You can find meaning of life, objective truth, forgiveness of sins, in the Lord Jesus Christ...

If Enoch was inspired, why is it not in the Bible?

God bless you too my friend!
Never said it was inspired

It's superfluous information.

>which Enoch says he learned in heaven FROM GOD/JESUS
Not (you)?

yes thats me

How can the teachings of Jesus be objective truth when the bible that preaches his coming is a mess of self-contradiction?

So, if Enoch got his shit from God, how is his book not inspired. And if it is, why is it not in the bible?

gotta give an example
if you overwhelm me with 20 then I'm not going to reply but if you really want to talk then give me your strongest one.
The parts he got from God could be considered divinely inspired, but that doesn't necessarily mean God intended it to be in the bible. God can give revelation to whomever he wants

>gotta give an example
Just want one? How many generations are between David and Jechoniah/Jechonias? Matthew 1 gives 14. Chronicles 3 gives 18.

thats not a contradiction. Matthew skips. There was also a split in Davids family tree legally through Jewish marriage law shenanigans which explains the differences between Matt and Luke

>So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

It is a contradiction, and he's very deliberately distorting the "historical" record to come up with his magical 14 generations between important happenings. But yeah, that's cool, just ignore a couple of generations so you get to the number that it's supposed to be.

Jews were very meticulous record keepers and Matthew was writing primarily for a Jewish audience so a deliberate distortion would have made it easily refutable by the Jewish leaders

>Jews were very meticulous record keepers
[citation needed]

>and Matthew was writing primarily for a Jewish audience
Truly, which is why it's in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic.

>so a deliberate distortion would have made it easily refutable by the Jewish leaders
You ever wonder why Christianity was so much more popular among Gentiles than among Jews? Hint, it's because of all these problems between the OT and the NT.

The first Christians were Hellenistic Jews, thats why they'd read it in Greek
It spread through Rome quickly because Christ commanded the apostles to teach it to those outside of Israel after he resurrected
its obvious the Jews would keep a record of David's line because the Messiah was expected through his seed

>The first Christians were Hellenistic Jews, thats why they'd read it in Greek
[citation needed]
>It spread through Rome quickly because Christ commanded the apostles to teach it to those outside of Israel after he resurrected
YOu mean Paul spread it throughout the Gentiles, and incidentally, made up a bunch of stuff. (by the way, why is an "expert" Pharisee unable to tell the difference between a paschal offering and a sin offering? Why does he think the entire purpose of the Temple was for sin offerings? Does the coming of Jesus mean that people no longer need to give thanks or make peace or devote the fruits of labor to God?)

>its obvious the Jews would keep a record of David's line because the Messiah was expected through his seed
It's not obvious at all. There's no mention of anyone doing any such thing in the Old Testament, or any other history by anyone.

read acts
What are you saying about Paul? He was a liar? What would he gain from lying?
yes there is, we're talking about such records right now.

>read acts
Really? What about Acts says that the first Jews were hellenists? Acts only takes up the narrative once Jesus dies, and you have about 120 "families" worth of Christians already, many of whom are from Galilee. Are you saying Galilee was particularly hellenized? I don't know what you're basing that on.

>What are you saying about Paul? He was a liar?
Pretty much.

>What would he gain from lying?
Beats the hell out of me, but it's pretty apparent, given that he's profoundly ignorant of even basic stuff.

>yes there is, we're talking about such records right now.
What records? There are no records, and there's not even a mention of such outside Christian apologetics like you who say that they "obviously" existed because your heads are so far up your own asses you need clear navels to be able to see, but can never actually source to any.

...

next

cont

continuation

suivant

the next one

Fin

is this gnosticism or something

Valentinian gnosticism

>Valentinian gnosticism

No
There is no god but god