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.

Inerrant Lie #18

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

The unknown writer of Hebrews writes: "Though [Jesus of Nazareth] were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered [crucifixion being one such]; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey [Hebrews 5:8 & 9]."

In Hebrews 4:15, the same anonymous author writes of Jesus of Nazareth that he "...was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." If this latter word (which precedes the former, in situ) were true, Jesus wasn't learning obedience (as is asserted in Hebrews 5:8); but rather teaching the same; and Hebrews 5:8 is a lie.

The writer of Hebrews also alleges the suffering (Crucifixion included) inflicted on Jesus was instrumental in making Jesus perfect. Was anyone “made perfect (Hebrews 5:9)” by the things Jesus suffered? Isaiah wrote (presumably of Jesus’ sufferings before Jesus was born), “...with his stripes we are healed [Isaiah 53:5].” But where's the healing when those whose suffering is inflicted on another think the one being afflicted with their own suffering is the one responsible for learning something from the corrective experience?

The apostle Luke says Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children [Luke 23:28]” on the day of his crucifixion. Is that the voice of salvation?

Inerrant Lie #10

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

Moses, in relating the tale of Joseph's being sold as human traffic by his brothers, mentions two families of the children of Abraham's concubine wives (Hagar and Keturah): Ishmael and Midian, respectively.

In Genesis 37:27 (after the sons of Israel had cast Joseph into a pit to secure him while they brainstormed how best to murder him), Judah, pondering the traffic passing their location, comes up with a devious plot to wash his and his brothers' hands of Joseph's blood, saying: "Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh." With Judah’s ‘wonderful counsel’, all his brothers (except Reuben, who was ‘pinching- off a loaf’ elsewhere, and Joseph, who was perhaps following Reuben's lead) were content.

Human trafficking was apparently-- even in those primitive days-- always a tricky business, judging by the convoluted nature of the next verse. But as near as I can make out, Joseph's brothers (likely feigning impoverishment of rope and no knowledge of who Joseph was) pointed him and the aforementioned passing Ishmeelites out to some Midianites, who were also passing by that way; probably suggesting to the Midianites that there was money to be made: 'if only they had rope to pull poor Joe up out of the pit before he died of thirst, starvation, or both.'

My guess is: Joe's bros made no money on the transaction, and are therefore not counted by Moses (who wrote Genesis) as responsible for Joeseph's sale in Egypt; though Moses does credit both of Abe's un- covenanted- though- circumcised, participatory families with the same, in an oddly dissimulating way.

In Genesis 37:36, Moses writes, "And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard." This makes it seem the Ishmeelites were, frankly, uninvolved. Two chapters later, however, Moses changes his story, making it seem the Midianites were uninvolved. "And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither [Genesis 39:1].”

I don't know which of these explanations is the lie. Obviously one of them is, if both aren't. [It was, after all, Joe's brothers who were ultimately responsible.] However Joe got to Egypt, whether compliments of the Midianites or of the Ishmeelites: it was (through the common patriarch Abraham) family business– from ‘sold- out’ to "Sold!"-- that expedited Joseph's sale to the Egyptians. Moses, who-- according to “the Word of God”-- is ‘the accuser of his brethren [John 5:45]’, said so.

Inerrant Lie #7

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

This one is found in Numbers.Verse 7 of chapter 31 says, "And [the children of Israel] warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." This explicitly describes a holocaust of consecration. There is no “seed” left to the house of Midian, minus the male loins necessary to produce it. Yet the Midianites show back up-- in power-- years later.

As Judges 6 records, "the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel: and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds [Judges 6:2]."

From the Midianites they were saved by Gideon and his three hundred, as Judges 8:22 affirms, saying, "Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian." How could the children of Israel be saved from a nation which officially doesn't exist, as per Numbers 31:7 (above)?

Obviously Moses' scribe lied when recording the 'killing of all the males of Midian' in Numbers 31. This should come as no surprise, considering that, for Moses, killing all the males of Midian would have required the execution of his own father- in- law, the priest of Midian [Exodus 18:1], and Moses’ mentor in all things “holy.”

Inerrant Lie #6

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

This lie occurs in regards to the calling of the apostles Andrew and Peter into Jesus' discipleship.

Matthew 4:18- 20 recounts their calling this way: "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him."

Mark 1:16- 20 records the event exactly as Matthew 4; while Luke 5:1- 11 records the event similarly only inasmuch as Luke says it occurred near water, ships, and nets: though all other particulars-- including the name by which the body of water where it occurred is referred to; what the brothers were doing with the nets; and the roll the ships played-- are completely otherwise: according to Luke.

John (the Divine; not the Baptist) on the other hand, records the event thusly: "Again the next day after John [the Baptist] stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples [of John Baptist] heard him speak, and they followed Jesus... One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ [John 1:35- 37, 40, & 41]."

Clearly, at least one of these gospels is lying, if they all aren't.

Inerrant Lie #5

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

Psalm 51 is sub- titled "A psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bath- Sheba." Notice two things: this psalm is written not only after Davey's adulterous fling with Bath- Sheba and the subsequent murder of Uriah the Hittite; but also after the LORD sent Nathan to reprove and curse him for his indiscretion.

The lie occurs in the beginning of verse 4. Davey writes, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight..." The rest of the verse is sheer lunacy. To be sure, Davey's disgraceful behavior "graced" more than God only.

Bath- Sheba was humbled by her king (2 Samuel 11:4). Uriah-- one of Davey's thirty mightiest-- was murdered by his king. Joab-- whom Davey was ever- fond of cursing for doing his job as general of Davey's army-- was compelled to commit cold- blooded, premeditated murder on behalf of the king who cursed him as a murderer (those times when Joab killed scoundrels for justice and the kingdom's sake). Though, in this case, Davey blessed Joab for murdering a better man than his strange, sweet king.

Also, the messenger who brought the "sweet psalmist of Israel" word of Uriah's demise from Joab on the front line was clued- in to Davey's treachery by Joab (2 Samuel 11:19- 21). Then, of course, there was Nathan who was tasked with rebuking and cursing his king (2 Samuel 12:1- 10): obviously he was clued- in by someone. 

And these are only some of the witnesses the scribes recorded as such. [They may have known of more than their pens told of-- as is often the case in courts, like Davey's, where messengers are too- often killed for doing their job.]

So it's a bald- faced lie when the King of the Jews so addresses God in Psalm 51: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight..." The caveat is: How could “God's word” begin to be inerrant without allowing false prophets like Davey to lie for the sake of posterity and our understanding of the adversary? As the rock 'n' roll prophets say, "Know your enemy."

Inerrant Lie #1

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

Preachers, theologians, and seminarians say there are no lies in “the word of God,” the ‘Holy Bible’; though most, if not all, claim to “know” Eve lied about the words of God, in Genesis 3.

The strange dichotomy, here, is that the “lie” they say Eve told in verse 3 (of Genesis 3): "God hath said... neither shall ye touch it (lest ye die)," is not a confirmable lie. There is no evidence Eve wasn't instructed not to touch the “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

The only lie is the assumption of Eve and the biblical authorities that the LORD God is God. “Yea, hath God said [meaning, “Is ‘the LORD God’ God”]?” the serpent said. The lie Eve is accused of telling is not exposed as a lie anywhere in the canon. Her words are simply recorded, and the reader is left to discern what has been recorded. But “there are no lies in the word of God,” say those who so craftily “read” them in.

What's even stranger, is the fact that the pulpits all seem to agree that the only one in Genesis 3 who does voluntarily tell the truth, and only the truth: is a deceiver (or “liar”) [Some say, “The Deceiver; The Devil; That Old Dragon;” etc.]. But, according to the LORD God, whom the authorities all say is incapable of telling a lie: everything the serpent is credited with telling Eve, in Genesis 3, is nut- on. True and bona fide.

This is what the serpent said to Eve: “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:4b & 5].” We know Adam and Eve did not “surely” die, inasmuch as they left the Garden alive.

Everything else the narrative alleges the serpent said: the LORD God confirms as true (before sending the now- dead- unto- Him Adam and Eve packing). This confirmation of the words of the serpent comes in verse 22, where the LORD God says: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” That's everything the serpent said the fruit would do.

If all the things the pulpits say of the serpent in the garden are applicable: Doctrinally, it seems, Moses [perhaps thanks to sorcery] calls this one "the serpent in the wilderness [John 3:14]" in the mouth of the “cockatrice [Isaiah 14:29]”, birthed in “Nehushtan [2 King's 18:24]” as “the serpent in the wilderness (according to himself)”: Jesus of Nazareth. “The Christ.” Who’s head was he supposed to stomp on? his own?

At any rate: the lie they all miss in Genesis 3, is-- like the one they don't "miss"-- told by Eve: (to the LORD God.) In verse 13, Eve tells the LORD God, "the serpent beguiled me." How can anyone be “beguiled” by the truth? That's like being seduced into molesting your child by the same: The only way it happens is if you're a pervert or you're lying to someone who is. At least Eve made up for the lie by telling on the Liar she was lying to, in the Garden, in the first words out of her mouth, post- Eden: “I have gotten a man from the LORD [Genesis 4:1].” “Cain, who was of That Wicked One [1 John 3:12].”

[How'd she do that?]