Inerrant Lie #24

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The apostle “Paul,” (Saul of Tarsus) in his pastoral epistle to Titus, makes a strange statement for a Jew to make, considering Jews believe “the LORD” to be God. By his own admission, in verse 2 of chapter 1, “Paul” writes this epistle: "In the hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." 

In contrast to “Paul's” pastoral declaration to Titus concerning God's presumed limitations (“God… cannot lie”), Jesus of Nazareth purportedly puts no such restrictions on the power or the works of “God.” In verse 26 of the nineteenth chapter of his “Gospel,” the apostle Matthew alleges Jesus said, "with God all things are possible."

The difficulty of grasping anything the ‘Holy Bible' says on the subject of “God” is one never knows whom a given writer refers to “as God,” as it were. Not to mention: one never knows if the scribe who wrote a thing knew who a given speaker (Jesus of Nazareth, for instance) referred to when they spoke of “God.” Whenever the subject of “God” is brought up in “the Doctrine,” it is good counsel to keep the serpent’s riddle in mind: “Yea, hath God said?”

The rub here is that many passages of the 'Holy Bible' clearly declare “the LORD (who obviously– in “light” of the Doctrine– thinks He is God)” does lie. The LORD of the 'Holy Bible' clearly believes He is the only good; and the mutton of His pasture vehemently “Amen!” Him every time He says so. The sheeple of His sanctuary clearly believe the LORD innocent of all guile– even when they read in His ‘Holy Bible' the lies He taught His prophets to pass- on in His “name [Revelation 13:17].”

One of these is found in the first book of Samuel (the Levite prophet, judge, and priest- supplanter of Israel), in the sixteenth chapter. In the first verse of the chapter, the LORD tells Samuel to go to Bethlehem and anoint a new king– while Saul sits as king, having been so anointed as king by Samuel at the LORD’s insistence. When Samuel raises fear- based objection to the mission, the LORD tells him, “Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD [1 Samuel 16:2].”

But Samuel wasn't going to Bethlehem (sister- city to “Gibeah of Saul”) to sacrifice a heifer. Nor was Samuel being sent to Bethlehem to sacrifice a heifer by the Seditonist sending and counseling him to so say and do. Samuel went to Bethlehem with the express, rebellious intent to anoint a new king: in subversion of a current king whom the LORD himself chose to be king. The ways the LORD teaches lies are not always so “direct.”

In Exodus 32:10, the LORD says to Moses, "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against [the children of Israel], and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Thus (according to Moses) the LORD demanded Moses' permission twice in this one, limp- wristed command. Does God require man's permission for anything? Is it not an overt lie for “the LORD” to say He is God while overtly cowing to a man?

In Numbers 14:34, Moses records the LORD saying, "ye shall know my breach of promise;" thus promising to break an earlier promise. In American jurisprudence, this is referred to as, "setting precedent by breaking precedent." In other words: it's divorce. You can't pull on that string without unraveling all "the fine linen [which] is the righteousness of saints [Revelation 19:8c]."

In Genesis 22-- where New Testament writers say soteriology began, "that God,”-- "the angel of the LORD"-- rubber- stamps Abram’s [who was called “Abraham”] desire to murder children (his betters) in sacrifice to “God.” The apostle James says this predilection toward infanticide “justified [James 2:21]” Abram (called “Abraham”); and the apostle “Paul” calls “[Abram]... the father of us all [Romans 4:16].” What kind of “father” prefers murdering his own children at another's insistence above taking responsibility for his own mistakes? [“Abraham” argued for Sodom.]

This is nothing less than seditious false witness against God by the LORD “as God [2 Thessalonians 2:4, et. al.],” who allegedly made the man "not good [Genesis 2:18]," to begin with; and whom, presumably, “Paul” says “cannot lie.” From whom– if not “the LORD [God]”-- did Eve get the false impression it was God (who gave all the trees in the garden to man for food [Genesis 1:29]) who said “Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden [Genesis 3:1, et. al.]?”

In relative terms: If the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) had understood who- and- what God is: perhaps one could say “Paul” told the truth in the second verse of his epistle to Titus. If this were so, however, Jesus of Nazareth would have told a lie when he said “with God all things are possible [Matthew 19:26].” The set of “all things” (to speak in Jesus' mathematical terms) includes lying, after all. Lying is a thing. As it stands, perhaps both Jesus and “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) lied; and just perhaps they both did so knowingly.