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 #26

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

In the second chapter of his gospel, Saint John the Divine crosses a line when he writes (concerning Jesus of Nazareth and the Jews assembled in Jerusalem for Passover): "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men [John 2:24]."

Prima facie, this witness, “he knew all men,” seems true, relatively speaking, in respect of the “gospels” of murder- for- salvation written by Jesus’ apostles. On second glance, however, John the Divine's assessment of Jesus' knowledge of men might indicate the taint of Jesus' proclivities as gay, in light of passages such as Genesis 19:5– “[the men of Sodom] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men [the two angels] which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [Genesis 19:5].”

Jesus of Nazareth did seem to know everything and everyone, according to the apostolic records and traditions which are his only enduring representatives. Saying Jesus “knew all men,” however, contradicts Jesus' own testimony of himself, as handed down by the apostles; and frankly makes him sound gay (which he might be, if he ever existed).

In the seventeenth chapter of Jeremiah's prophecy, “the LORD” addresses “Judah [Jeremiah 16:21]”, thus: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it [Jeremiah 17:9]?" He goes on to explain the profundity of this statement in the next verse, saying; "I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Yet-- to the LORD-- the hearts of Judah (the tribe of Jesus' “father [Luke 1:32]” David, The King of the Jews) are beyond finding out.

Being a Jew, John the Divine was perhaps naturally inclined to regard all things Jewish favorably; but “Jesus'” own words refute John's assertion that Jesus "knew all men," if Jeremiah's don't. According to the apostle Matthew, Jesus of Nazareth dashed John the Divine’s assertion that Jesus “knew all men,” (along with many of the disciples’ expectations) to smithereens, when Jesus said to them: "Not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven [Matthew 7:21]."

In the next verse of Matthew 7, Jesus goes on to say, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works [verse 22, ibid.]?" Nonetheless, in respect of these things and John's assertion that Jesus “knew all men,” Matthew says Jesus went on to say: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [Matthew 7:23].”

“I never knew you.” Is Jesus a liar? If not, John the Divine must be. 

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.