What makes a Dispensation a Dispensation?

I am asking you HOW. What principles of interpretation are you following from them?

Faith in their words. That is what I us along with the law of no contradictions. That is all.

God's Word is complimentary to itself. No lies. No mistakes. All of it agrees with "itself."

I begin with God's intent in US (His Creation) and seek to learn of my Creator/Redeemer.

Gods intent in humanity is found in the very first chapter of Genesis.

"Let us make man in our own Image and after our own likeness."
 
I never said one thing about the Book of Enoch. I mentioned the book of Jude.

Uh huh.

Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied. (Do you know the significance of Enoch being the seventh from Adam? Adam, himself, lived seven generation before he died. The very man that experience the breath of God in his lungs lived to instruct Enoch.....and thus. Enoch preached................
I mentioned the preaching of Enoch. The seventh from Adam. We know what he preached and Dispensationalist can't stand it when someone brings him up.

But I digress...

So you don't believe Jude's words are Divinely Inspired?

I didn't say that.

You're basing this statement on Western Church nonsense. The Eastern Church has always dealt properly with Koine.

You're basing this statement on Eastern Church nonsense. Therefore, I can just handwave it away. (That "argument" didn't work out as well as you thought it did, did it?)

Provide the pedigree of the source text.

Biblia Hebraica. There's no dispute about the content of the source text.

Are you telling me that the apostles didn't have this knowledge?

I didn't say that.

If your choice in system causes you not believe what God says

I didn't say that.

So you're taking a different approach. Contrary to FSSL you must believe the apostles employed "systematic theology"?

I didn't say that.

You're contradicting yourself.

Wrong.

The Lord comes with ten thousands of His Saints......

What does that say to you?

That he was familiar with Deuteronomy 33.
 
Okay. I agree 100% with that post.

That doesn’t answer, specifically, how you interpret the Bible.

I use a historical/grammatical approach.
 
Uh huh. But I digress...

You assumed I was talking about the book of Enoch. I was talking about the book of Jude. In fact, I referenced the Book of Jude specifically by name. You can't provide a quote where I mentioned "The book of Enoch". I did mention Enoch. That is your mistake. Not mine.

You're right about digressing. You did leave the context of what I wrote.

I didn't say that.

You seemed to be tying Jude's words to a choice in multiple corrupt books claiming to be from Enoch. My mistake. Glad to know you trust what Jude wrote regardless of the extant condition of The Book of Enoch".

You're basing this statement on Eastern Church nonsense. Therefore, I can just handwave it away. (That "argument" didn't work out as well as you thought it did, did it?)

You made so such distinction in your comments. I add the distinction that should properly be recognized. English speaking cultures think the world revolves around THEM. Same is true of Christianity.

Biblia Hebraica
. There's no dispute about the content of the source text.

I disagree but it really doesn't matter. The point is mute and of little significance. The points I made are sufficient.


Its okay to be wrong. I do sometimes myself. When was your last mistake?

That he was familiar with Deuteronomy 33.

Since I've supposedly been "wrong" about so much. Can you give more detail before I find myself being "wrong" again trying to understand your vague comments?
 
Okay. I agree 100% with that post.

That doesn’t answer, specifically, how you interpret the Bible.

I use a historical/grammatical approach.

Combined with some flavor of dispensationalism.

I reject all systematic theologies. I'm a mix of several. I won't deny it. Somewhere in the middle you often find the Truth. I believe I have been fair to dispensationalism and what it involves. I wish this generation of humanity would stop thinking they know so much more than those before us. Humility isn't dispensationalism's "strong point".....
 
You assumed I was talking about the book of Enoch. I was talking about the book of Jude.

Which is quoting directly from Enoch 1:9. A book.

You seemed to be tying Jude's words to a choice in multiple corrupt books claiming to be from Enoch.

And you seem to be assuming he's quoting something the historical Enoch said but was unrecorded, rather than quoting a pseudepigraphal book known to first-century Jews. He is directly quoting Enoch 1:9. The book claims to be from the seventh from Adam (60:8).

My mistake. Glad to know you trust what Jude wrote regardless of the extant condition of The Book of Enoch".

I do in fact trust what Jude wrote, which is not dependent on the provenance of the book of Enoch.

I disagree but it really doesn't matter.

I agree that your disagreements don't really matter.

Its okay to be wrong. I do sometimes myself. When was your last mistake?

You used the word "mute" earlier when you meant "moot." I mistakenly forgot to correct you a few moments ago when I deleted it.

Since I've supposedly been "wrong" about so much. Can you give more detail before I find myself being "wrong" again trying to understand your vague comments?

Guess you didn't even bother reading Deuteronomy 33, and comparing it to Enoch 1:9 and Jude 14-15. Wilful ignorance on your part doesn't constitute vagary on mine.
 
Which is quoting directly from Enoch 1:9. A book.

That is your belief but its not accurate. Enoch narrative was a part of the oral traditions passed down through multiple generations throughout history. The "Books" that bear His name are no doubt Pseudepigrapha.

And you seem to be assuming he's quoting something the historical Enoch said but was unrecorded, rather than quoting a pseudepigraphal book known to first-century Jews. He is directly quoting Enoch 1:9. The book claims to be from the seventh from Adam (60:8).

Did Enoch live before the great flood? You're the one making an "astronomical" assumption that such a written narrative would survive extant and reliable through to the 1st century Jew.

I do in fact trust what Jude wrote, which is not dependent on the provenance of the book of Enoch.

So you connect it and then disconnect it. Seems rather poor method on your part. I've disconnected it from the beginning. What Jude wrote was Inspired by God. As such, regardless of what you consider the source, it is reliable and authoritative.

I agree that your disagreements don't really matter.

The subject was your self attested digression. No need to deflect.

You used the word "mute" earlier when you meant "moot." I mistakenly forgot to correct you a few moments ago when I deleted it.

Okay....... Your comments carry no voice on the matter. I don't consider it "hypothetical". I see a distinction worth noting. Some do not.

Guess you didn't even bother reading Deuteronomy 33, and comparing it to Enoch 1:9 and Jude 14-15. Wilful ignorance on your part doesn't constitute vagary on mine.

No. I just want you to be clear so you can't complain later. I would appear you do this often and enjoy razzing others. I've read Deut 33 plenty of times. If you'll make your point clear, I'll be glad to comment.

You seem not to want to admit what Jude was preaching was concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and His Saints. I think I know why, but you'll just say I'm make assumptions. No need to play such games. Be clear. I have.
 
That is your belief but its not accurate. Enoch narrative was a part of the oral traditions passed down through multiple generations throughout history. The "Books" that bear His name are no doubt Pseudepigrapha.

Yes, they are. And how do you know that the quotation from Jude comes from an oral tradition and not, as all the visible evidence suggests, a book of the Pseudepigrapha?

Did Enoch live before the great flood? You're the one making an "astronomical" assumption that such a written narrative would survive extant and reliable through to the 1st century Jew.

Why would a pseudepigraphal book attributed to Enoch need to have survived from the flood to the first century? It only needed to be available to Jude. And we know it is pre-Christian, as it was also amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Have you been spending too much time around UGC? His talent for misunderstanding and/or misconstruing other people's posts seems to be catching.

So you connect it and then disconnect it. Seems rather poor method on your part. I've disconnected it from the beginning. What Jude wrote was Inspired by God. As such, regardless of what you consider the source, it is reliable and authoritative.

Jude was inspired by God, including his use of any quotations of extrabiblical material. I assume you don't regard Epimenides and Aratus as inspired prophets, just because Paul quoted them within inspired Scripture.
 
Yes, they are. And how do you know that the quotation from Jude comes from an oral tradition and not, as all the visible evidence suggests, a book of the Pseudepigrapha?

I can't reasonably believe that Jude got his knowledge from a falsely attributed/corrupted book. I expect him to be smarter than such.

Why would a pseudepigraphal book attributed to Enoch need to have survived from the flood to the first century? It only needed to be available to Jude. And we know it is pre-Christian, as it was also amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So you believe it was copied generation through generation to Jude? It is rather evident that Moses was given information that reconstructed information that was lost to generations before Him.

Have you been spending too much time around UGC? His talent for misunderstanding and/or misconstruing other people's posts seems to be catching.

I haven't spent as much time around him as you have. Must be rubbing off on you.

Jude was inspired by God, including his use of any quotations of extrabiblical material. I assume you don't regard Epimenides and Aratus as inspired prophets, just because Paul quoted them within inspired Scripture.

No. Nor do I consider Paul's mention of their comments to be on the "same level" as quoting Enoch.

You seem to still be avoiding the issue. Did Enoch reference the Lord Jesus Christ before the flood? Did He also call those in Christ Jesus "Saints"?
 
I can't reasonably believe that Jude got his knowledge from a falsely attributed/corrupted book. I expect him to be smarter than such.

And where did the author of the "falsely attributed/corrupted book" get his knowledge? The book pre-dates Jude and says the same thing.

Ordinary old parsimony would suggest that Jude, by inspiration, found truth in a book known to his contemporaries, and quoted it (Enoch 1:9), citing its purported author (Enoch 60:8). Not that he was somehow the special recipient of knowledge of an oral prophecy from Enoch that, just coincidentally, happens to be the same as the one in the "falsely attributed/corrupted book."

So you believe it was copied generation through generation to Jude? It is rather evident that Moses was given information that reconstructed information that was lost to generations before Him.

It's no different from the Apocrypha in that respect: noncanonical Jewish religious literature of the intertestamental period. The only significant difference is that Enoch purports to be from an ancient historical figure, and hence it is classified as a pseudepigraph. Other than that, why is it so surprising that an ancient Jewish religious work survived by being copied generation to generation? Esdras survived, so why not Enoch?

No. Nor do I consider Paul's mention of their comments to be on the "same level" as quoting Enoch.

Which proves nothing, except that you are guilty of special pleading--only you're too intellectually lazy to bother explaining why quoting Epimenides as "a prophet of their own" (Titus 1:12) is somehow different from saying pseudo-Enoch "prophesied" (Jude 14).

You seem to still be avoiding the issue. Did Enoch reference the Lord Jesus Christ before the flood? Did He also call those in Christ Jesus "Saints"?

How would I know? There is no record of anything the historical Enoch might have said or written. There's a book bearing his name written pseudonymously in the third century BC, whose author would have no knowledge of Christ, and seems to be writing a midrash on Deuteronomy 33.

Since your question assumes Jude is citing a genuine prophecy of the historical Enoch and requires me to share your assumption, it is loaded, and therefore invalid.
 
And where did the author of the "falsely attributed/corrupted book" get his knowledge? The book pre-dates Jude and says the same thing.

Oral tradition. Which is what I said several posts ago. Did you forget?

Ordinary old parsimony would suggest that Jude, by inspiration, found truth in a book known to his contemporaries, and quoted it (Enoch 1:9), citing its purported author (Enoch 60:8). Not that he was somehow the special recipient of knowledge of an oral prophecy from Enoch that, just coincidentally, happens to be the same as the one in the "falsely attributed/corrupted book."

People are always taking things from oral traditions and using them for their own advantage. They simply took an oral tradition and put it paper. Much like the writer of proverbs did. Are you familiar with the book of Proverbs? or maybe Psalms?

It is very likely that what Moses received on the mountain, that comprised of the first 5 books of the bible, was largely a more detailed retelling of what was already known to the descendants of Abraham.

It's no different from the Apocrypha in that respect: noncanonical Jewish religious literature of the intertestamental period. The only significant difference is that Enoch purports to be from an ancient historical figure, and hence it is classified as a pseudepigraph. Other than that, why is it so surprising that an ancient Jewish religious work survived by being copied generation to generation? Esdras survived, so why not Enoch?

Esdra and Enoch are MANY centuries removed from one another.

I have never meet a single person that believe that the book of Enoch was a written account passed down from generation to generation from before the great flood. I do know some assemblies in Africa claim such but no one really believes them.

Which proves nothing, except that you are guilty of special pleading--only you're too intellectually lazy to bother explaining why quoting Epimenides as "a prophet of their own" (Titus 1:12) is somehow different from saying pseudo-Enoch "prophesied" (Jude 14).

Enoch got his words from God. Epimendies simply quoted something that was true that came from a secondary source. Such is rather obvious. When someone speaks words that are imparted Divinely through them, we call that "inspiration". Paul simply quoted something that was true but not from Divine "impartation". BIG difference.

How would I know? There is no record of anything the historical Enoch might have said or written. There's a book bearing his name written pseudonymously in the third century BC, whose author would have no knowledge of Christ, and seems to be writing a midrash on Deuteronomy 33.

I reject your 3 century BC claim and ask the same question "How would you know"?

John Gill disagrees with you. Not that I follow John Gill but I'm not alone in my determination that BOTH the words of Enoch as referenced by Jude and Moses are concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since your question assumes Jude is citing a genuine prophecy of the historical Enoch and requires me to share your assumption, it is loaded, and therefore invalid.

I've explained a very viable solution. A solution accepted by historically extolled theologians before me.

God preached before the Gospel to Abraham. The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The same apostles that made those claims is the one who wrote Romans Chapter 1..... wherein he declared the Gospel was known to the old world before the flood.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Notice the words... "turned the truth of God into a lie".....

Which is WHY... You find narratives of a "son of God" dying in ancient cultural writings that predate the Torah.

What was known to that old world was rejected and turned into a lie. Yet survived through the children of Noah into what we find today. A "sliver" of truth that spread through cultures as they expanded around this world after the flood.

The idea that we've gradually become the most knowledgeable Christians that have lived on this earth is a lie propagated by such teachings found in Dispensationalism.

There has been more truth LOST to history than WE could every know. God continually has to keep showing up and saving man from himself or there wouldn't have been any thing left a long time ago.
 
Oral tradition. Which is what I said several posts ago. Did you forget?
You didn't provide any proof that Jude was quoting oral tradition instead of a book. So I didn't forget, I just discounted it as an assertion made without any support.
People are always taking things from oral traditions and using them for their own advantage.
"You don't say," I remarked to the person asserting a quote found in a book was actually taken from oral tradition.
Esdra and Enoch are MANY centuries removed from one another.
The book of Enoch is ONE century removed from Esdra, more or less.
I have never meet a single person that believe that the book of Enoch was a written account passed down from generation to generation from before the great flood.
And who, in this discussion, is asserting that the book of Enoch was passed down from the time of the flood? Are you trying to argue with me, or your retarded imaginary friend?
Enoch got his words from God.
. . . he said, again assuming without evidence that the "Enoch" quoted in Jude is the historic, antedeluvian Enoch.
Epimendies simply quoted something that was true that came from a secondary source. Such is rather obvious.
Rather obvious, like your circular reasoning, you mean?
When someone speaks words that are imparted Divinely through them, we call that "inspiration". Paul simply quoted something that was true but not from Divine "impartation". BIG difference.
It's only a "BIG difference" when you don't start with your unsupported assumption that Jude is quoting the actual patriarch Enoch, instead of a book written pseudonymously in his name. You have yet to establish that with any sort of evidence. ("Because I say so" doesn't count.)
John Gill disagrees with you.
And how do you suppose Gill would know what the complete book of Enoch said? He died before it was introduced to England.
 
Last edited:
treasure_unseen made it a point a couple of times that Dispensationalists have difficulty with Enochs message.

Treasure_unseen has problems with it.
 
treasure_unseen made it a point a couple of times that Dispensationalists have difficulty with Enochs message.

Treasure_unseen has problems with it.

Says the man who refuses to go line by line to deal with my comments. I remember you have a problem with UGC doing the same and now you're doing the exact same thing. Just one liners in a "hit and run" model.
 
You didn't provide any proof that Jude was quoting oral tradition instead of a book. So I didn't forget, I just discounted it as an assertion made without any support.

"You don't say," I remarked to the person asserting a quote found in a book was actually taken from oral tradition.

The book of Enoch is ONE century removed from Esdra, more or less.

And who, in this discussion, is asserting that the book of Enoch was passed down from the time of the flood? Are you trying to argue with me, or your retarded imaginary friend?

. . . he said, again assuming without evidence that the "Enoch" quoted in Jude is the historic, antedeluvian Enoch.

Rather obvious, like your circular reasoning, you mean?

It's only a "BIG difference" when you don't start with your unsupported assumption that Jude is quoting the actual patriarch Enoch, instead of a book written pseudonymously in his name. You have yet to establish that with any sort of evidence. ("Because I say so" doesn't count.)

And how do you suppose Gill would know what the complete book of Enoch said? He died before it was introduced to England.
I'm going to deal with what Ransom wrote but I would like to point out that he is leaving out large portions of my responses while I'm dealing with everything he says... line by line. He's purposely avoiding vast amounts of information I'm providing.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to deal with what Ransom wrote but I would like to point out that he is leaving out large portions of my responses while I'm dealing with everything he says... line by line. He's purposely avoiding vast amounts of information I'm providing.
If I'm "purposely avoiding vast amounts of information," please rest assured it's only because it's irrelevant, specious, based on false premises, straw men, or oblivious to my actual arguments.
 
You didn't provide any proof that Jude was quoting oral tradition instead of a book. So I didn't forget, I just discounted it as an assertion made without any support.

You've provided no proof that Enoch words were a written narrative that survived the flood and was subsequently copied from generation to generation. I have provide a valid explanation that far more reasonable to common sense than to believe a written narrative has survived, There is no such thing in all the history of humanity. Yet, you want us to believe it happened.

"You don't say," I remarked to the person asserting a quote found in a book was actually taken from oral tradition.

Happens all the time and I gave an example in the words found in the Torah. Abraham didn't leave his immediate descendants without witness to what he was given by God. To believe such it absolute nonsense and contrary to common biblical sense.

The book of Enoch is ONE century removed from Esdra, more or less.

You're comparing the extant evidence. I'm comparing the timeline of its origin. If the book of Enoch came from a written origin. Then the written origin would be many centuries before Esdra. You're being dishonest with the evidence.

And who, in this discussion, is asserting that the book of Enoch was passed down from the time of the flood? Are you trying to argue with me, or your retarded imaginary friend?

I don't see why you would imply such. It would appear that you're getting angry. This is common with someone like yourself. You can't deal with the evidence. Thus, you become rude and descend into childish tactics. Yes, Oral traditions survive from generation to generation among Godly people. They usually desire to pass what they know on to subsequent generations in a more detail sense than to pass on every changing lies like the children of those who don't know God.

It's only a "BIG difference" when you don't start with your unsupported assumption that Jude is quoting the actual patriarch Enoch, instead of a book written pseudonymously in his name. You have yet to establish that with any sort of evidence. ("Because I say so" doesn't count.)

Jude said he was quoting Enoch. I believe Jude. Do I need to post Jude's words again.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

See. You can believe the Scriptures instead of fabricating the lie you're trying to sell as the Truth. I believe the Scriptures. I don't believe you. You lie. They do not.

And how do you suppose Gill would know what the complete book of Enoch said? He died before it was introduced to England.

Not true. You having an problem with being honest.

I quote John Gill

wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration, and is as follows:

Now, You either didn't know this, ( you should) or you purposely lied about it. I think I'm going to choose the latter because you obvious are moral suspect.
 
Last edited:
If I'm "purposely avoiding vast amounts of information," please rest assured it's only because it's irrelevant, specious, based on false premises, straw men, or oblivious to my actual arguments.

So says every cult leader that has ever lead anyone astray.

I believe the Scriptures. I don't believe you. Have you read Isaiah recently?

Isa 28:9 “To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast?
Isa 28:10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line,
:
 
Says the man who refuses to go line by line to deal with my comments. I remember you have a problem with UGC doing the same and now you're doing the exact same thing. Just one liners in a "hit and run" model.

Since you just said that “Dispensationalists don’t know how to handle Enoch” and “Dispensationalists lack humility” without give me an example I was asking about.

Don’t shove out one-liners if you don’t like them.
 
You've provided no proof that Enoch words were a written narrative that survived the flood and was subsequently copied from generation to generation.

Well, if you're ever feeling ignored, it's ignorant assertions like this one that you can thank.

Please show me where I have ever said Enoch's words were a written narrative that survived the flood. Until you do that, or tell the truth about what I've been saying about Enoch, it's pointless trying to reason with you since you are either stupid or lying.

Put up, or shut up.
 
Top