Inerrant Lie #84

Another lie from “God’s ineffable, inerrant word”:

In his first pastoral epistle to Timothy, the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) writes to Timothy of “the mystery of godliness” in a manner which contradicts his own doctrine in at least one particular, and the wider doctrine of the canon of the 'Holy Bible' in a number of places.

Of this presumed mystery, “Paul” writes: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory [1 Timothy 3:16].” The lie, here, is the apostle’s obvious allusion to Jesus of Nazareth as being the one- and- only personification of “the mystery of godliness.”

The fact that “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) wrote 1 Timothy 3:16 in regard of Jesus of Nazareth is indicated in the way he presents his statement in the past- tense with the use of the verb “was” in the passage: “was… justified”; “was… seen”; “was… preached”; “was… believed”; “was… received.” Likewise, the subject matter of this epistle, generally, is Jesus of Nazareth. Ironically, Jesus of Nazareth may be one of those to whom “Paul's” statement concerning “the mystery of godliness” does not imply.

God is manifest in the flesh. If Jesus of Nazareth was (in the word of Isaiah) “Immanuel” (which is to say, “God with us”): this would mean Jesus was a normal man. He who is not God with us is the oddity. At least, that's how it's supposed to be. God made the earth to be inhabited; but inhabited by God's children– not by the children of the Devil. “Paul” should have known this.

It was, after all, none other than the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) who wrote to the church at Corinth: “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own [1 Corinthians 6:19]?” According to this query posed to the Corinthians, and in light of “Paul's” esteem of the Holy Ghost: every one in the church of Corinth was “Immanuel” (God with us). This knowledge of the “mystery of godliness” wasn't peculiar unto the apostle “Paul.”

Solomon, the son of the King of the Jews (a long time before Jesus was born), wrote concerning the moment of one’s death: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it [Ecclesiastes 12:7].” This is to say, without a God to represent: you wouldn't be reading this. Likewise, I wouldn't write it unless there is a God whom I am in this time and place (which I refer to as my self, or my soul). We are not vessels inhabited; but rather the spirit inhabiting these vessels.

The only way it could be otherwise is if we were not our own; if we had been bought by another, a possessing spirit (Genesis 14:19, et. al.); if we had sold ourselves (our souls) to another who isn't God; if we had given our lives to a homewrecker like Jesus or his father.

Inerrant Lie #83

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

Solomon the son of David was the final king over the twelve tribes of Israel. When Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, ascended the throne, his domestic policies caused a division in the tribes; leaving the line of David with two tribes (which are called one tribe: Judah) to rule, and the other ten tribes to fend for themselves.

While the throne in Jerusalem (after the demise of Saul, who was the original king of all the tribes of Israel; and a Benjamite) was passed down from father- to- son within the house of David: the throne over the ten separate tribes of Israel was the subject of a number of palace intrigues which necessarily crowned whichever reformer killed the previous king and wiped out his family line. The seat of this kingdom was the city of Samaria.

Ahab, who is perhaps the most infamous of all the kings who reigned over Israel in Samaria, was the son of Omri who killed Zimri to take the throne seven days after Zimri had killed Ela to likewise take the throne. Ahab died in Ramoth-gilead battling against the Syrians who had taken Ramoth-gilead from him. Ahaziah the son of Ahab was crowned king in Samaria at his father Ahab’s passing.

Now Ahaziah, having suffered an accident at home in Samaria, sent messengers to Ekron to enquire of Baal-zebub, one of the gods of the Philistines. For this inquiry, Ahaziah was reprimanded and cursed to die by the prophet Elijah. The record concerning Ahaziah’s inquiry of Baal-zebub and his presumably- resultant death is found in the first chapter of the second book of Kings.

2 Kings 1:17 says: “So [Ahaziah the son of Ahab] died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram [the son of Ahab] reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because [Ahaziah] had no son.” The lie, here, concerns the timing of Jehoram’s ascension to the throne of Samaria; and it's difficult to ascertain where the lie is found, what the lie is, and why the lie is told: given the number and conflicting nature of the accounts of Ahaziah's demise and Jehoram's ascension. The only obvious fact in this matter is that inconsistencies exist.

For instance, the first verse in the third chapter of the second book of Kings contradicts altogether the former statement at the end of the first chapter of the same book that Jehoram ascended the throne of Samaria in the second year of Jehoshaphat’s son, saying: “Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years [2 Kings 3:1].”

The difference, in years, between these two contradictory statements in Second Kings is no less than nine years, given that “Jehoshaphat… reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem [1 Kings 22:42].”

Inerrant Lie #82

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

In the tenth chapter of the book of Acts, the apostle Peter tells a lie about his dining habits at least once– probably three times– according to the apostle Luke, who wrote the book of Acts.

Luke tells us (in the book of Acts) that, while Peter was on the rooftop praying one day, he (Peter) saw a vision and heard a voice speaking to him. Luke writes that, while entranced, Peter “saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat [Acts 10:11 - 13].” In response to this imperative, Peter tells a lie, according to Luke.

“But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean [Acts 10:14].” According to the text of Acts 10, this exchange occurred three times. Whether or not Peter told the same lie thrice is left to the reader to discern. Nonetheless, according to earlier passages in the book of Acts, it was a lie every time it came out of Peter’s mouth that day.

In the second book of Acts, we are informed that immediately after Pentecost (which was the beginning of the churches of Christ) “all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart [Acts 2:44 - 46].” Food played no small role in this commonality of all things, as verse 46 of Acts 2 clearly verifies.

In the fourth chapter of Acts, this commonality of all things is reiterated, and by virtue of reiteration, reinforced when Luke writes again: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common [Acts 4:32].” It's worth noting that Peter was considered by all present to be the chief apostle at the time of this commonality, or communism.

Luke further describes the breaking of bread as key in the early communal church in his account of the martyrdom of Stephen. This martyrdom likewise occurred before Peter's rooftop menu conference with the cornucopia of creeping things and the voice of the Lord.

In Acts 6, one of the earliest schisms in church history is recorded. This schism occurred before the apostle Peter first proselytized Gentiles, so it would seem that when Luke speaks of “Grecians” in Acts 6, it is in regard of Jews who have resided in Greece. Be that as it may, the text of the first verse of chapter 6 informs that the commonality of all things wasn't as pervasive in the communal church as chapters 2 and 4 suggest it was. The Hebrew Christians were starving the Christian widows of Greece in what the apostle Luke refers to as “the daily ministration,” or the daily ministry.

When the complaints of the Grecians reach the new Dirty Dozen (the eleven disciples and Matthias), their response to the rift is to say: “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word [Acts 6:2 - 4].”

Pursuant to this word from the apostles, seven men were anointed to wait tables in the Christian commune. Whether or not Stephen’s martyrdom was the product of a conspiracy of greedy Hebrew Christians, it is a short trip of only three verses from Stephen's induction into the church ministry to the conspiracy which killed him.

Given that the breaking of common bread was (and frankly is) of such prominent concern to the church over which the apostle Peter presided, it seems disingenuous of Peter to blithely declare (after the martyrdom of Stephen, no less) “I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” as he did on the rooftop of the tanner Simon, according to the apostle Luke, in Acts chapter 10. However, regardless of whether Peter so lied on purpose or not, the ‘Holy Bible' bears the inconsistency of his purported word, and that's another lie from the Book of books.

Inerrant Lie #81

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

The night before king Saul died, he went to Endor to consult with a medium. The purpose of Saul's consultation with “the witch of Endor” (as she is commonly referred to) was to enquire of the recently- departed prophet and judge of Israel, Samuel (who had anointed Saul king) concerning the Philistines who were on the warpath against Israel.

Of Saul's death the following day, First Chronicles has this to say: "[Saul] inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse [1 Chronicles 10:14]." This, according to the first book of Samuel, is a lie.

In the same chapter of First Samuel which describes king Saul's consultation with the medium at Endor, it is alleged without equivocation that Saul sought counsel of the LORD, but the LORD refused to talk to the man He had commanded Samuel to anoint king of Israel. According to the twenty- eighth chapter of First Samuel, it was because the LORD refused to counsel Saul that Saul consulted the medium. First Samuel says: "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams nor by Urim, nor by prophets [1 Samuel 28:6].”

The truth about king Saul is that he never went to war without at least attempting to enquire of the LORD about it. Even when events conspired to make it impossible for Saul to enquire of the LORD before joining the battle [such as when Saul’s son Jonathan assaulted the garrison of the Philistines (1 Samuel 14) without first notifying anyone of his aggressive intent] king Saul would have “enquired of the LORD” had he had a chance to.

It was, in fact, king Saul's propensity for enquiring of the LORD before going to battle which purportedly caused the rift between him and Samuel (1 Samuel 13). Either way, 1 Chronicles 10:14 is a lie if 1 Samuel 28:6 isn't. Perhaps neither is altogether true.