Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 2:22 a.m. No.5620944   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0954 >>1068

>>5620937

 

There is a book of Enoch, along with a lot of other books not included in biblical canon. There were criteria for inclusion into the canon, and Enoch and the other books didn't meet it.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 2:24 a.m. No.5620955   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5620943

Not really. Before the Bible was assembled into the accepted canon, there were just a lot of different books spread all over the place. Maybe some accepted it and others didn't. Macabbees are another one.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 2:29 a.m. No.5620983   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1122

>>5620964

Um, no. "Churches" didn't exist until after Christ. Judaic scriptures were canonized a few hundred years BC. Enoch was included in the Ethiopian jewish tradition, but not the others. Enoch was never part of the Bible as we know it.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 2:38 a.m. No.5621025   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1036

>>5621002

Stronger cofvefe. There is some kind of C_A / NSA war, and I can' figure out yet who is on which side either. JPB wasn't a fan of trump, but seems to have been a friend of JFK JR. He seems to be 'for' the things we are for, in terms of internet. Add into the mix JA, and this shit gets hard as hell to figure out. My best guess is, JPB good, JA good, Snowden bad.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 2:42 a.m. No.5621044   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1062 >>1069

>>5621014

It wasn't in the Bible because it wasn't corroborated by other books, or because it contradicted God's or Jesus' word. Those are the usual reasons for books not to be included.

 

Remember, there were lots and lots of books. Early scholars needed some kind of criteria to determine overall credibility.

 

If I remember correctly, there are two 'versions' of Enoch available, and one is supposedly more credible than the other in terms of its translation (don't remember why). It's worth a read, as long as Christians keep in mind what they know to be true about their faith and scripture. Enoch was not included for a reason, so take its contents with a grain of salt.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 2:49 a.m. No.5621085   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1150

>>5621062

Nope. See, you are using a 21st-century 'question everything' approach to this. There were strict criteria early scholars applied before agreeing to include this or that book. It's never as simple as 'they didn't want you to know something.'

 

At least look into the scholarly and careful approach that was taken before you declare something forbidden knowledge.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 3:05 a.m. No.5621163   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1176 >>1185 >>1189

>>5621140

Anon, I have news for you.

 

No new information could be presented that would change Evangelicals' stance on Israel. We recognize they are messed up, we recognize the Jews rejected Christ, and we recognize that all this is leading up to God's plan for redemption of the world.

 

There is no 'duping' in our support, because we know that God will be the ones to judge Israel. Israel DOES exist as a country and as a people, and we are going to support them. Those who don't are going to suffer God's wrath, so good luck to you.

Anonymous ID: 5a968b March 11, 2019, 3:30 a.m. No.5621307   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1327

>>5621122

>>5621209

And you know this because you've read it, and you studied enough of the other books to determine for yourself what is legitimate and what is not, right?

 

Not everything can so easily be lumped into 'they didn't want you to know.'