Playing Devil's Advocate here:

 

If all conjuctions are that powerful, what about when Jesus told the Rich man that in order to inherit the kingdom he had to:

 

"sell all you have and give it to the poor and come and follow me."

 

Wouldn't we have to take it all or nothing because "and" was used?

 

"If anyone wishes to follow after me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me"

First of all Jesus knew the heart of the rich man and that his riches were getting in the way of him truly being what he needed to be. He told him he needed to sell all he had. He was saying the riches and things can't come between you and me. They were. Just like today the way people let "things" come before the Lord.

 

We all have a "cross" to bear. It is a daily thing for a christian. We need to bear it daily as we walk with him to help and aid us in keeping our minds and eyes focused on what is truly important.

First of all Jesus knew the heart of the rich man and that his riches were getting in the way of him truly being what he needed to be. He told him he needed to sell all he had. He was saying the riches and things can't come between you and me. They were. Just like today the way people let "things" come before the Lord.

 

We all have a "cross" to bear. It is a daily thing for a christian. We need to bear it daily as we walk with him to help and aid us in keeping our minds and eyes focused on what is truly important.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

That said, you make the power of one conjuction (the baptism declaration) greater than the power of the other it seems. In other words, Jesus tells us to sell all we have AND . . .

 

If you wish to say that was only for the rich man, I understand. It's who the audience is that matters. But Peter spoke to a specific audience as well at Pentecost. Was it only specific for one and not the other? Is the conjuction only an "all or nothing" proposition when we want it to be? Just asking.

 

To be honest I believe that it is faith in Jesus Christ and profession of faith that saves. (Romans) Baptism is the expression of obedience and profession of that faith publically. It is not what saves us but it is the ultimate reaction to that faith. In other words it is not something you can easily dismiss as being optional. If at all humanly possible, one should follow through that faith in baptism before the body of Christ and the world. I've baptized an individual dying of AIDS who checked himself out of a hospital just to keep that appointment in that Sunday's worship service. He died 3 weeks later. I've also seen a man profess Christ who physically could not get out of his death bed and follow through with baptism. I believe his faith and salvation is just as genuine and real as the first.

To me the most important thing is admitting you are full of sin, and accepting Jesus Christ. As long as you have faith in Jesus I believe you are truly saved.

 

As far as doing what the Bible says, well, Christian or not, a man or woman should attempt to live by those morals and principles. None of us have ever read every book of the Bible, nor do we even know what they all are. The Catholic Church has had them locked away for more than a Millenium.

To me the most important thing is admitting you are full of sin, and accepting Jesus Christ. As long as you have faith in Jesus I believe you are truly saved.

 

As far as doing what the Bible says, well, Christian or not, a man or woman should attempt to live by those morals and principles. None of us have ever read every book of the Bible, nor do we even know what they all are. The Catholic Church has had them locked away for more than a Millenium.

 

:lol: Man, that's a conspiracy theory worthy of the Da Vinci Code.

:lol: Man, that's a conspiracy theory worthy of the Da Vinci Code.

 

I would give my first born to get a look at the Vatican Archives.

I would give my first born to get a look at the Vatican Archives.

 

Who wouldn't? But I honestly don't believe you will find some lost gospel that wasn't known prior. (Note: I said prior not Priory. )

 

We already have the Shepherd of Hermes, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, et al. They just didn't make the cut and with some pretty good reasons. :thumb:

Who wouldn't? But I honestly don't believe you will find some lost gospel that wasn't known prior. (Note: I said prior not Priory. )

 

We already have the Shepherd of Hermes, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, et al. They just didn't make the cut and with some pretty good reasons. :thumb:

 

Did you know the Book of Enoch only missed inclusion in the Canon by one vote. Yet the New Testament Book of Jude references it;and it was was only included in the Canon by one vote.

 

From what I have read the Book of Maccabees is really historically accurate.

Did you know the Book of Enoch only missed inclusion in the Canon by one vote. Yet the New Testament Book of Jude references it;and it was was only included in the Canon by one vote.

 

From what I have read the Book of Maccabees is really historically accurate.

 

Yes. Enoch was an intertestamental piece that was included in the Apocrypha. So it would have had less bearing on the NT and more than OT. While it is reference in Jude (and maybe other places), my guess is that since it had less to do with the NT church then it probably did not have enough momentum to carry the vote. If I'm not mistaken the early Church followed the Jewish councils decisions of what was canon and used that as guidelines. Since they did not include it, it had a harder time getting in the Christian canon. I would also add that the language (not written in Greek) might have been a barrier as well. However the work predates Christ and the early church tended to care less about those works.

 

Maccabees tells a great story of Jewish independence during the Macabbean revolt. It is more about narrative than prophetic or instructional.

Is the bold statement true?

 

What does the bible say?

Yes. Enoch was an intertestamental piece that was included in the Apocrypha. So it would have had less bearing on the NT and more than OT. While it is reference in Jude (and maybe other places), my guess is that since it had less to do with the NT church then it probably did not have enough momentum to carry the vote. If I'm not mistaken the early Church followed the Jewish councils decisions of what was canon and used that as guidelines. Since they did not include it, it had a harder time getting in the Christian canon. I would also add that the language (not written in Greek) might have been a barrier as well. However the work predates Christ and the early church tended to care less about those works.

 

Maccabees tells a great story of Jewish independence during the Macabbean revolt. It is more about narrative than prophetic or instructional.

 

Enoch isn't the only extra-biblical source that is referenced in the Bible. There are some others in both the Old and New Testament, right?

100% correct.....I don't believe a lot of stuff in the Bible, but that doesn't mean I'm not Christian.

 

What is some of the stuff in the Bible that you don't believe? Just curious.

Yes. Enoch was an intertestamental piece that was included in the Apocrypha. So it would have had less bearing on the NT and more than OT. While it is reference in Jude (and maybe other places), my guess is that since it had less to do with the NT church then it probably did not have enough momentum to carry the vote. If I'm not mistaken the early Church followed the Jewish councils decisions of what was canon and used that as guidelines. Since they did not include it, it had a harder time getting in the Christian canon. I would also add that the language (not written in Greek) might have been a barrier as well. However the work predates Christ and the early church tended to care less about those works.

 

Maccabees tells a great story of Jewish independence during the Macabbean revolt. It is more about narrative than prophetic or instructional.

 

If anyone has never read Enoch or Maccabees I suggest they do, Maccabees is a really cool historic narrative as Hatz said; and Enoch just has some really cool stuff in it.

I have read both Maccabees and Enoch and agree it is neat! Glad to be back everyone!

The Gospel of Thomas has stories of Jesus' youth, including one scene where he apparently shoots fireballs or lightning or something from his fingers.

The Gospel of Thomas has stories of Jesus' youth, including one scene where he apparently shoots fireballs or lightning or something from his fingers.

 

That is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, not the actual Gospel of Thomas.