- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:14 pm to AlterEd
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:14 pm to AlterEd
You are asserting that conclusion, not proving it. Reports of unusual experiences across cultures do not logically establish “latent divine abilities.” At most, they establish that humans across cultures report unusual experiences. Again… Those are very different claims.
And no, the distinction is not “made up out of thin air.” The distinction comes directly from the biblical text itself. Again, Acts 3:12 is explicit. Peter literally denies that the miracle occurred by their own power or holiness. Christianity consistently attributes miracles to God acting through people, not to humans possessing inherent divinity.
You are also importing your conclusion into “image of God.” Historically, Judaism and Christianity never interpreted that phrase to mean humans are divine beings with godlike powers waiting to awaken. That is a later Gnostic or esoteric reading layered onto the text… and saying “Christianity is not special because miracle claims exist elsewhere” does not solve the issue either. Christianity already acknowledges that supernatural phenomena can exist outside the Church. The biblical question is not merely whether something supernatural occurs, but what its source, meaning, and authority are. You keep treating “unexplained” and “divine human potential” as interchangeable concepts. They are not interchangeable.
And no, the distinction is not “made up out of thin air.” The distinction comes directly from the biblical text itself. Again, Acts 3:12 is explicit. Peter literally denies that the miracle occurred by their own power or holiness. Christianity consistently attributes miracles to God acting through people, not to humans possessing inherent divinity.
You are also importing your conclusion into “image of God.” Historically, Judaism and Christianity never interpreted that phrase to mean humans are divine beings with godlike powers waiting to awaken. That is a later Gnostic or esoteric reading layered onto the text… and saying “Christianity is not special because miracle claims exist elsewhere” does not solve the issue either. Christianity already acknowledges that supernatural phenomena can exist outside the Church. The biblical question is not merely whether something supernatural occurs, but what its source, meaning, and authority are. You keep treating “unexplained” and “divine human potential” as interchangeable concepts. They are not interchangeable.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:18 pm to AlterEd
I predict this disclosure will have literally no affect on the Bible whatsoever.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:20 pm to AlterEd
Jude quoting Enoch does not make Enoch Scripture any more than Paul quoting pagan poets in Acts 17 makes Greek poetry Scripture. Biblical authors sometimes quote or reference non inspired sources their audience would recognize. That only means the specific point being referenced is useful or familiar, not that the entire work is divinely inspired.
And yes, the Ethiopian Church includes Enoch in its canon, but the overwhelming majority of the early non-heretical Church did not recognize it as Scripture, and it was never accepted into the Catholic canon or the broader historic Christian canon shared by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.
Even many early Christians who found Enoch interesting still distinguished between “valuable to read” and “divinely inspired Scripture.” Those are not the same category. So no, “Jude quoted it” is not evidence that the early Church universally viewed Enoch as inspired. That argument is far too simplistic.
There were plenty of ideas in early Christianity that were shot down by the Church Christ founded. That doesn’t mean the early Church accepted it, just that there has always been heretics.
And yes, the Ethiopian Church includes Enoch in its canon, but the overwhelming majority of the early non-heretical Church did not recognize it as Scripture, and it was never accepted into the Catholic canon or the broader historic Christian canon shared by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.
Even many early Christians who found Enoch interesting still distinguished between “valuable to read” and “divinely inspired Scripture.” Those are not the same category. So no, “Jude quoted it” is not evidence that the early Church universally viewed Enoch as inspired. That argument is far too simplistic.
There were plenty of ideas in early Christianity that were shot down by the Church Christ founded. That doesn’t mean the early Church accepted it, just that there has always been heretics.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:21 pm to METAL
quote:
You are asserting that conclusion, not proving it. Reports of unusual experiences across cultures do not logically establish “latent divine abilities.”
When they're doing the same things Jesus did, yes, it does. After all, these are the reasons people claim that Jesus was divine. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
And what culture do you want me to give examples of people performing miracles similar to Jesus's from? The list is exhaustive.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:23 pm to METAL
quote:
And yes, the Ethiopian Church includes Enoch in its canon,
This could have been your entire post and you could have just said, "yeah, you're correct."
The Ethiopian church has included Enoch in its canon literally since before Rome adopted Christianity.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:23 pm to AlterEd
quote:
And what culture do you want me to give examples of people performing miracles similar to Jesus's from? The list is exhaustive.
Scripture says unsaved people can do miracles.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:25 pm to AlterEd
quote:
The Bible clearly talks about ...
That sentence alone is humorous.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:26 pm to Canon951
If you believed in one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church, you would understand.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:28 pm to Snipe
quote:
If you believed in one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church, you would understand.
Do tell?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:28 pm to AlterEd
People do not believe Jesus is divine merely because miracle claims exist around Him. The Christian claim is cumulative… His fulfillment of prophecy, authority to forgive sins, resurrection, claims about Himself, identification with Yahweh, conquest over death, and miracles together form the case.
Miracles alone do not prove divinity. Moses performed miracles… Elijah performed miracles…. The apostles performed miracles. None of them were considered God. So even if similar miracle claims exist elsewhere, that does not logically establish “latent human divinity.” It only establishes that miracle claims are widespread.
And on Enoch, no, that was not my whole point because your original claim was about the early Church broadly recognizing Enoch as inspired. The Ethiopian canon is an exception, not the universal historic position of Christianity. You went from:
“the early Church considered Enoch inspired” to “Ethiopia includes Enoch.”
Those are not the same claim. The fact that one ancient church tradition retained Enoch does not mean the broader Church universally accepted it as Scripture.
Miracles alone do not prove divinity. Moses performed miracles… Elijah performed miracles…. The apostles performed miracles. None of them were considered God. So even if similar miracle claims exist elsewhere, that does not logically establish “latent human divinity.” It only establishes that miracle claims are widespread.
And on Enoch, no, that was not my whole point because your original claim was about the early Church broadly recognizing Enoch as inspired. The Ethiopian canon is an exception, not the universal historic position of Christianity. You went from:
“the early Church considered Enoch inspired” to “Ethiopia includes Enoch.”
Those are not the same claim. The fact that one ancient church tradition retained Enoch does not mean the broader Church universally accepted it as Scripture.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:30 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
That sentence alone is humorous
It's true whether you like it or not.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:31 pm to METAL
No. He made up some doctrine and I'm asking him to expound on it. He started my curiosity by attacking eternal security in a UFO thread.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:31 pm to AlterEd
Ignore the atheists that mock us. Have dialogue with the decent ones and the others can read our conversation.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:32 pm to METAL
quote:
You went from:
“the early Church considered Enoch inspired” to “Ethiopia includes Enoch.”
Those are not the same claim.
They literally are the same thing.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:32 pm to Canon951
Guess I overlooked it. What doctrine did he get wrong?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:33 pm to AlterEd
The concept that the Bible "clearly" says anything is the root of all manner of divisions and fracases.
True, whether you like it or not
True, whether you like it or not
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:35 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
The concept that the Bible "clearly" says anything is the root of all manner of divisions and fracases.
This is the full comment you're taking issue with.
quote:
He isn't even correct. The Bible clearly talks about hybrids and beings other than humans.
^^ this cannot be debated because the scripture is crystal clear. The "Sons of God" came to Earth, took human wives, and created a race of hybrid giants called the Nephilim.
Anyone who thinks this is either wrong or in any way ambiguous, I'm guessing simply hasn't read the Bible or is just full of shite.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:37 pm to METAL
quote:
Guess I overlooked it. What doctrine did he get wrong?
He said the UFO disclosure is going to reveal to one saved always saved people that they are wrong. Not sure how he came to that conclusion. When I defended eternal security, which is biblical, he said that believers that willfully sin or fail to amend their ways will not be forgiven in this life or the next. I'm trying to find that in my bible.
In another thread a while back he claimed scriptures clearly intended for the Pharisees from a simple reading of the passage was referring to protestant eternal security types like me or those that reject the catholic church and it's teaching. It was something to that extent.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 5:37 pm to AlterEd
No, they literally are not… “The early Church considered Enoch inspired” is a universal historical claim about Christianity broadly.
“Ethiopia includes Enoch” is a claim about one church tradition. Those are different categories entirely. That would be like saying… “the early Church believed X” and then proving it by citing one regional tradition while ignoring the fact that most of Christianity did not accept it.
The Ethiopian canon demonstrates that some Christians accepted Enoch. It does not demonstrate that the early Church universally or even broadly recognized it as inspired Scripture. Those are very different historical claims.
“Ethiopia includes Enoch” is a claim about one church tradition. Those are different categories entirely. That would be like saying… “the early Church believed X” and then proving it by citing one regional tradition while ignoring the fact that most of Christianity did not accept it.
The Ethiopian canon demonstrates that some Christians accepted Enoch. It does not demonstrate that the early Church universally or even broadly recognized it as inspired Scripture. Those are very different historical claims.
Popular
Back to top


1





