The Word of God?

[Guyver]

God is the sole author of His Word and every word in His word.

God have various holy men of God write it down so we could know God's will.

II Peter 1:21, I Timothy 2:4

The original manuscripts that God had these men write down were perfect but as time went on and copies of copies were made some error crept into the manuscripts, God is not responsible for man's errors

Thank you for your response. Earlier, I asked you if you thought God would be pleased by the slaughter of innocent children and animals, but you did not reply. Either you couldn’t answer the question, or you chose not to. I will answer it, and the answer is no. The Maker of All Things could not wish the slaughter of innocent children or animals.

So, in light of your post quoted above, I’d like to ask you if you believe Jesus loves the little children? There’s a bible verse that claims he does, and there’s a popular song taught in Sunday school all over the world that claims, “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Whether yellow, black or white, all are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.”

So, I ask, does Jesus love all the children or just some of the children? Does Jesus love some children but hate others?

PS. I ask this in light of the topic of this thread, and I will be happy to explain how it directly relates.

 

[Guyver]

I have to be off the computer now, and I see that the question of whether Jesus loves the little children has not been answered, and I would like to offer my perspective on that question. I believe that Jesus would in fact love all the little children, and not love some but hate others. I think it would be the height of hypocrisy for any Christian to claim that Jesus loves some children but hates others.

But, the OT of the Bible claims that God does in fact love some people and hate others. In addition, the OT goes on record several times claiming that “God” himself did in fact order the slaughter of innocent children. And not only children, but animals, the elderly, women, the infirmed, and even women nursing children, or women pregnant with children.

So, the problem is trying to reconcile this enormous, gaping variance in ideology between Jesus and “God,” Jehovah, YHWH, or whatever name you prefer. For, if it is unjust to slaughter innocent children now, or in Jesus time, then it is unjust to slaughter innocent children all the time.

There is never a time when slaughtering innocent children is OK. If I know this, and Jesus knows this, then it stands to reason that God knows this as well. Therefore, it is a very valid reason for any thinking person to doubt the validity of the claim, any claim, that God himself ordered such an atrocity.

 

[Idolater]

First, thanks for replying. Second, why are you asking me if I believe that Christ is risen? How could my beliefs one way or the other impact what we are discussing? We are discussing whether or not the Bible is the word of God as people claim. Christ may be born of a woman, crucified, and resurrected after three days in the grave, after having descended into hell with the keys of the kingdom in hand, leading captivity captive, or he was not. It’s definitely a fact one way or the other, but my beliefs about it don’t change the reality of it.

Of course not. So do you or, don't you?

You said that the parables of Jesus represent the word of the divine because they are unique and could not have been written by men. That’s the exact question I asked in the OP of this thread. If it can be shown that the Bible is a divine work, then it stands to reason that God could have been the one who wrote it - indirectly of course. I mean, it would be pure foolishness to believe that God himself actually wrote the Bible right? I mean the Bible itself tells us that it was men who wrote the Bible and not God himself. The only two times in the Bible that actually claim God wrote something were once on stone tablets, and once on the wall of a pagan Emperor. Unless, you believe that Jesus is God himself, and Jesus supposedly wrote some words in the sand once. Unfortunately, those words have not been preserved.

He authored a letter to a pagan king; Eusebius preserved it. In it He confirms Matthew 15:24 KJV---including His view of pagans /heathen /atheists (cf. Mt15:26KJV).

So yes, your wiki link is fine, but I think it best to discuss the top words of Jesus that represent God speaking, based on YOUR opinion of the best one. I could tell you which of Jesus parables I think best, and it is the parable of the Good Samaritan.

That's good enough. When the Father told us to listen to the Lord Jesus, as if Jesus of Nazareth was God the Father's mouthpiece, it adds something to the understanding of the parables. The Prodigal Son reveals the Father to us, and it's the Son of God Who is teaching us about the Father, presently, in His parable, which He uttered coming on now 2000 years ago.

And it's so interesting that He (Ac3:22KJV Mk9:7KJV) then commissions His Apostles (Jn4:2KJV, Lk10:16KJV, 1Th2:13 KJV, 1Jn4:6KJV), who (Mt10:40KJV, Jn13:20KJV)then are clearly shown beginning what is now known as the college of authentic Church pastors called the bishops (1Ti3:1KJV). We're supposed to listen to them (2Ti2:2KJV).

 

[Idolater]

I have to be off the computer now, and I see that the question of whether Jesus loves the little children has not been answered, and I would like to offer my perspective on that question. I believe that Jesus would in fact love all the little children, and not love some but hate others. I think it would be the height of hypocrisy for any Christian to claim that Jesus loves some children but hates others.

But, the OT of the Bible claims that God does in fact love some people and hate others. In addition, the OT goes on record several times claiming that “God” himself did in fact order the slaughter of innocent children. And not only children, but animals, the elderly, women, the infirmed, and even women nursing children, or women pregnant with children.

So, the problem is trying to reconcile this enormous, gaping variance in ideology between Jesus and “God,” Jehovah, YHWH, or whatever name you prefer. For, if it is unjust to slaughter innocent children now, or in Jesus time, then it is unjust to slaughter innocent children all the time.

There is never a time when slaughtering innocent children is OK. If I know this, and Jesus knows this, then it stands to reason that God knows this as well. Therefore, it is a very valid reason for any thinking person to doubt the validity of the claim, any claim, that God himself ordered such an atrocity.

Do you believe in Christ's Resurrection from the dead as nonfiction historical fact? If yes, then your question here has already been answered, and you just don't know what it is yet, and if no, then it's moot because there just is no God.

 

[Guyver]

Of course not. So do you or, don't you?
He authored a letter to a pagan king; Eusebius preserved it. In it He confirms Matthew 15:24 KJV---including His view of pagans /heathen /atheists (cf. Mt15:26KJV).
That's good enough. When the Father told us to listen to the Lord Jesus, as if Jesus of Nazareth was God the Father's mouthpiece, it adds something to the understanding of the parables. The Prodigal Son reveals the Father to us, and it's the Son of God Who is teaching us about the Father, presently, in His parable, which He uttered coming on now 2000 years ago.

And it's so interesting that He (Ac3:22KJV Mk9:7KJV) then commissions His Apostles (Jn4:2KJV, Lk10:16KJV, 1Th2:13 KJV, 1Jn4:6KJV), who (Mt10:40KJV, Jn13:20KJV)then are clearly shown beginning what is now known as the college of authentic Church pastors called the bishops (1Ti3:1KJV). We're supposed to listen to them (2Ti2:2KJV).

Sorry I don’t have time to repond properly to your post here at the moment, but could you elaborate on the letter to a pagan king that Jesus authored and Eusebius preserved? I’m unaware of it.

 

[Guyver]

Do you believe in Christ's Resurrection from the dead as nonfiction historical fact? If yes, then your question here has already been answered, and you just don't know what it is yet, and if no, then it's moot because there just is no God.

With all respect, I’m not sure I understand your point here. It seems you’re claiming that if the Bible is false God doesn’t exist?

That doesn’t follow logically in my mind at all. If God is the Maker of All Things, then he exists apart from everything which is, because he precedes it. The Bible could be completely false or nonexistent and that doesn’t change Gods existence or non existence at all.

It is completely conceivable that God exists and is beyond human capacity for understanding or explanation as I see it.

 

[Idolater]

Sorry I don’t have time to repond properly to your post here at the moment, but could you elaborate on the letter to a pagan king that Jesus authored and Eusebius preserved? I’m unaware of it.

The text of it is quoted in the Wikipedia article linked below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V#Christian_legend

 

[Idolater]

With all respect, I’m not sure I understand your point here. It seems you’re claiming that if the Bible is false God doesn’t exist?

I'm saying that if Matthew 28:6 KJV, Mark 16:6 KJV, and Luke 24:6 KJV are false, then God isn't real.

That is just Christian faith.

So I'm saying that if Christ's Resurrection is fictional, then I don't believe in God. The evidence for Christ's Resurrection compels me that it is nonfiction historical fact, but if it is a hoax instead, then I don't believe in God.

That is just Christian faith.

That doesn’t follow logically in my mind at all. If God is the Maker of All Things, then he exists apart from everything which is, because he precedes it. The Bible could be completely false or nonexistent and that doesn’t change Gods existence or non existence at all.

If God is real, then Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact, is what I am saying. I believe Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact, so I believe God is real.

It is completely conceivable that God exists and is beyond human capacity for understanding or explanation as I see it.

Fine. For me, if Christ's Resurrection is fictional, then God don't real. I am not compelled that God is real, if Christ's Resurrection is fictional. Christ's Resurrection is the only thing that compels me to believe that God is real.

 

[Guyver]

Idolater, thank you for your recent posts. I understand your perspective much better now and I appreciate it. I may or may not have time to post much here before tomorrow, but I also found the link you provided interesting.

Regards.

 

[csuguy]

Whether an authentic Catholic teaching ever contradicts Scripture is an open question; it hasn't been proven.

The Trinity, the worship/idolatry of Saints, the papacy, infallibility, the literal interpretation of the Eucharist and the exclusion of others who don't adopt a literal interpretation, the restriction that priests can't get married, etc. Not difficult to find contradictions - but you do have to study beyond the dogma. Perhaps a good discussion for another thread.

Who are the people "in Catholicism" who opposed it?

Many Catholics - go read the wiki link "Objections by Catholics" section to get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Objections_by_Catholics

In fact, the debate over papal infallibility produced a schism within the catholic church, giving rise to the Old Catholic Church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

 

[csuguy]

Why wouldn't you just admit that you were wrong and stand corrected CSUguy? When I said God is called a man of war in the OT, you said incorrect. I posted the scripture itself right in front of you and it's like you've been trying to argue with me ever since. Help me understand why you seem unable to stand corrected.

First off, the debate wasn't whether or not God participated in war or was called a warrior - the question was whether God was depicted in the OT as a God of War. Cherry picking a single verse out of a song does not establish your position - least of all when you are ignoring OT scriptures that directly contradict you.

Second off, you are relying upon a fundamentally faulty translation of the text to achieve a particular wording. The proper translation, as already noted, is "warrior." God is not a man such that he would be called a "man of war."

Finally, being called a warrior is not the same as being a God of War - ie, war being a fundamental and defining feature of who God is, one who embraces and relishes in war. And if being involved in war is all it takes - in your mind - for God to be a God of War, well then you are still wrong because there is war in the NT as well. Go read Revelations some time.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.​

It is really poor form to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. I ignore nothing. The bottom line is that just about any topic in the bible is presented by opposites. Meaning....when you find a verse that makes a statement a person like you could build a doctrine on, then the exact opposite can be found in another scripture somewhere else. If you think I'm being dishonest.....feel free to try it. Test it out and see whether it be so. I've already provided some in this very thread. I wonder if you have the eyes to see it?

You've blatantly ignored scripture that directly contradicts you. There is honestly little value in continuing a discussion where you just ignore everything that contradicts you - and then have the audacity to say something like "why wouldn't you just admit that you were wrong?" You are the one who has been proven wrong - you just choose to ignore the fact that this false division you have in your head about God in the OT vs the NT is entirely fabricated and easily rejected once you actually study the scriptures.

 

[Idolater]

Whether an authentic Catholic teaching ever contradicts Scripture is an open question; it hasn't been proven.

The Trinity

Agree to disagree that the Trinity contradicts Scripture.

, the worship/idolatry of Saints

Fake news. Nobody does that.

, the papacy

You don't think that the Apostle Peter held a pastorate in Rome?

, infallibility

Infallibility of the Apostles to teach the Word of God does not contradict the Scripture.

, the literal interpretation of the Eucharist

This is literally Scripture.

and the exclusion of others who don't adopt a literal interpretation

Which heeds 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV.

, the restriction that priests can't get married

Show where the Scripture teaches that bishops cannot make a decision about whether priests can marry, or must instead be celibate.

, etc. Not difficult to find contradictions

You haven't identified one yet.

- but you do have to study beyond the dogma.

What examples can you show to clarify what you mean by "beyond the dogma."

Perhaps a good discussion for another thread.

If this site had more than a dozen registered users that would make sense but it's basically no mans land here so this thread is probably fine.

Who are the people "in Catholicism" who opposed it?

Many Catholics - go read the wiki link "Objections by Catholics" section to get started: ...

'Pretty clear from your link that the disagreement surrounded civil power of the papacy, and not its teachings in faith and morals. Of course there have always been reasonable objections that the charism of infallibility would be abused, but when properly understood, such objections are quelled. It in plain language means that if two bishops' received Apostolic oral traditions conflict, that the papacy's received Apostolic oral tradition is the more complete one, because the papacy's received Apostolic oral tradition is both Peter's and Paul's own teachings.

In fact, the debate over papal infallibility produced a schism within the catholic church, giving rise to the Old Catholic Church: ...

They're just another type of Protestant.

 

[Guyver]

First off, the debate wasn't whether or not God participated in war or was called a warrior - the question was whether God was depicted in the OT as a God of War. Cherry picking a single verse out of a song does not establish your position - least of all when you are ignoring OT scriptures that directly contradict you.

Second off, you are relying upon a fundamentally faulty translation of the text to achieve a particular wording. The proper translation, as already noted, is "warrior." God is not a man such that he would be called a "man of war."

First off, I never said “God of War.” You may be well advised to read more carefully. I said “man of war” which is what the text says and what the word warrior means, FYI.

Second off, I see you don’t take kindly to being corrected. Do you know what personal attribute that represents?

Thirdly, why in the world would you be quoting Revelation? You don’t know a false prophecy when you see one?

Lastly, after some consideration, love would maybe not have me post here. FWIW.

 

[Guyver]

PS. Before I leave this site, I’d like to ask a question of all readers. Can you answer a question for me?

Will you explain how it is possible to love your enemies while killing them?

Thank you.

 

[Idolater]

PS. Before I leave this site, I’d like to ask a question of all readers. Can you answer a question for me?

Will you explain how it is possible to love your enemies while killing them?

Thank you.

How is it possible to love your neighbor, if you don't try to prevent them from being murdered by a murderer?

 

[Guyver]

How is it possible to love your neighbor, if you don't try to prevent them from being murdered by a murderer?

Wait. Did you just answer a question with a question? That is form fail. A wise man firsts answers the question. Then he has the right to ask a question. IMHO.

But then again, not everyone is a wise man, and many don’t wish to be. Most likely because that is easier. But anyway, I’m not calling you unwise, I’m just saying.

 

[Idolater]

Wait. Did you just answer a question with a question? That is form fail. A wise man firsts answers the question. Then he has the right to ask a question. IMHO.

But then again, not everyone is a wise man, and many don’t wish to be. Most likely because that is easier. But anyway, I’m not calling you unwise, I’m just saying.

This is all rhetoric here. If anything at all comes from it, it won't be due to avoiding "form fail." imo. And my question in answer to your question was to show that you're talking about one side of a coin, and that there's another one.

 

[Guyver]

This is all rhetoric here. If anything at all comes from it, it won't be due to avoiding "form fail." imo. And my question in answer to your question was to show that you're talking about one side of a coin, and that there's another one.

Great. Then you should have explained heads first, because then you could have explained tails as well. In any event, when it comes to the Bible, there’s heads and tails on every single subject so that’s not a difficult thing to do. I know this, but would be happy to defend my statement if such a thing be needed.

Anyway, you know what doesn’t have heads and tails on every subject? The laws of physics. Or, to put it another way, the laws of nature. Or, to put it another way again, the rules that God made to govern this world. That is, if you actually believe God made this world. And I do, so I’m happy to discuss it.

 

[Guyver]

In fact, I guess it may be fair to say that the laws of nature are the only pure “Word of God” we actually have. Isn’t that right?

 

[Idolater]

Great. Then you should have explained heads first, because then you could have explained tails as well.

Oh. Well let's see. You were implying that there is no such thing as killing a human being that could possibly be good to do. Then I offered up an example where maybe you don't agree with that.

In any event

Right, let's move on.

, when it comes to the Bible, there’s heads and tails on every single subject so that’s not a difficult thing to do. I know this, but would be happy to defend my statement if such a thing be needed.

Anyway, you know what doesn’t have heads and tails on every subject? The laws of physics. Or, to put it another way, the laws of nature. Or, to put it another way again, the rules that God made to govern this world. That is, if you actually believe God made this world. And I do, so I’m happy to discuss it.

There is nothing that is both true and false, at the same time and in the same way. Not in physics, not in the Bible.