't based on feelings or on what other people affirm is true, it's based on conviction by the Holy Spirit of God. This is something that happens directly to those who accept the truth. As Christ said, "Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." (Luke 8:18)

In other words, someone who rejects the Gospel will be locked out of understanding the rest or recognizing God's word from falsehood. Meanwhile, someone who gladly receives the word of God will be given more, as it is God who gives us understanding in the first place. It also says that the sheep of the Shepherd know His voice, and will not follow the voice of a stranger (see John 10). And Christ said in John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

So, it's not based on feelings or what other people might tell you, it is based on factual knowledge of what God's word is, given to those that are His about what is inspired versus what is falsehood. If there is disagreement in the world about what God's word is, it has to do with not everyone receiving this guidance. The only way to know for yourself is to be given this knowledge directly by God, as we can't rely on eachother.

>How well it agrees with other accepted material?
This is also true, as anything short of infallibility wouldn't be absolute truth and thus not God's word. Though sometimes our initial impression of a passage of Scripture could be simply a misunderstanding on our part and not a real contradiction. If we are patient and with God's help, we can find the real explanation which is that which satisfies every part of Scripture.
>Which makes it hard to understand why any doctrine that claimed to be christian and revealed by the divine wouldn't make it into the cannon.
Deciding whether you believe the Bible has to come first. Whether something is considered to be within canon or not, this doesn't matter if you don't actually believe it in the first place. Answering the first question without really believing, is more or less meaningless. If you do believe, then you will arrive to the same singular truth as other believers, since the Lord really is helping people to come to the knowledge of the truth.

>>21651752
2 Peter is written by Peter the apostle, That's what it says in the very first verse.

[Anonymous No.21652178]

>>21651741
>I would think that the reference to it in the bible would be the predecessor claim of authenticity to any official claiming that it isn't authentic right?
Not really. Imagine that some historical event really happened, like Enoch preaching, and later it was written down in the Bible. There is sometimes a time lag between the event happening and it being recorded. Now imagine some third party source might also write some of these things down elsewhere. That doesn't mean the Bible is copied from it, it just means a non-inspired source also recorded some things that happened. And there are other instances of this where we learn about what someone preached that is written in a later book of the Bible. For instance, Matthew 27:9 tells us that Jeremiah once spoke the same prophecy that is found written in Zechariah 11:12-13. That is new information in the New Testament, as the Old Testament only has it written in Zechariah. Another good example of this just from the Old Testament is where Isaiah is inspired to write about events regarding the rebellion of Lucifer, in Isaiah chapter 14. And where Ezekiel does the same in Ezekiel 28. Obviously, this is God revealing new information via the prophets about events that happened long before them, which, if we are the believe the Bible, is true.

It's possible that people before these prophets had some awareness of these things in some cases - such as that of Jeremiah. Although they ultimately were recorded in the Bible where we find them today. So this would explain the fact Enoch's prophecy is found in Jude. The most straightforward explanation is that it really happened, and with that it wouldn't be a contradiction if any number of people recorded it or mentioned it in non-biblical accounts. There are also non-biblical accounts of Jesus' life, although sometimes they contradict the New Testament, especially when it comes to things like the Gnostic writings which had their own agenda behind them.

[Anonymous No.21652208]

>>21651075
awo[eigo[iwjehjoi[weeiowqevrnoewrv[oirvnoivnoiHJOIAWEFIFEWHOIEWFHJOIEWFHIO I KILLED HIM.

[Anonymous No.21652214]

There's a lot of good reasons Enoch 2-4 is not canon. Its clearly 2nd or 3rd century.

What you want to know is why The Book of the Watchers is not canon.

[Anonymous No.21652226]

>>21651032
the real reason is because the Catholic Church does not teach real angelology and the book of Enoch does. kinda that simple. anything that makes them feel sour they just pour down the drain without feeding the kids.

[Anonymous No.21652240]

>>21651741
The land marks are set by our predecessors who God established. Forget about length. Is Satan more powerful than God that he can establish the canon? The Jews didnt even consider Enoch canon becuase it wasn't written in Hebrew. Read it, Enjoy it, Praise God for it. It just isnt apart of the canon.

[Anonymous No.21652275]

contains secret knowledge for facial aesthetics and IQ increase

[Anonymous No.21652759]

>>21652214
Why is The Book of Watchers not canon?
>>21652275
doctors hate that trick

[Anonymous No.21652770]

>>21652208
When I find you in here you’re toast.

[Anonymous No.21652785]

>>21652214
Based. Book of the Watchers was my favourite bible book as a kid, and it fucked off my parents.

[Anonymous No.21652807]

>>21652178
That bit in Isaiah is just meant to about the king that God is roasting, its not about "Lucifer". The name "Lucifer" is actually a positive title, not a negative one and Isaiah's audience would have understood it as such. Isaiah was using it in a sarcastic way to mock the king who he was writing that God would judge.
Only much later was it innovated into the whole Satan story we get in Christianity. Which is interesting in and of itself, but also certainly not what Isaiah intended.

[Anonymous No.21652832]

It's in the Coptic or Ethiopian bible iirc.

[Anonymous No.21653021]

>>21652168
>Deciding whether you believe the Bible has to come first. Whether something is considered to be within canon or not, this doesn't matter if you don't actually believe it in the first place. Answering the first question without really believing, is more or less meaningless.
Im trying to be sympathetic here but this seems a little bit too... convenient to be taken seriously. Especially when you consider...
>If you do believe, then you will arrive to the same singular truth as other believers, since the Lord really is helping people to come to the knowledge of the truth.
...that this just isn't true. There is way to much faction (caused both by interpretation and disagreement about what is and isn't cannon) amongst christians for this claim to be true. Unless you want to make the argument that all but one of those factions either don't really believe or are being tricked some how.

[Anonymous No.21653488]

>>21652240
>Is Satan more powerful than God that he can establish the canon
I would think so. He got man to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge which is something that god expressly stated they shouldn't do. So he is at least capable of tricking man into going against gods will. And in so far as the canon is what we THINK is the real word of god that should be enough. In b4 "the canon isn't what we THINK is the word of god, Its what we know through the divine wisdom of the holy spirit that comes with faith." For that argument I point you to >>21653021

[Anonymous No.21653494]

>>21653488
BTW I don't think satan is more powerful than god, but I don't think he needs to be to mess with our notion of what is the canon.

[Anonymous No.21653955]

>>21652807
>That bit in Isaiah is just meant to about the king that God is roasting, its not about "Lucifer". The name "Lucifer" is actually a positive title
So which is it, anon? First you say it's not about Lucifer then in the next sentence you admit that such a title is used. It seems you're just contradicting for the sake of it.

>Only much later was it innovated into the whole Satan story we get in Christianity.
Satan is mentioned in Genesis 3 under the guise of the serpent who questions God's word, and in Job as the agent of tempting Job. This is the same entity as mentioned multiple times in the Bible, not just in Isaiah.
>Isaiah was using it in a sarcastic way to mock the king who he was writing that God would judge.
The prophecy in general is about the king, but we also learn concurrently about things that pertain to Lucifer by comparison. The king being mentioned in Isaiah is compared to him as a type of Lucifer, in Isaiah 14:12-13, and this is how we get information about Lucifer himself. The fact this whole passage is about a king doesn't mean there is nothing else to learn here. Look at the comparison being made. I know you know what a "comparison" is. This isn't the first mentioning of the devil either, as discussed before.
>but also certainly not what Isaiah intended.
Whoever told you this is just saying it to contradict. There are people out there who are determined to misrepresent and deny some of the very basic fundamental doctrines of the Bible, ones which even a child could see. It's sad to see people are so easily duped by them to the extent they can't see what's right in front of them. Same thing with people going around denying hell and many other teachings of the Bible.

>>21653021
>Unless you want to make the argument that all but one of those factions either don't really believe
"Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."
- Luke 13:23-24

>or are being tricked some how.
Yes, there are unstable Christians who are led into believing false doctrine due to not studying the Bible enough, or not studying it at all, who are un-wisely following others' opinions. Some of them may even be saved people who are just not studying the Bible like they should be. And you can't know what you don't study.

[Anonymous No.21653985]

hundreds of gospels aren't in the canonised bible.

[Anonymous No.21654187]

>>21653955
Hey fair enough. It seemed earlier that you were saying that belief in god was enough to bestow the wisdom of the holy spirit into ones heart but I see now that you tie much of that wisdom to actual study of scripture. I mean, that take makes it harder for me to believe that anyone actually knows what is real doctrine and what isn't (at least anyone I encounter) because they could just as easily be a part of the wrong camp (even earnest study can produce incorrect interpretation unfortunately) but at least you have a coherent view there.

[Anonymous No.21654267]

>>21654187
>I mean, that take makes it harder for me to believe that anyone actually knows what is real doctrine and what isn't (at least anyone I encounter) because they could just as easily be a part of the wrong camp (even earnest study can produce incorrect interpretation unfortunately)
True but I don't think this is (or needs to be) a hindrance.

As far as incorrect interpretation goes, it is true that no matter how much time you spend, it won't do you any good without actually asking God to help you and having the Holy Spirit be there to guide the individual believer into all truth.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
(1 Cor. 2:12-14)

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
(John 14:16-17)

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
(John 14:26)

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:"
(John 16:13)

See also 1 John 2:27, 2 Cor. 1:21, Eph. 1:12-14 and so on for more.

>seemed earlier that you were saying that belief in god was enough to bestow the wisdom of the holy spirit
I think if you have a love of the truth (1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:10) then you will diligently seek it (Hebrews 11:6, Luke 11:9-13).

[Anonymous No.21654602]

>>21651032
Stop noticing things.

[Anonymous No.21654632]

>>21653955
good post

[Anonymous No.21654657]

>>21651032
because it was never in the septuagint, mostly

[Anonymous No.21654944]

>>21653488
>I would think so. He got man to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge which is something that god expressly stated they shouldn't do.
One explanation I heard why the serpent went to tempt Eve instead of Adam was, Adam heard the commandment from God, then he told Eve. Since Eve was told of the commandment from Adam instead of God, it was easier for her to disbelieve it and be tempted by the serpent. After Adam saw that Eve was still alive after eating the fruit (though they did not know they would die eventually) he ate it and thought God was a liar.

[Anonymous No.21654949]

>>21654267
Its certainly not a hinderance from engaging with the material. If anything this view is just going to blur that line a bit between what is real and what isnt, but I think thats fine and can actually motivate one into a deeper study that goes past the intellectual and blossoms into an actual relationship with god. I was never super invested in the idea of a christian canon anyway, just wondering what people thought was good criteria for one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts anon.

[Anonymous No.21654951]

>>21654949
Ofc.

[Anonymous No.21654980]

>>21654944
But ultimately he was still tricked too. It just took a little more doing because he heard it directly from the cosmic source. Still took a bite. As a matter of fact reading that it just sounds to me like an explanation of the mechanism by which satan got adam to eat the apple, eve eating it just being a step in the plan.

[Anonymous No.21654996]

>>21654980
1 Timothy 2:12-15 says this:

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

It also says that the introduction of sin to the world is the work of the devil, which is what Christ came to destroy.

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."
- 1 John 3:8

"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
- John 8:43-45

[Anonymous No.21655098]

>>21654996
I don't see how adam wasn't tricked. I get that the scripture says he wasn't but he still bit out of the apple that god told him not to bite out of. Beguiling someone into doing something they shouldn't by manipulating their loved ones is still a trick IMO. Maybe not a deception in the older sense of the word?

[Anonymous No.21655105]

>>21655098
I've heard people say his action was a picture of Christ. Adam ate of the fruit knowing full well it was a sin, although it was done out of love because of what Eve had done, which we could rightly argue is misguided as such an act actually belies a lack of faith in God, but nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.21655294]

>>21655105
Thats an interesting reading and does seem to add a bit of context to what exactly jesus' sacrifice was for. Do you know where you heard that from?

[Anonymous No.21655319]

>>21651692
This is based. I used to be upset that St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians or The Apocalypse of St. Peter, and other early Church books weren't included. But the realization came to me that if they held totally necessary information, they would've been included by the Church when the Holy Spirit guided the creation of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21655326]

>>21651741
Our Lord himself told us the "gates of hades shall not prevail" in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Really it is a matter of faith. Is the Holy Spirit less powerful than the evil one? No. That's why Enoch isn't need in the Canon.

[Anonymous No.21655334]

>>21655294
>Thats an interesting reading and does seem to add a bit of context to what exactly jesus' sacrifice was for.
Yeah it does. It shows how Adam was misguided for trying to save someone else by descending into sin rather than trusting and loving God first. The whole point of this is to demonstrate to us that the right thing to do was always to trust God and love God first, rather than try to fix things ourselves. Although where Adam failed, Christ succeeded. Hence giving some motivation for why He is called the second Adam in 1 Corinthians 15.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
- 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

It reminds me of what Jesus said in Luke 14:26. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." So we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past, but rather believe and trust in Christ, love Him first with our whole being. God in infinite wisdom and love knew all of this was going to happen, but intended for us to learn this all along. When they were banished from the Garden, they were given the prophecy of the seed who will crush the serpent's head in Genesis 3:15, which is what all of mankind was to believe in, since this is God's word. And as this is the true source of the salvation that is coming at the end of this world.

>Do you know where you heard that from?
I'm not sure, I think I've heard several different preachers mention it. I give it the credence to mention it. And I think it does fit what Paul says in First Timothy.

[Anonymous No.21655339]

>>21655319
lol

[Anonymous No.21655367]

>>21653488
Nothing happens without God allowing it. Everything God does or allows turns out for good.
>why did God let satan deceive Eve? Why did He put a tree in the garden if He knew that man would eat from it and sin?
the better question is
>Why did God let man get into such big trouble that only the death of God would suffice to get him out?
Aw now we are asking the right questions. Here is why He allowed sin
Ephesians 2:7, "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."
God allowed all that to happen so that He could show us mercy in Christ. We are proofs of His mercy, as it were. You have a lack of faith in God my friend. I say this with love. You do not fully understand the Character of God if you think He would allow you to be misled by not allowing Enoch in the canon. It sounds like you think god is holding out on you. sounds kind of like the lie the serpant told Eve, which you referenced. It is all very ironic. You have believed the lie that God is holding out on you just like Eve did. I love you repent.

[Anonymous No.21655604]

>>21655367
>Ephesians 2:7, "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." God allowed all that to happen so that He could show us mercy in Christ.
the absolute state of e-Christians

[Anonymous No.21655623]

>>21655367
So if Adam and Eve never ate of the tree and everything was fine, the pair would eventually have lost their faith? They and all their children would have been immortal right? But we would have been worse off and less faithful if we were all immortal and forever innocent in the garden?

[Anonymous No.21655627]

>>21653955
>So which is it, anon? First you say it's not about Lucifer then in the next sentence you admit that such a title is used. It seems you're just contradicting for the sake of it.
Are you a Christian? Odd of you to be so disingenuous. I put "Lucifer" in quotes because I'm distinguishing between the character in later Christian thought that rebelled against God and became Satan on the one hand, and the use of the title in Isaiah on the other. I think you know this too, and are playing dumb on purpose, which is pretty dishonest.
>Satan is mentioned in Genesis 3 under the guise of the serpent who questions God's word, and in Job as the agent of tempting Job. This is the same entity as mentioned multiple times in the Bible, not just in Isaiah.
In the Old Testament, under Judaism, they are best understood as distinct figures. The Satan in Job is not the Serpent is also not Lucifer, these are all distinct figures in Judaism. Later, in Christianity, they were merged into one figure.
>The prophecy in general is about the king, but we also learn concurrently about things that pertain to Lucifer by comparison.
Yes, I'm aware. This is the Christian interpretation. Its just that - an interpretation. I'm pointing out that it wasn't thought of this way until much later developments in Christianity. Isaiah would not have seen it this way, in his mind he was using Lucifer as a sarcastic, mocking title to describe an arrogant king. Very similar to calling someone who thinks he's a genius "Einstein" sarcastically.
> I know you know what a "comparison" is.
Again, if you're a Christian the condescending rudeness here is pretty odd. Are you a fake believer?
>Whoever told you this is just saying it to contradict. There are people out there who are determined to misrepresent and deny some of the very basic fundamental doctrines of the Bible, ones which even a child could see. It's sad to see people are so easily duped by them to the extent they can't see what's right in front of them. Same thing with people going around denying hell and many other teachings of the Bible.
Yes I get it, you're an ideologue. Perhaps you should take Jesus's advice on taking the plank out of your eye and endeavor to be less dishonest and disrespectful to people, I think that would probably win you more points in Heaven than whatever your views on this bit in Isaiah are.

[Anonymous No.21655732]

>>21655627
>I'm distinguishing between the character in later Christian thought that rebelled against God
What makes you think that, anon? The Bible refers to Satan in all these places, including throughout the Old Testament.
>In the Old Testament, under Judaism, they are best understood as distinct figures.
Modern day talmudic Judaism is unrelated to what the Old Testament teaches. This seems to be where you are getting your ideas from right now and trying to pretend they are much older than they are.
>I think you know this too, and are playing dumb on purpose,
You say it's not about Lucifer, but then immediately admit that such a title was used. I'm assuming this means and refers to "הֵילֵל"

Charging me with dishonesty is probably projection. As in, you spent so much time listening to people who are verifiably dishonest that it has become an assumption. Either I take you at your word (as slippery and misrepresentative as it is in this case) or else I am going to be charged with not answering what you said. It's unwinnable. Reminds me a bit of what our Lord said while standing before the accusers. "And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go." Also a bit earlier in the Gospels, about how they criticized Christ for doing one thing, and John the Baptist for doing the opposite. No matter how some people receive an answer, they always criticize.

>I'm pointing out that it wasn't thought of this way until much later developments in Christianity. Isaiah would not have seen it this way,
That's incorrect, anon. Probably coming from talmudic myths and fables that were invented well after the time of Christ.
>whatever your views on this bit in Isaiah are.
My views are not the issue. What the word of God says is. So far only one person has been providing that insight, as was done earlier when I wrote that the same figure was noted in Genesis 3, Job, Ezekiel 28 and elsewhere. Another place this evil creature is mentioned is in Revelation, where it says "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," (Revelation 20:2)
>Perhaps you should take Jesus's advice on taking the plank out of your eye and endeavor to be less dishonest and disrespectful to people
With God's grace, I am able. Because with God, all things are possible.

[Anonymous No.21655773]

>>21651032
The book records a true prophecy within it but on the whole is not inspired.

[Anonymous No.21655988]

>>21655732
>Charging me with dishonesty is probably projection.
Nah, I think its accurate. I also think that bit about rude condescension was accurate, which is why you conveniently didn't address it in your post.
I really dislike fakers like you. Either actually follow the Jesus's teachings or stop calling yourself a Christian. You bring shame to all else who does.

[Anonymous No.21656040]

>>21655988
>I also think that bit about rude condescension was accurate, which is why you conveniently didn't address it in your post.
>Either actually follow the Jesus's teachings
You know, I really don't think you have a solid grasp of what Jesus Christ our Lord taught.

"He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."
- Proverbs 24:24-25

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God."
- Second John 1:9

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
- First John 2:22-23

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
- Proverbs 30:5

I've seen all this before. May the Lord bring repentance for all these false errors you have said, anon.

[Anonymous No.21656047]

>>21655604
>Huurrrr internet jargon
The state of people who are angry but cannot articulate any reason why
>>21655623
If Adam and Eve never ate of the tree we would have never seen the demonstration of God's amazing love for us. It was not good that they ate of the tree, I hope I don't intimate that it was, but God is so powerful and clever that He was not limited by man's bad decision. I've heard commentators say that we actually inherit more in Christ than if we had just not been fallen in the first place. God used the act of sin to glorify Himself.
I do not do well with hypotheticals. I'm just saying God had a reason for allowing it to happen. It happened just the way He planned. The Lamb of God was slain before the creation of the Earth (that is to say already decided to embrace the cross) Revelation 13:8.

[Anonymous No.21656053]

>>21655773
Yeah, Amen. Very nice way to put it.

[Anonymous No.21656070]

>>21656040
I suppose only a real Christian would care in the first place that he was disobeying Jesus, so there was no point for me to point it out in the first place. One day you'll find out just how wrong you are. I'll leave you with one of my favorites, Matthew 7:21.

[Anonymous No.21656656]

>>21652214
The Wisdom of Solomon is still traditionally ascribed to Solomon like Proverbs despite it being painfully obviously it is a Hellenic text

[Anonymous No.21656676]

It's important to realize that the Biblical texts did not come together in a vacuum and that Enoch was a very influential text in the period.

Sirach arguably cross-references fucking Aesop, you know