Maximus69:
Pastor
Teacher
Atonement
Cross
Christmas

All these teachings are FAKE that's why it CAN NOT unite people because they are NOT from Jesus! Matthew 7:16-18

Jesus' teachings will surely unite all it's adherents as ONE! John 17:20-23

So no matter how hard you try to pacify FAKE Christians, they will not accept or agree with you unless you're ready to WORSHIP them, neither will those WORSHIPING the same founder of their various Churches be found together as ONE in FAITH! 1Corinthians 14:33 compared to Galatians 6:16

Jesus said "THEY WILL SCATTER!" Luke 11:23

You forgot to add a very also important one, the 8-members GOVERNING BODY with only one black man, since 1999, in the person of, the dancing, lol Samuel Frederick Herd, as a member. Smh. lol

Maximus69:
example is Shadeyinka and MurttleyLaff, they will say so many things against Jehovah's Witnesses all because of their TRINITY deity but are they united in faith?
NO!
Remember Jesus' statement, "They will scatter!"

Maximus69, what are you gaining from making lies and lying like a cheap flea market rug, hmm? Since how long, since when has MuttleyLaff said so many things against JW, erhn? Where are the evidences of the so many things MuttleyLaff has said against JW, hmm? Are the "so many things MuttleyLaff said against JW" possible to be listed on one hand, ten fingers or there are really that so many, you just cant count them with hands, lol, hmm? Please provide proofs of your allegation, but if you're unable to, then retract your false accusation and tender a profuse apology for your ill-advised slandering

Now, Maximus69, be careful of any future reckless and careless utterances, because I am a rock, I am a stone, whomsoever this stone shall fall, will scatter him/her as dust. Anyone who stumbles over this stone will get hurt, and anyone the stone falls on will be smashed to pieces. Dont come later, to say you werent warned. My God, Abba, is a Jealous God, He doesnt have anyone with mess about with me. There is no escape, no immunity from answering back to Him, lol.

Ihedinobi3:

I think that you are missing the point. I said earlier that I have no problem with being questioned or challenged. It is not only my job as a pastor-teacher to explain what I believe as clearly as I can and demonstrate its trustworthiness from the Bible, but it is also my duty as a believer to give a good answer for the Hope that I have (1 Peter 3:15). So, the issue is not about me being willing to be questioned or challenged.

The problem is the authority on which anyone may challenge anything that they are told by anyone. Consider, for example, that if a student in a secondary school were to demand to see how something a physics teacher tells them is true, all the teacher needs to do is use a typical experiment designed in accordance with certain accepted laws and assumptions fo demonstrate the veracity of what he teaches them. If the student dismisses the laws and assumptions in question, then it is impossible to satisfy him.

Likewise, I cannot answer any questions and challenges that dispense with the authority of the Bible. If I try to do it, the result will merely be frustration on my part because I am assuming certain fundamental principles that the questioner or challenger does not accept. We would essentially be speaking different languages.

Let me attempt to give another example. The litmus test is a famous test for acidity or alkalinity. The test works on the principle that when a mix of natural dyes from lichens is exposed to alkaline or acidic liquids, it changes color from red to blue and from blue to red respectively. Now, if I tell a student that a certain liquid is alkaline and they don't believe me, I just get a litmus paper and put a drop of the liquid on it. If the paper is red and stays red, then that is almost perfect proof. It is imperfect proof because distilled water would not change the color of any litmus paper, so if it colorless and odorless, it could be distilled water. But if I get blue litmus paper and put a drop of the liquid on it and it turns red, then that is conclusive proof that the liquid is alkaline. If the student does not accept the basic principle of litmus testing and questions it, then there is no possibility of proving to them that any liquid at all is alkaline or acidic using litmus paper. I will have to find a test that they accept in order to be able to make such a proof.

The Bible is like the litmus test here. If you dismiss its authority or doubt its veracity, then there really is nothing more to say.

You claim that the Bible basically attacks itself. That is a common argument that many people make against the authority of the Bible. In fact, upon my return to Nairaland late last year, I cut my ministering teeth on such arguments here. I have no real difficulty demonstrating over and over again that the Scriptures cannot be broken (and the Lord Jesus Himself said that, see John 10:35), but I have consistently found the effort to be a waste of time and energy. That is, even if I were to show you how the Lord Jesus was absolutely not using any Scripture to override the other, the time and energy spent on that endeavor would be completely wasted, because if you reject the litmus paper as a reliable standard for establishing the alkalinity or acidity of a liquid, how on Earth can anyone persuade you that it is a reliable standard by going on to show you how the test works?

As your response shows, you have a clearly defined position on all things. You make matter-of-fact statements that you offer no proof for. That is precisely what we are going to keep having problems with. If I ask for proof, you will pull something out of your proverbial hat that is hinged on nothing at all but your own personal preferences. If I offer proof from the Bible, you will dismiss it. How then can we reach any kind of compromise or agreement?

It is impossible in this life to reach perfect agreement with even mature believers if you are a mature believer yourself, yet all believers take for granted that the Bible is the authority, so each wise believer attempts to make sure that what they believe and what they tell others is something that is really in the Bible, not something that they made up. Of course, there are many foolish believers who are digging their own proverbial grave by ignoring this principle, but it is a good rule of thumb, nonetheless. That is to say, although there is no perfect agreement in doctrine here on Earth in this mortal body, there is plenty of agreement for mature believers because they are all reading and learning the same Bible. Still, if there is imperfect agreement, how can any kind of agreement be possible with anyone who dispenses entirely with the authority of the Bible?

Again, I'll tell you. It is not impossible to show you how you are utterly wrong about the Bible. But it is a waste of time to do so with someone who has taken the position that you have. Before I even got to see how the Bible is one unified system of Truth, I had to take for granted that where I saw contradictions and difficulties, the problem was not with the Bible but with me myself. Giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt is what made it possible for me to hear its arguments and see the whole picture that it paints. That is the experience that every other believer who chooses spiritual growth and progress has.

ok let me cut to the chase. I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys and a wild beast mauled 42 of them simply because they mocked his bald head, that is not the god of jesus in the new testament.
l cannot accept that thesame God who killed 70,000 people simply for a sin committed by David is thesame God of a man like jesus whom l respect so much.
So l have come to see the old testament as a collection of different ideas of Yahweh( God) unless you can prove otherwise, if you or anyone can do that, then l would begin take you guys seriously when you claim that the entire bible is your authority.

When we come to the new testament, then we begin to accept that women should not teach in church or that women should be in obedience simply because Adam was not tempted but Eve.Does your church prevent women from preaching in church today? many churches that claim to accept the authority of the entire bible, do not obey this command and they have interpretations for it too, and yet we all claim to follow thesame bible. So no one can truly have a unified understanding of the bible, that's why there were various sects in Judaism from of old and there have been many sects in christianity. Do not make a book ( which is a library) your authority, rather let the principles that can be compared with one another in the book, be extracted from it. lf you assume from the start that a book is your authority, then you cannot question it for it must by default be perfect.

Also l cannot shut down my brain to what l know about textual variants in the new testament, and how writings like Mark 16v9-20 do not belong to the original, or 1 john 5v7 which was added to your kjv bible but was never in any earlier manuscript prior to the 10th century.
How can you know all these things and claim that the bible is an authority?

You ask me what authority l base my arguments on if not the bible, and l would ask you on what authority did the disciples as well as paul and Christians of the first 100 years after jesus base their arguments on without the new testament?
ln the first 3 centuries, there were many books and there was no canon of the new testament, and the books you read depended on the church you attended, are you saying those were not Christians simply because they had no canon as authority?
lf anyone can explain these points to me , then l would reconsider my view of the bible.

For the records however, l respect the bible and the core of my theology and spirituality is based on the bible, but that doesn't mean l cannot question it. Martin Luther for instance, rejected the book of james, that doesn't make him a non Christian, but for you he is not a Christian because he doesn't accept all scriptures, but he kickstarted the reformation and this is most likely why you are not a catholic today.

Finally you said l make lots of claims without offering proof, can you give me examples of these claims? l have backed up most of my theological claims with the bible, if there is any l didn't back up with scripture, please bring it to my notice.

Maximus69:


There is NOTHING serious in what you're saying without any DEMONSTRATION to get a glimpse of it's REALITY Sir! Hebrew 11:1

What all religionists are saying on this planet is based on hearsay that's NOT SEEN, that's the import of DEMONSTRATION of what is said!

Only Jehovah's Witnesses are proving to be REAL WITNESSES that what they're saying is possible.

You're just being CREDULOUS with nowhere to show observers as example of what you are saying Sir!

?

MuttleyLaff:
You forgot to add a very also important one, the 8-members GOVERNING BODYwith only one black man, since 1999, in the person of, the dancing, lol Samuel Frederick Herd, as a member. Smh. lol

Maximus69, what are you gaining from making lies and lying like a cheap flea market rug, hmm? Since how long, since when has MuttleyLaff said so many things against JW, erhn? Where are the evidences of the so many things MuttleyLaff has said against JW, hmm? Are the "so many things MuttleyLaff said against JW" possible to be listed on one hand, ten fingers or there are really that so many, you just cant count them with hands, lol, hmm? Please provide proofs of your allegation, but if you're unable to, then retract your false accusation and tender a profuse apology for your ill-advised slandering

Now, Maximus69, be careful of any future reckless and careless utterances, because I am a rock, I am a stone, whomsoever this stone shall fall, will scatter him/her as dust. Anyone who stumbles over this stone will get hurt, and anyone the stone falls on will be smashed to pieces. Dont come later, to say you werent warned. My God, Abba, is a Jealous God, He doesnt have anyone with mess about with me. There is no escape, no immunity from answering back to Him, lol.

Your comments in blue is a proof of your words AGAINST the organization of the true God!

I never mentioned the name of any of your religious leaders in person, but you went on mentioning Samuel Herds, though your leaders have no repute because they have no active followers that's recognized as active preachers and teachers like Jehovah's Witnesses, so their names aren't important!

As for you and your stupid, hopeless, helpless, worthless, powerless and useless god, i can't just help it but laugh at both of you!

Your god is

Stupid~failure to unite it's worshippers!

Hopeless~giving you no hope where you're!

Helpless~not giving you no brother elsewhere!

Worthless~nobody see its WORKS!

Powerless~unable to equip you to preach!

Useless~no difference between you and shade!

So stop deluding yourself with Nollywood movies , neither you nor your DEAD god can do a single thing!

MuttleyLaff:

[img]https://s5/images/MuttleyLaffsmhNFL.gif[/img]

lol baba why do you consider the entire bible as the word of God?

Daejoyoung:

lol baba why do you consider the entire bible as the word of God?

I love this question Sir!

It's thought provoking and challenging.

I accept the challenge!

But i'll wait for all these credulous churchgoers to exhibit their ignorance on this thread!

Let them defend the book they're trying to impose on others as "GOD'S WORD!

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, i accepted this as a challenge to prove with convincing facts that the Bible is truthfully God's word

Maximus69:


I love this question Sir!

It's thought provoking and challenging.

I accept the challenge!

But i'll wait for all these credulous churchgoers to exhibit their ignorance on this thread!

Let them defend the book they're trying to impose on others as "GOD'S WORD!

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, i accepted this as a challenge to prove with convincing facts that the Bible is truthfully God's word

ok, most respected maximus. When you are ready for me, you can start by answering my quote to lhedinobi3, those are the major reasons l do not consider that the bible as a whole is dictated verbatim word of God.

Daejoyoung:
ok let me cut to the chase.

[img]https://s5/images/LetsHearThis.gif[/img]
Where's popcorn sef?

Daejoyoung:
I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys and a wild beast mauled 42 of them simply because they mocked his bald head, that is not the god of jesus in the new testament.
l cannot accept that the same God who killed 70,000 people simply for a sin committed by David is the same God of a man like jesus whom l respect so much.

What a pity, smh. "Na small pikin ignorant of the power of the plant/herb, that calls it vegetable" Daejoyoung, you fall my hand, no be small with this one. Why didnt and/or couldnt you ask about that narrative, hmm? The quran in Surah 10:94, has the good sense to tell Muslims, if they are in doubt, to go ask "People of Book," that is, "People of Book," meaning believers. Please, please, please, dont ever be trying to unnecessarily overthink and dont get me wrong I am not defending God actions, I wont even dare really rationalise and/or even attempt to intellectualise any of God's actions, smh. When I read your bold comments, I was scared, I usually arent that easily scared, but I was taken aback, then I wondered to myself that, hmm how can this man, Daejoyoung, walk about with this his huge big balls, this is stuff criminally insane are made from, lol.

Daejoyoung, c'mon now, you should have asked around. Why didnt you ask someone about all these niggling events that were giving you some bother and/or doubts now, erhn? My eyes are misty, writing this, this is all getting at me, making emotional, that you slipped on these banana skins. Listen Daejoyoung, I will paste one of my posts/quotes from 2016, for you to read, next below. It might help to clear some, if not all the cobwebs pertaining to Elisha, yup it is Elisha and not Elijah, lol.

MuttleyLaff:
Are people not bothered to properly read or study the Bible anymore?

Honestly, I wasnt going to be bothered commenting, but the sin of being silent over xxxx's misunderstanding & misinterpretation of the face-off between Elisha and those 42 youths, who incidentally were temple servant young men and not children, would have been more serious than whatever evil actions were carried out or whatever evil motives were harbored by the various so called or latter to be mentioned villains

Records to be set straight are as follows:
#1) It werent 42 children rather it were 42 young men, and they were youths doubling up as temple servants where golden calves were worshipped in Bethel.
#2) Elisha was not a baldie, he for the obvious reason shaved his hair off, but was mockingly called baldie,
just like when someone's called ''adanri'' after sporting a head skin-cut
#3) It wasn't a bear, rather, there were two she-bears
#4) The bears did not brutally kill anybody rather what happened is that, the bears split up the group of young men
If bears did brutally kill anyone talkless 42, dont you think there will be a strong protest or strong objection from their families?
Dont you think there would be a recorded reprisal or dont you think that the people of Bethel will launch a public outcry, if the bears really did kill the 42 ''children''?
#5) Please unhide my post: https://www.nairaland.com/3491827/did-jesus-speak-tongues#51524598

Doubt is removed when one studies the context during reading the text, lol.

Daejoyoung:
So l have come to see the old testament as a collection of different ideas of Yahweh (God) unless you can prove otherwise, if you or anyone can do that, then l would begin take you guys seriously when you claim that the entire bible is your authority.

You're on a long thing, lol waiting for anyone to prove anything to you, lol. Why not just learn not to criticize what you dont understand

Daejoyoung:
When we come to the new testament, then we begin to accept that women should not teach in church or that women should be in obedience simply because Adam was not tempted but Eve, and Eve was created in the image of man (which is contrary to Genesis 1 itself by the way).

With this comment, I now can see, all this is down to the mere fact of you being really and actually simply green, lol. Look, slipped on another banana skin.

Daejoyoung, the woman has been absolved by Jesus. God did, lol, when Jesus asked: "Woman, where are your accusers, Where are they? Is there no one left to condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." and Jesus then said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more." So, if after 2000 years of that, women are still having a hard time, then who is to blame, definitely not God, lol, Daejoyoung. The finger pointing game, eh, lol. Three other fingers are pointing back and the fourth at the spot we are standing, lol. Discrimination, on varying levels is rife, lol, if not its veiled, sometimes its pretence that its not there, but the thing itself speaks, the thing speaks for itself, the evidences and facts speak for themselves, lol

Daejoyoung:
Also l cannot shut down my brain to what l know about textual variants in the new testament, and how writings like Mark 16v9-20 do not belong to the original, or 1 John 5v7 which was added to your kjv bible but was never in any earlier manuscript prior to the 10th century.

[img]https://s3/images/ObamaMuttley.gif[/img]
You're behaving like a starving man, who upon just eaten one spoonful of a plate of beans and dodo, shoved the plate angrily to one side of the table before then tipping the plate over all and empty it, all because he spotted two tweeny beany little stones in the plate, lol. Why couldnt he have just simply pick out the stones, and then happily continue eating nah, lol, smh.

Daejoyoung:
How can you know all these things and claim that the bible is an authority?
You ask me what authority l base my arguments on if not the bible, and l would ask you on what authority did the disciples as well as Paul and Christians of the first 100 years after Jesus base their arguments on without the new testament?

They had the scripture, not NT. You read Paul and others quoting scripture, in their individual sent off NT letters now.

Daejoyoung:
ln the first 3 centuries, there were many books and there was no canon of the new testament, and the books you read depended on the church you attended, are you saying those were not Christians simply because they had no canon as authority?

Well, all thanks to the Latin Vulgate, which I sometimes, like to refer to as, the Latin Vulgar, lol. First and foremost Daejoyoung, you dont throw away the bath water and baby in it together, just because the water is dirty. Another thing is, scripture will always corroborate and complement scripture. Scripture, would not be at variance with scripture. Scripture, always agrees with scripture, lol.

Daejoyoung:
lf anyone can explain these points to me, then l would reconsider my view of the bible.

You're having a laugh, right? lol, For that much needed "aha!" moment, why not go look up John 15:26 and John 16:13a, erhn?

Daejoyoung:
For the records however, l respect the bible and the core of my theology and spirituality is based on the bible, but that doesn't mean l cannot question it.

lol, smart guy, rigging himself a lifeline. There always, just in case, has to be a lifeline, lol, isnt it?

Daejoyoung:
Martin Luther for instance, rejected the book of James, that doesn't make him a non Christian, but for you he is not a Christian because he doesn't accept all scriptures, but he kickstarted the reformation and this is most likely why you are not a catholic today.

In the West, there is this local parlance, that says, "pesin wey bin crying, still dey see road ooo" It wasnt the book of James alone Daejoyoung, Luther actually wanted to have others, the likes of books of Hebrews, Jude and even Revelation also removed from the canon, lol.

Daejoyoung, let's leave and put Luther to one side for a moment, erhn, as that will allow and let me ask you a simple easy, direct and straightforward question, hmm? Here it is, you obviously countless times must have read the Letter of James, also known as, the Epistle of James, now please answer me sincerely, honestly and truthfully, is there anything in the letter, that you deem makes it not to be part of the canon, hmm?

I am 1000% sure you're aware of the ludicrous activities going on with buying salvation, right (i.e. selling indulgences and purchasing certificate(s) of pardon) That is what kickstarted the reformation and religious and political challenge to papal authority, lol. The title heading up his 95 points theses, that he nailed to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, was "Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" lol

Daejoyoung, I really dont have any axe to grind with Martin Luther. My respect for him his lofty and massive. I doff my hat to him. The effect of the stone he threw into the ecclesiastical pond, the ripples are still being felt up to date, lol

“It is the duty of every Christian to espouse the cause of the faith, to understand and defend it, and to denounce every error.”
– Martin Luther

Replace christian with believer.

Maximus69:
Your comments in blue is a proof of your words AGAINST the organization of the true God!

Wonders will not cease to exist, so that one sentence, is now what translates to "so many things MuttleyLaff said against Jehovah Witnesses" You're getting out of hand, you better go and seek some help smh. I am sure you're not able and/or capable of saying what exactly is your problem with me making reference to an observation noticed in the racial make up of the Governing Body, lol

Look at you Maximus69, a full blooded grown up man, what have you now gained from making lies and lying like a cheap flea market rug, erhn? Since how long, since when has muttleylaff said so many things against JW, erhn?

See no forthcoming evidences from you, of the so many things MuttleyLaff has said against JW. Since you're unable to, then retract your false accusation and tender a profuse apology for your ill-advised slandering

Where are the so called "so many things MuttleyLaff said against JW" erhn? possible to be listed on one hand, ten fingers or there are really that so many, you just cant count them with hands, lol, hmm? Please provide proofs of your allegation, but if

Maximus69:
I never mentioned the name of any of your religious leaders in person, but you went on mentioning Samuel Herds, though your leaders have no repute because they have no active followers that's recognized as active preachers and teachers like Jehovah's Witnesses, so their names aren't important!

The man is a somewhat dancing JW celebrity, he is in the public space, that's how I got to know him enough to mention him, just as much as I do regularly mention the name of our Lord and Savior, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I dont understand why you're getting the hump over Mr Samuel Frederick Herd's mention, afterall, it is obvious why I subtly and in an indirect way, kept jabbing you and TATIME with his mention, lol, hoping you'll see what I am pointing out, lol

Maximus69:
As for you and your stupid, hopeless, helpless, worthless, powerless and useless god, i can't just help it but laugh at both of you!
Your god is

Stupid~failure to unite it's worshippers!

Hopeless~giving you no hope where you're!

Helpless~not giving you no brother elsewhere!

Worthless~nobody see its WORKS!

Powerless~unable to equip you to preach!

Useless~no difference between you and shade!
So stop deluding yourself with Nollywood movies , neither you nor your DEAD god can do a single thing!

Smh, there is this anonymous ancient Euripides proverb, that says: "those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." I havent any more to add to that, lol

A few notes:

Daejoyoung:

ok let me cut to the chase. I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys and a wild beast mauled 42 of them simply because they mocked his bald head, that is not the god of jesus in the new testament.

First, you say that Elijah asked God to kill them. That is not what the text says, he simply called down a curse on them. Nor does it say any of them were killed. Yes, it says 42 were mauled--but mauled means injured, not killed (it is not impossible some died, but it isn't stated as such). As for the claim that it was only for making fun of his head, that is unlikely. People hold up the fact 42 were listed as being mauled as bad because of how many it was--but that cuts around the other way, meaning there were at least 42 of them who were jeering at him. Do you think 42+ people came out of the city just to make fun of a guy for being bald? That seems highly unlikely. The far more likely situation is that they were actually planning to attack him, which makes his calling out of the bears a matter of defense.

Some other points are raised here.

l cannot accept that thesame God who killed 70,000 people simply for a sin committed by David is thesame God of a man like jesus whom l respect so much.

I assume this refers to David's taking of the census. The problem, however, is that as is stated in 2 Samuel 24:1, God was angry at Israel before David did anything. The reason for the anger is not stated--presumably it was Israel turning from God again--but to say it was "simply" for a sin committed by David is inaccurate; David's sin may have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back. (if anyone is wondering why it was portrayed as wrong for David to take the census, it was likely not the census itself that was the problem, but David doing it without the accompanying tax that was kind of the point of the census--see Exodus 30:11, which states that the tax should be levied when the census is conducted)

Also l cannot shut down my brain to what l know about textual variants in the new testament, and how writings like Mark 16v9-20 do not belong to the original, or 1 john 5v7 which was added to your kjv bible but was never in any earlier manuscript prior to the 10th century.
How can you know all these things and claim that the bible is an authority?

None of the textual variants threaten any major doctrine. It doesn't matter if you take out Mark 16:9-20, because the important information is found in the other Gospels. And while some have claimed that 1 John 5:7 is critical to the doctrine of the Trinity, it really isn't--people believed in it on the basis of other verses before 1 John 5:7 was ever in any manuscript.

For the records however, l respect the bible and the core of my theology and spirituality is based on the bible, but that doesn't mean l cannot question it. Martin Luther for instance, rejected the book of james, that doesn't make him a non Christian, but for you he is not a Christian because he doesn't accept all scriptures, but he kickstarted the reformation and this is most likely why you are not a catholic today.

Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

RandomGuy48:
A few notes:
First, you say that Elijah asked God to kill them. That is not what the text says, he simply called down a curse on them. Nor does it say any of them were killed. Yes, it says 42 were mauled--but mauled means injured, not killed (it is not impossible some died, but it isn't stated as such). As for the claim that it was only for making fun of his head, that is unlikely. People hold up the fact 42 were listed as being mauled as bad because of how many it was--but that cuts around the other way, meaning there were at least 42 of them who were jeering at him. Do you think 42+ people came out of the city just to make fun of a guy for being bald? That seems highly unlikely. The far more likely situation is that they were actually planning to attack him, which makes his calling out of the bears a matter of defense.

Some other points are raised here.

MuttleyLaff:
Try saying ''your claims are false'' again

How you managed to read ''murder'' into that narrative wont cease to amaze me

These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old,
was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah,
and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.
- Genesis 37:2 KJV

The hebrew word used in the Elisha narrative is ''naar'',
As in the original text, it is the same word seen in Genesis 37:2 above, used for a 17 years old Joseph

In the Bible, ''naar'' means young man, servant or attendant a lot more than it means child or children

Talking about temple, Bethel as a matter of truth, was a hotbed due to the sins of Jeroboam
(i.e. legacy of King Jeroboam I setting up the worshipping of golden calves, one in Dan, the other in Bethel),
and so, the young men were attendants at the Bethel temple

It was a face-off between good and evil
The battle lines were drawn by the young men prepared to fight and bent on stopping Elisha coming to Bethel
Breaking up the group of young men is the justification, no, not for murder,
There was no murder rather it was recorded as a SPLIT.
The group of energised and frenzied young men were split up
The group of young men's survival instincts kicked in making them do a helter-skelter dash to safety

Except for just you, a born fabulist, I doubt this your DOCTUFOS OF TRUTH strange theology has a following
With it, you seems to take unhealthy pleasure in inventing crooked accounts
and go to extra-ordinary lengths to elaborately type out dishonest stories

No offense but is this your DOCTUFOS OF TRUTH some kind of perverse joke?

MuttleyLaff:
They werent kids, these were young men on a concerted attack and organised mission that God and His prophet representing Him, are not wanted, would not be tolerated, are not welcome in their city.

Nothing hilarious in this tragic incident, but quite a lot to learn from and out of it, I'll say.

There isnt any struggle in explaining the passage. The passage is more like, if you know, you know. Who no know, no go know



They werent children, they were youths, young men, about same age as Elisha in fact, when the bears attacked.

Death is inevitable. Something must kill a man. Death will come and is mandatory too

Death is a universal truth that can never be defied. We cant change this truth, we all are born with limited breath. Weirdly enough, when you come to think of of it, there are no punishment far worse than death.

They were killed, mauled by the bears. The young men were frozen to the spot with fright when the bears appeared. They likely wanted to run but their feet were literally rooted to the ground, as if glued to the spot and locked-in to the ground. They couldnt run, because they were paralysed out of fear of seeing two blood thirsty bears baying for their puny hide and arse.

Ecclesiastes 7:17 states that: "Do not excel at wickedness, nor be a fool. Why die before your time?"

Those young men got their comeuppance. They carelessly shortened their lives by their bad and/or foolish actions. Abraham and Jacob, probably were turning in their graves at the behaviour of those young men. Abraham and Jacob, were probably rubbing their eyes in disbelief, wondering isnt this the same Bethel we knew and a place we associated with God.

It is tragic, that because Deuteronomy 6:2 was ignored, the young men didnt live a long time, didnt enjoy a long life and the promise that their days may be long didnt happen for them.

There was a covenant between them and God. The covenant had terms and conditions. Read Deuteronomy 5:1-33 and Deuteronomy 6:1-25, to know more about the covenant made between them and God at Mount Horeb.

The contribution OLAADEGBU posted on that thread went swoosh over everyone's head, like as if it was a Naija Airforce fighter jet and "people didn't know warris going on"

RandomGuy48:
Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

He did argue for it to be removed but he then accepted it later on as kosher, he even used it in his preaching, his followers wont let him leave James et al out

MuttleyLaff:
Wonders will not cease to exist, so that one sentence, is now what translates to "so many things MuttleyLaff said against Jehovah Witnesses" You're getting out of hand, you better go and seek some help smh. I am sure you're not able and/or capable of saying what exactly is your problem with me making reference to an observation noticed in the racial make up of the Governing Body, lol

Look at you Maximus69, a full blooded grown up man, what have you now gained from making lies and lying like a cheap flea market rug, erhn? Since how long, since when has muttleylaff said so many things against JW, erhn?

See no forthcoming evidences from you, of the so many things MuttleyLaff has said against JW. Since you're unable to, then retract your false accusation and tender a profuse apology for your ill-advised slandering

Where are the so called "so many things MuttleyLaff said against JW" erhn? possible to be listed on one hand, ten fingers or there are really that so many, you just cant count them with hands, lol, hmm? Please provide proofs of your allegation, but if

The man is a somewhat dancing JW celebrity, he is in the public space, that's how I got to know him enough to mention him, just as much as I do regularly mention the name of our Lord and Savior, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I dont understand why you're getting the hump over Mr Samuel Frederick Herd's mention, afterall, it is obvious why I subtly and in an indirect way, kept jabbing you and TATIME with his mention, lol, hoping you'll see what I am pointing out, lol

Smh, there is this anonymous ancient Euripides proverb, that says: "those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." I havent any more to add to that, lol

This is not the first time you and i had a discuss on PURE WORSHIP, so i know you very well.
The one example i picked from your comments is just a proof that you harbour animosity against Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps you're now somehow confused on whether to continue kicking against this organization or to sit on the fence!

But there is no way you can lie when God's holy spirit is involved in the discuss, hence you MISTAKENLY dropped part of what you're trying to hind! Hebrew 4:12

For your information, each one of you claiming Christian outside the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is just another version of pagan WORSHIPING himself!

There is a secret little altar in your hearts where each of you bow to himself whenever you wake up, this makes it extremely difficult for you and your folks to unite as one with heart, soul, strength and mind! Mark 12:29-30
That's the greatest secret most of you don't know!

God's worshipers are peculiar to rules binding on one and all, so no one can isolate himself/herself and say "i'm special" if truthfully you're one of God's sheep, you all must bow to the same line of thought {1Corinthians 1:10} that's one and only evidence ONE SPIRIT is in your MIDST!

Learn from Jesus' illustration of SHEEP and GOATS, this are domestic animals but of totally different attitude. Sheep do things orderly amongst themselves even when nobody is there to beat them with rods, but goats are self-centered never willing to submit to orderliness.

That's why i keep referring to your so called god as "IT" because it's nothing but your own very rebellious self, if you're not one of Jehovah's Witnesses you can't possibly be my brother in the Lord!

Maximus69:
This is not the first time you and i had a discuss on PURE WORSHIP, so i know you very well.
The one example i picked from your comments is just a proof that you harbour animosity against Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps you're now somehow confused on whether to continue kicking against this organization or to sit on the fence!

You just an unashamedly rotten dishonest and untruthful person. Now that you've realised you cant provide the "so many things MuttleyLaff said against Jehovah Witnesses" you embrassingly decided to quickly change the subject into "pure worship"

Maximus69:
But there is no way you can lie when God's holy spirit is involved in the discuss, hence you MISTAKENLY dropped part of what you're trying to hind! Hebrew 4:12

For your information, each one of you claiming Christian outside the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is just another version of pagan WORSHIPING himself!

There is a secret little altar in your hearts where each of you bow to himself whenever you wake up, this makes it extremely difficult for you and your folks to unite as one with heart, soul, strength and mind! Mark 12:29-30
That's the greatest secret most of you don't know!

God's worshipers are peculiar to rules binding on one and all, so no one can isolate himself/herself and say "i'm special" if truthfully you're one of God's sheep, you all must bow to the same line of thought {1Corinthians 1:10} that's one and only evidence ONE SPIRIT is in your MIDST!

Learn from Jesus' illustration of SHEEP and GOATS, this are domestic animals but of totally different attitude. Sheep do things orderly amongst themselves even when nobody is there to beat them with rods, but goats are self-centered never willing to submit to orderliness.

There he goes again on a proof-texting and off tangent

MuttleyLaff:
There is a recurring theme that stood out like a throbbing red sore thumb in your above post and it 'sone word, which is "we,"

We this, we that, we etcetera, it shows an indication, evidence and/or sign of self-centeredness. You seem to think the whole wide world spins and revolves around y'all little fingers.

I am so glad you're beginning to accept, agree, recognise and realise you're a goat, lol. See where you said "goats are self-centered " look, thats exactly what I earlier on was telling you about yourself. I previously before that, had even from my observation of you, told you that, you like self-centralising and/or personalising things too much. I didnt want to hurt your feeling by calling a goat, but its good you've discovered you're one, all by yourself. What you going to do, now, lol

Maximus69:
That's why i keep referring to your so called god as "IT" because it's nothing but your own very rebellious self, if you're not one of Jehovah's Witnesses you can't possibly be my brother in the Lord!

lol, you must have been born an only child. Peele, Ndo. You do know, I am not losing sleep over you not wanting me to be a brother to you, erhn? Nobi by force to make preek rise now, abi. Wait oh, who is the Lord in your comment just up there, hmm? What Lord is this. Has the Lord got a name?. Whats the Lord's name? lol. Is this Lord the God Incarnate at all, lol?

Daejoyoung:

ok, most respected maximus. When you are ready for me, you can start by answering my quote to lhedinobi3, those are the major reasons l do not consider that the bible as a whole is dictated verbatim word of God.

Why quantifying a sinner like you and every other person with so lofty phrase?

Please! Please!! Please!!! I'm just a fellow sinner like anyone else Sir, the only difference here is that i humbled myself in order to IDENTIFY God's people today and submit myself to the same rule binding on them!

Your questions is simple but trust me none of all these misinformed churchgoers can solve that riddle, because they've turned their backs on Christ's brothers (the born agains) who were given the wisdom to TEACH them! Matthew 25:31-46


God dealt with humans before the arrival of his only begotten son according to their level of understanding. Note that we are all descendants of Adam, so according to what is on ground before Jesus arrived ALL HUMANS ARE LIKE DUST (BEFORE GOD) SINCE OUR BIOLOGICAL FATHER (ADAM) HAS RETURNED TO DUST! Genesis 3:17-19 compared to Romans 5:12

Each time God screened humans and pick either one person or group of persons to pass any message to the rest, he doesn't see anyone behaving irrational or indecently towards such his messenger as anything but DUST(WASTE)!

All those prophets are humans (sinners) like the rest but since God sent them on errand, whoever makes them annoyed will be liable to any sort of judgment God's messenger declared on them.

WHY?

Because the disrespect they gave the messenger is NOT the messenger's but to the one who sent that messenger! Matthew 10:40

When God's only begotten son finally arrived, he changed our mindset completely making us to know that sinners ought not judge sinners. Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:28

So even when a Christian (sinners putting on the new personality that's created in God's image) { Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10} is offended, the spirit of God in us couple with the teachings we've received from his only begotten son will make us PRAY for whoever mistreat us in anyway! Act 7:60

WHY?

Because we now have the confidence and hope so brightly in us that we are going to be resurrected back from the dead and live FOREVER! John 11:25

We have read and heard about God's only begotten son and how he infused in the brains of his followers that resurrection is Certain for God's servants {John 5:28-29} after resurrection nobody will be able to mistreat us anymore! Revelations 21:1-5

All these hopes were like myths during the time of those ancient prophets because they only trust God that he will solve the problems evildoers are causing but how they don't know nor have complete idea unlike us {Daniel 12:8-10} who now know that Jesus has paid for our sins and said IT IS FINISHED (IT HAS BEEN SETTLED)! John 19:30

So no matter what those ancient prophets ask God to do whether in annoyance or vengeance was granted immediately back then, unlike now that Jesus (God's only begotten son) has taught us how to be extra cautious in dealing with fellow sinners like us! Luke 9:51-56 Matthew 10:16

God bless you!

MuttleyLaff:
You just an unashamedly rotten dishonest and untruthful person. Now that you've realised you cant provide the "so many things MuttleyLaff said against Jehovah Witnesses" you embrassingly decided to quickly change the subject into "pure worship"

There he goes again on a proof-texting and off tangent

I am so glad you're beginning to accept, agree, recognise and realise you're a goat, lol. See where you said "goats are self-centered " look, thats exactly what I earlier on was telling you about yourself. I previously before that, had even from my observation of you, told you that, you like self-centralising and/or personalising things too much. I didnt want to hurt your feeling by calling a goat, but its good you've discovered you're one, all by yourself. What you going to do, now, lol

lol, you must have been born an only child. Peele, Ndo. You do know, I am not losing sleep over you not wanting me to be a brother to you, erhn? Nobi by force to make preek rise now, abi. Wait oh, who is the Lord in your comment just up there, hmm? What Lord is this. Has the Lord got a name?. Whats the Lord's name? lol. Is this Lord the God Incarnate at all, lol?

@bolded in red has settled it all!

So since this so called GOAT has resolved in his heart that he is not, cannot and will never be your brother in faith, but will remain unchangeably a GOAT in union with his other 8,500,000 goats under the same umbrella, worshipping together as one big happy family of peace loving GOATS! John 17:20-23

What do you think now?

Are you (a SHEEP) still a brother to this GOAT?

Because Jesus never said that Goats and Sheep are one fold under his shepherding service!

Jehovah's Witnesses are OK with whatever your resolve about us {Matthew 10:25} but know now that we will never agree that we are of the same category as you and your folks!

RandomGuy48:
A few notes:
First, you say that Elijah asked God to kill them. That is not what the text says, he simply called down a curse on them. Nor does it say any of them were killed. Yes, it says 42 were mauled--but mauled means injured, not killed (it is not impossible some died, but it isn't stated as such). As for the claim that it was only for making fun of his head, that is unlikely. People hold up the fact 42 were listed as being mauled as bad because of how many it was--but that cuts around the other way, meaning there were at least 42 of them who were jeering at him. Do you think 42+ people came out of the city just to make fun of a guy for being bald? That seems highly unlikely. The far more likely situation is that they were actually planning to attack him, which makes his calling out of the bears a matter of defense.

Some other points are raised here.


I assume this refers to David's taking of the census. The problem, however, is that as is stated in 2 Samuel 24:1, God was angry at Israel before David did anything. The reason for the anger is not stated--presumably it was Israel turning from God again--but to say it was "simply" for a sin committed by David is inaccurate; David's sin may have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back. (if anyone is wondering why it was portrayed as wrong for David to take the census, it was likely not the census itself that was the problem, but David doing it without the accompanying tax that was kind of the point of the census--see Exodus 30:11, which states that the tax should be levied when the census is conducted)

None of the textual variants threaten any major doctrine. It doesn't matter if you take out Mark 16:9-20, because the important information is found in the other Gospels. And while some have claimed that 1 John 5:7 is critical to the doctrine of the Trinity, it really isn't--people believed in it on the basis of other verses before 1 John 5:7 was ever in any manuscript.

Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

Hmm hi Richard thanks for your answers

You Wrote....First, you say that Elijah asked God to kill them. That is not what the text says, he simply called down a curse on them. Nor does it say any of them were killed. Yes, it says 42 were mauled--but mauled means injured, not killed (it is not impossible some died, but it isn't stated as such). As for the claim that it was only for making fun of his head, that is unlikely. People hold up the fact 42 were listed as being mauled as bad because of how many it was--but that cuts around the other way, meaning there were at least 42 of them who were jeering at him. Do you think 42+ people came out of the city just to make fun of a guy for being bald? That seems highly unlikely. The far more likely situation is that they were actually planning to attack him, which makes his calling out of the bears a matter of defense.

Your interpretation is that this was probably in self defense, but that is my point, the text doesn't make it clear, not many Christians would come away with this interpretation from a plain reading of the text, and there are many who can use this passage to say do not mock or blaspheme the anointed of God.
My point is that you had to do exegiesis for this difficult passage, you had to use your logic at this point, to say it isn't possible that it was 2 bears killing 42 children just because they mocked him.
So the bible usually is all about interpretation, and other Christians disagree with you and l, we have no right to call them heretics or blasphemers because the text is not clear in the first place.
This is the problem for people who give a book the authority it should not have, it may have been perfect when written but now it has been translated and the cultures and way of doing things are far removed from us, all we have to do is extract God's everlasting principles from it only like jesus did, because the letter kills( as you have proven) but the spirit gives life.

You Wrote...<I assume this refers to David's taking of the census. The problem, however, is that as is stated in 2 Samuel 24:1, God was angry at Israel before David did anything. The reason for the anger is not stated--presumably it was Israel turning from God again--but to say it was "simply" for a sin committed by David is inaccurate; David's sin may have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back. (if anyone is wondering why it was portrayed as wrong for David to take the census, it was likely not the census itself that was the problem, but David doing it without the accompanying tax that was kind of the point of the census--see Exodus 30:11, which states that the tax should be levied when the census is conducted)>

Yahweh is always angry in the bible for things you don't even expect, this is why this event is not surprising given the character of yahweh ( a merciful but tough God of war) which is nice. So your interpretation again is logical, but for those who worship the bible as a book and take it at face value, why would you blame them?
l never gave this passage much thought until a particular pastor used it for his sermon, he didn't understand it like you, and l don't blame him because the jews attributed to Yahweh( God) every single thing that happened, God creates both light and darkness, the idea of satan as a main opposer to God was not fully developed then, in the old testament God gives command to:
1) Kill babies and horses( 1 Samuel 15v3)
2) To burn promiscuous daughters of priests alive ( somewhere in Deuteronomy)
3) To stone a man to death who picked stones on the sabbath( this may have been understandable at the time but would God do this today?)
My point is this.. Why don't you take Hebrews 1v1 seriously, that in the past God spoke to us through his prophets but now he speaks to us through his son.
ln Luke 9v55-56 the disciples were asking that fire be called down like Elijah did, but jesus said ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, the son of man did not come to destroy men's life but to save.

As literature to me, the old testament is more interesting than the new testament, l am not rejecting the old testament but l just take it as an interesting read, when l was a child, proverbs guided me all through. There is gold in Ecclesiastes and the Author was wonderful, in thesame way l love Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and the stoic writings, as well as the Buddha and the Tao, and even gems from some of our Nigerian old literature but l cannot except any of all these as the word of God, l consider them useful for my learning and part of all our spiritual fossil records.

l also admire the Yahweh character to an extent but l am free to criticize the character and any other character from the books using my brain in thesame way you used your brain to interprete these texts and l appreciate your interpretations.
l can even accept them as valid interpretations but l know the text itself does not make it clear because it is simply a human book.


You wrote....<None of the textual variants threaten any major doctrine. It doesn't matter if you take out Mark 16:9-20, because the important information is found in the other Gospels. And while some have claimed that 1 John 5:7 is critical to the doctrine of the Trinity, it really isn't--people believed in it on the basis of other verses before 1 John 5:7 was ever in any manuscript>



But Mark 16v9-20 is still in our bible today, and Christians even pastors take it as the literal word of God written by Mark. Now you know these, but christians generally don't know these including pastors, but that is not even my problem.


l have no problem with the text itself and l believe in the text, my point is that it wasn't written by Mark, so the unknown scribe who put it there should also be taken as inspired by the Holyspirit, same with 1 john 5v7, some people quote this till date as major proof of the trinity, this is good and l have no problem with that, but given their view of scripture, would they quote it if they knew it was added one thousand years later by the catholic church and wasn't written by john? for me l have no problem quoting it, because in my view of the bible God inspired that person to put it there and God has been inspiring many books, God also inspires me in many ways l don't know, when l write some things l write, it doesn't make all of these the word of God nor does it make the writings particularly false or true, it only means they are useful for learning.
See l have one major problem with the Islamic religion, and that is the belief that the Quran is the verbatim word of God, when people begin to say a book is the verbatim word of God( quran or bible) they can't question it or see any wrong in it by default.


You Wrote...Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

Good, it means unlike many others here Martin luther revered some parts of the bible more than others, if he believed the bible to be the verbatim word of God, then why have reservations about some part of it?

Daejoyoung:

ok let me cut to the chase. I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys and a wild beast mauled 42 of them simply because they mocked his bald head, that is not the god of jesus in the new testament.
l cannot accept that thesame God who killed 70,000 people simply for a sin committed by David is thesame God of a man like jesus whom l respect so much.
So l have come to see the old testament as a collection of different ideas of Yahweh( God) unless you can prove otherwise, if you or anyone can do that, then l would begin take you guys seriously when you claim that the entire bible is your authority.

When we come to the new testament, then we begin to accept that women should not teach in church or that women should be in obedience simply because Adam was not tempted but Eve.Does your church prevent women from preaching in church today? many churches that claim to accept the authority of the entire bible, do not obey this command and they have interpretations for it too, and yet we all claim to follow thesame bible. So no one can truly have a unified understanding of the bible, that's why there were various sects in Judaism from of old and there have been many sects in christianity. Do not make a book ( which is a library) your authority, rather let the principles that can be compared with one another in the book, be extracted from it. lf you assume from the start that a book is your authority, then you cannot question it for it must by default be perfect.

Also l cannot shut down my brain to what l know about textual variants in the new testament, and how writings like Mark 16v9-20 do not belong to the original, or 1 john 5v7 which was added to your kjv bible but was never in any earlier manuscript prior to the 10th century.
How can you know all these things and claim that the bible is an authority?

You ask me what authority l base my arguments on if not the bible, and l would ask you on what authority did the disciples as well as paul and Christians of the first 100 years after jesus base their arguments on without the new testament?
ln the first 3 centuries, there were many books and there was no canon of the new testament, and the books you read depended on the church you attended, are you saying those were not Christians simply because they had no canon as authority?
lf anyone can explain these points to me , then l would reconsider my view of the bible.

For the records however, l respect the bible and the core of my theology and spirituality is based on the bible, but that doesn't mean l cannot question it. Martin Luther for instance, rejected the book of james, that doesn't make him a non Christian, but for you he is not a Christian because he doesn't accept all scriptures, but he kickstarted the reformation and this is most likely why you are not a catholic today.

Finally you said l make lots of claims without offering proof, can you give me examples of these claims? l have backed up most of my theological claims with the bible, if there is any l didn't back up with scripture, please bring it to my notice.

You make my point. You have established yourself as the authority that must be satisfied. You decide what is right and what is wrong all by yourself. You have set standards that God Himself must submit to in order for you to accept Him as God, which is a most ludicrous notion, since if God must bow to you, then He cannot be your God.

Let me see if I can show you what I mean. I think that the first Bible that I ever read was the KJV. I know that my childhood Bible-reading experience was framed by the KJV and the RSV, the latter especially because it was what was demanded in primary and secondary school, I believe. I only discovered the NIV and other versions as I grew into adolescence. So, I grew up understanding the 42 individuals that the bears mauled as little children like myself. I did not understand them as being adolescent, still I never thought "God could never do such a thing, He can't be so cruel." The reason? How on earth am I supposed to know what God can and cannot do without reference to the Bible? The only way that I can get a hint of God's Character outside the Bible is by looking at creation around me, and when I do, I see people of all ages die in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons. If God made the world and rules over it as it is, then the Bible must know what it is talking about in this instance. That is the attitude of faith. I don't dictate to God how He must be. He is God. I am the creature, the one who must bow and worship. The same applies to your other objections.

This is how faith is born in the hearts of men. First, we awaken to the witness of Creation around and within ourselves about the Greatness of the God Who must have made it all, to our obvious responsibility to such a Mighty God, to our utter failure in meeting that responsibility, and finally to our inescapable return to answer to Him through death (Psalm 19; Romans 1-2; Ecclesiastes 12:1-7). When we face these very obvious truths, the next question that arises in the human heart is "how can we make peace with such a God?" As Psalm 19, Romans 1-2, and Ecclesiastes 12 demonstrate, that question immediately leads one to the Bible where we find what this God demands of us in order for us to escape His Condemnation. We have absolutely no other way to get to God. We can certainly pretend anything we want, so all kinds of people create all kinds of religions and philosophies in answer to the witness of Creation. The vast majority of us pretend that God is something completely different than He has shown Himself to be through Creation and the Bible. They are doing just like you are here, pretending that God cannot be what He is, assuming some ability to dictate righteousness to God. So, for example, you find fault with Him if He did indeed send bears to maul adolescents (or even pre-pubescent children, if you insist) for mouthing off to His Own Emissary. And you take issue with Him for calling faith righteousness. All of this as if you yourself had any true ability to tell the Lord God what is right and what is wrong.

The Bible does say that no one can dictate to God (Isaiah 40:13-14; Romans 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 2:16), but if it did not say it, it is still a very natural assumption to make, since God made all things. If He did, how on earth could He ever require advice from the things that He Himself invented? Yet, here you are pretending to some ability to tell God what is righteous for Him to do and what isn't.

The point is simple: unless God Himself tells you about Himself, it is incredibly foolish to make assumptions about Him. The Bible is how He has told us about Himself through the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The Bible explains the witness of Creation to us and expands upon it to tell us of things we have absolutely no way of knowing except through its own testimony.

You complain about textual variants and interpolations in the Bible, but are you not ignoring how education and academics works? Who would reject the authority of Isaac Newton on the basis of corruptions of his actual writings and research by later hands? Not a single scientist worth his salt would do that. What every academic worth the cost of their education does in cases like that is that they apply a skill called "textual criticism" to arrive at what the authority in question actually said. That is how ancient manuscripts are reconstructed today and preserved. If science, history, and literature warrant such careful scholarship, how much more the Bible that holds our eternal fate in its pages? Who would be so foolish as to dismiss its authority on the basis of its corruptibility? What's more, if Satan is invested in our eternal condemnation, does it not stand to reason that he will instigate willing human beings to try to corrupt the original writings of the Bible? Does it not also stand to reason that God will permit it to a limited extent in order to separate those who value His Truth from those who don't? Those who value His Truth will refuse to alter it no matter what the incentive, and they will also be the ones to investigate the texts that they inherit to make sure that what they are reading is what was really written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, while those who don't value that Truth will seek to corrupt it to suit their own selves and they will also be the ones who insist on reading the errors without any correction and who insist on rejecting the Bible entirely because they either don't want to do the work involved in discovering what is truly written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what isn't or only want an excuse to dismiss the Truth in preference of the lies that they prefer.

You argue that different people and different groups of people do not submit to the Authority of the Bible, choosing either to ignore parts of it or to ignore all of it, but what does that have to do with me? Are they going to judge me after I die? Am I responsible to them? Why should I care what they do with the Bible if the Person that I will answer to is God Himself? My business is to learn God's Truth and make sure to align myself with it, so that when I see Him I won't be condemned by Him. Nowhere in the Bible am I required to agree with others in any fictions that they prefer. The unity that believers must have is in the Truth (Ephesians 4:3-6,13), not in some crazy idea that anyone chooses to have. So, the Lord is not going to say to me, "why did you not have a unified understanding of the Bible with so-and-so?" He is going to ask me, "why did you not believe the Bible and those who explained it to you when they spoke in agreement with the Bible?"

As for the unproven claims that you have been making, I really hate having to make a list of such things with people like you, because you make so many and then you have a problem owning up to them. So what I will do is point out that you have made new ones here and give you examples to illustrate my point. What you do with that is likely not going to interest me enough to respond any further on them:

Claim #1: I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys and a wild beast mauled 42 of them simply because they mocked his bald head, that is not the god of jesus in the new testament.

Note: the prophet was Elisha, not Elijah (you make mistakes like that a lot, and that suggests to me that you are not as familiar with the Bible as one who is questioning its authority ought to be), but the claim here is that the God of Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-25 is not the God of Jesus in the New Testament. Says who? You? Why? Because you cannot accept that God could do what He is recorded to have done there? Why could He not have? Because you cannot permit such a thing?

Claims #2 and #3: ln the first 3 centuries, there were many books and there was no canon of the new testament, and the books you read depended on the church you attended...

Note: Who says that there was no canon in the early church? Or that the books you read then depended on what church you attended? You? Somebody else you will quote whom we must believe because...why exactly?

As for your argument about Martin Luther, even in the Bible, Peter, later a great believer and one of the Eternal Twelve, did not believe what Isaiah taught about Jesus Christ and kept resisting the Cross. Shall I do the same because he did it too? In fact, the Lord showed Himself to Mary Magdalene first upon His Resurrection, because she was the one to believe in His Resurrection ahead of the others. In other words, she believed what He said more firmly and enthusiastically than the others. We will all be rewarded according to our individual choices, not according to how we follow other people's mistakes. You claim that without Martin Luther I would be a Roman Catholic today? Says who? Was he the first person to reject the Roman ways? There have always been those who believed the Bible independent of the wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church. How do you know that I wouldn't have been one of them? Nonetheless, where one person fails to do what they should, God is never short of options. As the Lord said to the teachers of the Law, if the crowds stop shouting, the very stones will cry out in praise. So, you have too small a God in your thoughts to compare with the One Who made the Universe and Whom I worship.

Finally, as I said, you are blaspheming, so this is not a conversation that is guaranteed to last with me in it. This is a token response, still giving you the benefit of the doubt. There is no guarantee that I will respond further. I just thought to warn you of that.

Maximus69:
@bolded in red has settled it all!

So since this so called GOAT has resolved in his heart that he is not, cannot and will never be your brother in faith, but will remain unchangeably a GOAT in union with his other 8,500,000 goats under the same umbrella, worshipping together as one big happy family of peace loving GOATS! John 17:20-23

What do you think now?

Are you (a SHEEP) still a brother to this GOAT?

Because Jesus never said that Goats and Sheep are one fold under his shepherding service!

Jehovah's Witnesses are OK with whatever your resolve about us {Matthew 10:25} but know now that we will never agree that we are of the same category as you and your folks!

[img]https://s5/images/KiddingMe.jpg[/img] [img]https://s5/images/GoatAgain.jpg[/img] [img]https://s5/images/GameBrah.jpg[/img]

Daejoyoung:
Hmm hi Richard thanks for your answers

You Wrote....First, you say that Elijah asked God to kill them. That is not what the text says, he simply called down a curse on them. Nor does it say any of them were killed. Yes, it says 42 were mauled--but mauled means injured, not killed (it is not impossible some died, but it isn't stated as such). As for the claim that it was only for making fun of his head, that is unlikely. People hold up the fact 42 were listed as being mauled as bad because of how many it was--but that cuts around the other way, meaning there were at least 42 of them who were jeering at him. Do you think 42+ people came out of the city just to make fun of a guy for being bald? That seems highly unlikely. The far more likely situation is that they were actually planning to attack him, which makes his calling out of the bears a matter of defense.

Your interpretation is that this was probably in self defense, but that is my point, the text doesn't make it clear, not many Christians would come away with this interpretation from a plain reading of the text, and there are many who can use this passage to say do not mock or blaspheme the anointed of God.
My point is that you had to do exegiesis for this difficult passage, you had to use your logic at this point, to say it isn't possible that it was 2 bears killing 42 children just because they mocked him.
So the bible usually is all about interpretation, and other Christians disagree with you and l, we have no right to call them heretics or blasphemers because the text is not clear in the first place.
This is the problem for people who give a book the authority it should not have, it may have been perfect when written but now it has been translated and the cultures and way of doing things are far removed from us, all we have to do is extract God's everlasting principles from it only like jesus did, because the letter kills( as you have proven) but the spirit gives life.

You Wrote...<I assume this refers to David's taking of the census. The problem, however, is that as is stated in 2 Samuel 24:1, God was angry at Israel before David did anything. The reason for the anger is not stated--presumably it was Israel turning from God again--but to say it was "simply" for a sin committed by David is inaccurate; David's sin may have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back. (if anyone is wondering why it was portrayed as wrong for David to take the census, it was likely not the census itself that was the problem, but David doing it without the accompanying tax that was kind of the point of the census--see Exodus 30:11, which states that the tax should be levied when the census is conducted)>

Yahweh is always angry in the bible for things you don't even expect, this is why this event is not surprising given the character of yahweh ( a merciful but tough God of war) which is nice. So your interpretation again is logical, but for those who worship the bible as a book and take it at face value, why would you blame them?
l never gave this passage much thought until a particular pastor used it for his sermon, he didn't understand it like you, and l don't blame him because the jews attributed to Yahweh( God) every single thing that happened, God creates both light and darkness, the idea of satan as a main opposer to God was not fully developed then, in the old testament God gives command to:
1) Kill babies and horses( 1 Samuel 15v3)
2) To burn promiscuous daughters of priests alive ( somewhere in Deuteronomy)
3) To stone a man to death who picked stones on the sabbath( this may have been understandable at the time but would God do this today?)
My point is this.. Why don't you take Hebrews 1v1 seriously, that in the past God spoke to us through his prophets but now he speaks to us through his son.
ln Luke 9v55-56 the disciples were asking that fire be called down like Elijah did, but jesus said ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, the son of man did not come to destroy men's life but to save.

As literature to me, the old testament is more interesting than the new testament, l am not rejecting the old testament but l just take it as an interesting read, when l was a child, proverbs guided me all through. There is gold in Ecclesiastes and the Author was wonderful, in thesame way l love Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and the stoic writings, as well as the Buddha and the Tao, and even gems from some of our Nigerian old literature but l cannot except any of all these as the word of God, l consider them useful for my learning and part of all our spiritual fossil records.

l also admire the Yahweh character to an extent but l am free to criticize the character and any other character from the books using my brain in thesame way you used your brain to interprete these texts and l appreciate your interpretations.
l can even accept them as valid interpretations but l know the text itself does not make it clear because it is simply a human book.


You wrote....<None of the textual variants threaten any major doctrine. It doesn't matter if you take out Mark 16:9-20, because the important information is found in the other Gospels. And while some have claimed that 1 John 5:7 is critical to the doctrine of the Trinity, it really isn't--people believed in it on the basis of other verses before 1 John 5:7 was ever in any manuscript>



But Mark 16v9-20 is still in our bible today, and Christians even pastors take it as the literal word of God written by Mark. Now you know these, but christians generally don't know these including pastors, but that is not even my problem.


l have no problem with the text itself and l believe in the text, my point is that it wasn't written by Mark, so the unknown scribe who put it there should also be taken as inspired by the Holyspirit, same with 1 john 5v7, some people quote this till date as major proof of the trinity, this is good and l have no problem with that, but given their view of scripture, would they quote it if they knew it was added one thousand years later by the catholic church and wasn't written by john? for me l have no problem quoting it, because in my view of the bible God inspired that person to put it there and God has been inspiring many books, God also inspires me in many ways l don't know, when l write some things l write, it doesn't make all of these the word of God nor does it make the writings particularly false or true, it only means they are useful for learning.
See l have one major problem with the Islamic religion, and that is the belief that the Quran is the verbatim word of God, when people begin to say a book is the verbatim word of God( quran or bible) they can't question it or see any wrong in it by default.


You Wrote...Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

Good, it means unlike many others here Martin luther revered some parts of the bible more than others, if he believed the bible to be the verbatim word of God, then why have reservations about some part of it?

"¹These are the commandments and statutes and ordinances that the LORD your God has instructed me to teach you to follow in the land that you are about to enter and possess,
²so that you and your children and grandchildren may fear the LORD your God all the days of your lives by keeping all His statutes and commandments that I give you, and so that your days may be prolonged."
- Deuteronomy 6:1-2

"²¹If you walk in hostility toward Me and refuse to obey Me, I will multiply your plagues seven times, according to your sins.
²²I will send wild animals against you to rob you of your children, destroy your livestock, and reduce your numbers, until your roads lie desolate."
- Leviticus 26:21-22

"They will be wasted from hunger and ravaged by pestilence and bitter plague;
I will send the fangs of wild beasts against them, with the venom of vipers that slither in the dust."
- Deuteronomy 32:24

Please leave richard in peace Daejoyoung ooo. I previously have said there was a there was a covenant between them and God at Mount Horeb.. It was this that Elisha activated, because these young men trainnee prophets from the traditional home where God "lives", Bethel, rejected God and disgracefully sent his prophet away

Now, if Muhammed wont go to the mountain, the mountain will be brought to Muhammed. If you wont go read about the covenant's terms and conditions, I will bring excerpts of them here for you to read, if reading the whole of Deuteronomy 5:1-33 and Deuteronomy 6:1-25, at one go was the problem, lol to know more about the covenant made between them and God at Mount Horeb.

Give it a rest Daejoyoung, because they agreed to the terms and conditions of that contract, lol

Daejoyoung:



Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

Good, it means unlike many others here Martin luther revered some parts of the bible more than others, if he believed the bible to be the verbatim word of God, then why have reservations about some part of it?

People like Martin Luther fought hard to know which way Christianity ought to be practiced, many of their contemporaries feels they're insane for speaking against the traditional doctrines of the Churches, of course the true God will never forget such people who stood against all odds to speak out what seems wrong that the Churches are doing.

By that time all these people were complaining about what seems wrong, Jesus has not come invisibly to intervene in the matters of the Churches. But when Jesus came back in 1914, he started setting matters straight amongst those who have been hungry and thirsty for what is right {Matthew 5:6}, Jesus MUST NOT speak personally with anyone because he is the WORD OF GOD {John1:1} whatever he says should be included in God's word the Bible. And don't forget that since the Bible has been sealed in 98a.d, Jesus himself said "no further addition nor subtraction" {Revelation 22:18-19}

So as a mighty spirit being that he is, Jesus refused to speak to anybody, but he was watching people claiming Christians {Luke 18:8} and using God's holy spirit to pick them one by one out of all the false religions claiming Christians. Then he began gathering them together as one! Matthew 13:24-30

At first they made so many mistakes because the spirit being (Jesus) gathering them didn't talk to anyone. But they can feel the presence of a mighty spirit being permeating their midst. And gradually Jesus began removing all the false religious ideas Satan has IMPLANTED after his Apostles are dead (sleeping). Matthew 13:25 compared to John 11:11-14

Throughout the 20th century, so many religious groups sprang up claiming Christians and dragging amongst themselves which is the group Jesus is using. But Jesus said "BY THEIR FRUIT YOU WILL RECOGNISE THEM, PEOPLE DON'T GATHER GRAPES FROM THORNS NOR FIGS FROM THISTLES, EVERY GOOD TREE PRODUCES FINE FRUIT AND EVERY BAD TREE PRODUCES ROTTEN FRUITS" Matthew 7:15-18

So after the spiritual cleansing of his own group, Jesus began presenting them throughout the earth for honest hearted and sincere observers to assess how true Christianity should be, just as he did in the first century.

Now the whole world can SEE just one single group {Matthew 5:14-16} whose gathering is bearing WITNESS of God's holy spirit as LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, GOODNESS, KINDNESS, FAITH, MILDNESS and SELF~CONTROL is permeating their midst! Galatians 5:22-23

So whoever wants to speak against Jehovah's Witnesses, let them continue doing so in support of their religions that's DYING "in their hearts", notice that none of them can proudly present their religion but they want to claim they're brothers in a disorderly form of faith (lying and deceiving their own souls),

The irony of it is that they appreciate the fine qualities they're SEEING amongst Jehovah's Witnesses they don't want to subject themselves to the rules that's bearing all those fine fruits but they want to say "we are of the same category with them"!

That's what pains them most whenever we say "NO" to them, we must keep ringing it in their hears that if they're not ready to subject to God's holy spirit that's bearing the fine fruits they're SEEING in our midst, they can't be our brothers in FAITH! Matthew 12:46-50

God bless you!

Daejoyoung:
Martin Luther did not reject the Book of James. He expressed some reservations about it but nevertheless accepted it.

Good, it means unlike many others here Martin luther revered some parts of the bible more than others, if he believed the bible to be the verbatim word of God, then why have reservations about some part of it?

Maximus69:
People like Martin Luther fought hard to know which way Christianity ought to be practiced, many of their contemporaries feels they're insane for speaking against the traditional doctrines of the Churches, of course the true God will never forget such people who stood against all odds to speak out what seems wrong that the Churches are doing.

By that time all these people were complaining about what seems wrong, Jesus has not come invisibly to intervene in the matters of the Churches. But when Jesus came back in 1914, he started setting matters straight amongst those who have been hungry and thirsty for what is right {Matthew 5:6}, Jesus MUST NOT speak personally with anyone because he is the WORD OF GOD {John1:1} whatever he says should be included in God's word the Bible. And don't forget that since the Bible has been sealed in 98a.d, Jesus himself said "no further addition nor subtraction" {Revelation 22:18-19}

So as a mighty spirit being that he is, Jesus refused to speak to anybody, but he was watching people claiming Christians {Luke 18:8} and using God's holy spirit to pick them one by one out of all the false religions claiming Christians. Then he began gathering them together as one! Matthew 13:24-30

At first they made so many mistakes because the spirit being (Jesus) gathering them didn't talk to anyone. But they can feel the presence of a mighty spirit being permeating their midst. And gradually Jesus began removing all the false religious ideas Satan has IMPLANTED after his Apostles are dead (sleeping). Matthew 13:25 compared to John 11:11-14

Throughout the 20th century, so many religious groups sprang up claiming Christians and dragging amongst themselves which is the group Jesus is using. But Jesus said "BY THEIR FRUIT YOU WILL RECOGNISE THEM, PEOPLE DON'T GATHER GRAPES FROM THORNS NOR FIGS FROM THISTLES, EVERY GOOD TREE PRODUCES FINE FRUIT AND EVERY BAD TREE PRODUCES ROTTEN FRUITS" Matthew 7:15-18

So after the spiritual cleansing of his own group, Jesus began presenting them throughout the earth for honest hearted and sincere observers to assess how true Christianity should be, just as he did in the first century.

Now the whole world can SEE just one single group {Matthew 5:14-16} whose gathering is bearing WITNESS of God's holy spirit as LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, GOODNESS, KINDNESS, FAITH, MILDNESS and SELF~CONTROL is permeating their midst! Galatians 5:22-23

So whoever wants to speak against Jehovah's Witnesses, let them continue doing so in support of their religions that's DYING "in their hearts", notice that none of them can proudly present their religion but they want to claim they're brothers in a disorderly form of faith (lying and deceiving their own souls),

The irony of it is that they appreciate the fine qualities they're SEEING amongst Jehovah's Witnesses they don't want to subject themselves to the rules that's bearing all those fine fruits but they want to say "we are of the same category with them"!

That's what pains them most whenever we say "NO" to them, we must keep ringing it in their hears that if they're not ready to subject to God's holy spirit that's bearing the fine fruits they're SEEING in our midst, they can't be our brothers in FAITH!
Matthew 12:46-50


God bless you!

Daejoyoung, don't mind Maximus69, listen everyone knows why, the reasons Martin Luther was initially biased towards the epistle of James, but we that God he later on conceded and made peace with God to accept the book on its merit. He even on record used the book to preach from and so the voice of reason had the day.

I did ask you Daejoyoung, whether you have any of objections to the Book of James, but you don't seem eager to respond or give any answer, lol. Martin Luther made peace with God, I hope you aren't banking on using Martin Luther as an excuse when you appear to start begin explain yourself before God on why you looked down on the Book of James, lol.

MuttleyLaff:


Daejoyoung, don't mind Maximus69, listen everyone knows why, the reasons Martin Luther was initially biased towards the epistle of James, but we that God he later on conceded and made peace with God to accept the book on its merit. He even on record used the book to preach from and so the voice of reason had the day.

I did ask you Daejoyoung, whether you have any of objections to the Book of James, but you don't seem eager to respond or give any answer, lol. Martin Luther made peace with God, I hope you aren't banking on using Martin Luther as an excuse when you appear to start begin explain yourself before God on why you looked down on the Book of James, lol.

You are a 21th century joker my friend, someone threw a question in the thread and instead of presenting your own understanding on the matter, you're telling him NOT TO LISTEN to another presenter!

For your information, people like Martin Luther were confused not because of what the inspired writers penned down, but due to the misinterpretations given those inspired words!

If Martin is alive today to study the New Word Translation of the holy scriptures that was supervised by the mighty spirit being himself (Jesus), in fact he will behave like some people in the Americas who grabbed the NWT to their bosom and began shedding tears of joy as they're able to grasp the message in God's word!

Ihedinobi3:

You make my point. You have established yourself as the authority that must be satisfied. You decide what is right and what is wrong all by yourself. You have set standards that God Himself must submit to in order for you to accept Him as God, which is a most ludicrous notion, since if God must bow to you, then He cannot be your God.

Let me see if I can show you what I mean. I think that the first Bible that I ever read was the KJV. I know that my childhood Bible-reading experience was framed by the KJV and the RSV, the latter especially because it was what was demanded in primary and secondary school, I believe. I only discovered the NIV and other versions as I grew into adolescence. So, I grew up understanding the 42 individuals that the bears mauled as little children like myself. I did not understand them as being adolescent, still I never thought "God could never do such a thing, He can't be so cruel." The reason? How on earth am I supposed to know what God can and cannot do without reference to the Bible? The only way that I can get a hint of God's Character outside the Bible is by looking at creation around me, and when I do, I see people of all ages die in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons. If God made the world and rules over it as it is, then the Bible must know what it is talking about in this instance. That is the attitude of faith. I don't dictate to God how He must be. He is God. I am the creature, the one who must bow and worship. The same applies to your other objections.

This is how faith is born in the hearts of men. First, we awaken to the witness of Creation around and within themselves about the Greatness of the God Who must have made it all, to our obvious responsibility to such a Mighty God, to our utter failure in meeting that responsibility, and finally to our inescapable return to answer to Him through death (Psalm 19; Romans 1-2). When we face these very obvious truths, the next question that arises in the human heart is "how can we make peace with such a God?" As both Psalm 19 and Romans 1-2 demonstrate, that question immediately leads one to the Bible where we find what this God demands of us in order for us to escape His Condemnation. We have absolutely no other way to get to God. We can certainly pretend anything we want, so all kinds of people create all kinds of religions and philosophies in answer to the witness of Creation. The vast majority of us pretend that God is something completely different than He has shown Himself to be through Creation and the Bible. They are doing just like you are here, pretending that God cannot be what He is, assuming some ability to dictate righteousness to God. So, for example, you find fault with Him if He did indeed send bears to maul adolescents (or even pre-pubescent children, if you insist) for mouthing off to His Own Emissary. And you take issue with Him for calling faith righteousness. All of this as if you yourself had any true ability to tell the Lord God what is right and what is wrong.

The Bible does say that no one can dictate to God (Isaiah 40:13-14; Romans 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 2:16), but if it did not say it, it is still a very natural assumption to make, since God made all things. If He did, how on earth could He ever require advice from the things that He Himself invented? Yet, here you are pretending to some ability to tell God what is righteous for Him to do and what isn't.

The point is simple: unless God Himself tells you about Himself, it is incredibly foolish to make assumptions about Him. The Bible is how He has told us about Himself through the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The Bible explains the witness of Creation to us and expands upon it to tell us of things we have absolutely no way of knowing except through its own testimony.

You complain about textual variants and interpolations in the Bible, but are you not ignoring how education and academics works? Who will reject the authority of Isaac Newton on the basis of corruptions of his actual writings and research by later hands? Not a single scientist worth his salt would do that. What every academic worth the cost of their education does in cases like that is that they apply a skill called "textual criticism" to arrive at what the authority in question actually said. That is how ancient manuscripts are reconstructed today and preserved. If science, history, and literature warrant such careful scholarship, how much more the Bible that holds our eternal fate in its pages? Who would be so foolish as to dismiss its authority on the basis of its corruptibility? What's more, if Satan is invested in our eternal condemnation, does it not stand to reason that he will instigate willing human beings to try to corrupt the original writings of the Bible? Does it not also stand to reason that God will permit it to a limited extent in order to separate those who value His Truth from those who don't? Those who value His Truth will refuse to alter it no matter what the incentive, and they will also be the ones to investigate the texts that they inherit to make sure that what they are reading is what was really written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, while those who don't value that Truth will seek to adjust it to suit their own selves and they will also be the ones who insist on reading the errors without any correction and who insist on rejecting the Bible entirely because they either don't want to do the work involved in discovering what is truly written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what isn't or only want an excuse to dismiss the Truth in preference of the lies that they prefer.

You argue that different people and different groups of people do not submit to the Authority of the Bible, choosing either to ignore parts of it or to ignore all of it, but what does that have to do with me? Are they going to judge me after I die? Am I responsible to them? Why should I care what they do with the Bible if the Person that I will answer to is God Himself? My business is to learn God's Truth and make sure to align myself with it, so that when I see Him I won't be condemned by Him. Nowhere in the Bible am I required to agree with others in any fictions that they prefer. The unity that believers must have is in the Truth (Ephesians 4:3-6,13), not in some crazy idea that anyone chooses to have. So, the Lord is not going to say to me, "why did you not have a unified understanding of the Bible with so-and-so?" He is going to ask me, "why did you not believe the Bible and those who explained it to you when they spoke in agreement with the Bible?"

As for the unproven claims that you have been making, I really hate having to make a list of such things with people like you, because you make so many and then you have a problem owning up to them. So what I will do is point out that you have made new ones here and give you examples to illustrate my point. What you do with that is likely not going to interest me enough to respond any further on them:

Claim #1: I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys and a wild beast mauled 42 of them simply because they mocked his bald head, that is not the god of jesus in the new testament.

Note: the prophet was Elisha, not Elijah (you make mistakes like that a lot, and that suggests to me that you are not as familiar with the Bible as one who is questioning its authority ought to be), but the claim here is that the God of Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-25 is not the God of Jesus in the New Testament. Says who? You? Why? Because you cannot accept that God could do what He is recorded to have done there? Why could He not have? Because you cannot permit such a thing?

Claims #2 and #3: ln the first 3 centuries, there were many books and there was no canon of the new testament, and the books you read depended on the church you attended...

Note: Who says that there was no canon in the early church? Or that the books you read then depended on what church you attended? You? Somebody else you will quote whom we must believe because...why exactly?

As for your argument about Martin Luther, even in the Bible, Peter, later a great believer and one of the Eternal Twelve, did not believe what Isaiah taught about Jesus Christ and kept resisting the Cross. Shall I do the same because he did it too? In fact, the Lord showed Himself to Mary Magdalene first upon His Resurrection, because she was the one to believe in His Resurrection ahead of the others. In other words, she believed what He said more firmly and enthusiastically than the others. We will all be rewarded according to our individual choices, not according to how we follow other people's mistakes. You claim that without Martin Luther I would be a Roman Catholic today? Says who? Was he the first person to reject the Roman ways? There have always been those who believed the Bible independent of the wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church. How do you know that I wouldn't have been one of them? Nonetheless, where one person fails to do what they should, God is never short of options. As the Lord said to the teachers of the Law, if the crowds stop shouting, the very stones will cry out in praise. So, you have too small a God in your thoughts to compare with the One Who made the Universe and Whom I worship.

Finally, as I said, you are blaspheming, so this is not a conversation that is guaranteed to last with me in it. This is a token response, still giving you the benefit of the doubt. There is no guarantee that I will respond further. I just thought to warn you of that.

yeah lhedinobi3 l am not doing it for you to necessarily respond, l am doing it for those who read and others who may respond to the points without dismissing me or using words like heretics, blasphemy, etc people like Richard. So yes this is not a token response to you but for others and of course myself. That is why l put these things out, let others do their research and truth would always prevail. And it may just happen to be your truth that is prevailing here, who knows? l am interested in truth not in the person speaking whether he be blasphemer, heretic, satan, etc.


So as to your first point, Can humans be more just than God? no.
lf God created us and we tell atheists that all humans must base their morality on who God is and what God commands, then when we go to the bible to see who God is, shouldn't we see a compass for morality that is objective and not subjective? you don't need to answer, others can answer me, l am tired of your pride as though l am forcing you to discuss with me.

You wrote..<The only way that I can get a hint of God's Character outside the Bible is by looking at creation around me, and when I do, I see people of all ages die in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons. If God made the world and rules over it as it is, then the Bible must know what it is talking about in this instance>

Fair enough, but thesame bible also tells you that it is a fallen world and the world is not a perfect place and there would be a new age where there would be no more death, sin, suffering, pain, sickness, etc. or am l making this up? do you reject this and are you saying God is responsible for killing all these people you see dying for no reason?
When l look at the world l see an imperfect world which we are going through as a kind of test to make our spirit man come alive, and to Learn the principles of the kingdom of God. Even the animal kingdom, innocent animals are killed everytime and we eat chicken for Christmas but the question is.. ls this the final will of God? what does lsaiah say about how animals would live and relate to us in the new age.

ln jesus teachings he says we should love our enemies, but this is almost impossible in our world today, because we need armies in many nations and we have to kill our enemies sometimes else we get killed, but it was worse in time past, does that mean it is the will of God that we continue to have armies and fight wars? no, but the world is against the Father and the Father is against the world, the world does not know the Father, only the Son knows him, and we have the gospels that teach us about the son and indirectly the Father and his ways.

You wrote...<And you take issue with Him for calling faith righteousness. All of this as if you yourself had any true ability to tell the Lord God what is right and what is wrong>

No, you don't even read what l say to understand because you are dismissive of heretics, l take issues with many Christians for how they understand faith. The faith that produces righteousness can only be seen in our works not blind belief. Did l make this up also? or doesn't the bible teach that?



Thesame bible said Wouldn't the judge of all the earth do right?Abraham asked if there are 10 righteous people in Sodom and Gommorah, would you destroy them and the lord said no.Yet thesame bible turns around to say that God flooded the entire world ( which may have included babies) and even moreso it states directly that God commanded the killing of Amalekite babies. So l am not rejecting the bible, l am using one scripture to interpret another as impossible, so l have backing not only from my conscience on what is right and wrong but also from thesame bible as well, so it is 2 against 1. lf your conscience tells you that there is nothing wrong with killing babies or burning promiscuous daughters of priests alive then for you it is the other way round of course.

ln the bible St Paul says in Romans that even those without the law have innate conscience, so even those who were without the old testament in the time of Moses could possibly keep the ten commandments, because in addition to scripture God has given us conscience to judge what is right as well as logic. This is part of the reasons you reject the pagan gods who accept human sacrifices and do all sort of terrible things.
This is why we would reject a pope who would want to tell us to carry out crusades today, and not only kill the men but also kill babies and take only virgin women for ourselves in certain circumstances. lf we do not use one scripture to override another and then measure with our conscience, how would we stand a chance to oppose these things or tell the pope that he is wrong?

You Wrote...<You complain about textual variants and interpolations in the Bible, but are you not ignoring how education and academics works? Who will reject the authority of Isaac Newton on the basis of corruptions of his actual writings and research by later hands?

Except that isaac newton 's writings are not taken as the word of God, they can be challenged and yes he was wrong about certain things, and now we know because his writings though important to us did not become everlasting dogma, but we understand the spirit and principles behind his writings and they have changed our worldview of things, and it is also by that yardstick that we challenge some of his writings as well that seem wrong.
You are actually making my point for me.
Also l take it to mean that you reject Mark 16v9-20 as possible corruptions of satan right? as well as 1 john 5v7, or maybe l am not understanding you clearly. lnterestingly l don't think they are corruptions of satan, l think they are both inspired. lf you think they are not inspired and should be out of our bible, l disagree with you but would not call you an heretic for what you choose or don't choose in the bible as long as you don't reject the gospel of the kingdom of God taught by jesus and his cross.



To your other points, do you agree that women should not speak in church then?
Do you agree that we shouldn't keep the laws of Moses today except the law of love( which covers everything) , if you believe this then both you and paul are not different from me and jesus, you are using one part of scripture to interpret another, you are extracting principles from scripture and not necessarily the letter, it doesn't mean that you reject scripture.
Even so those who allow their women to speak in church would argue about context, and also that women were important to jesus. You may disagree with them, but a Christian who wants to keep the old testament laws may disagree with you because those laws are in the bible. You would say they are no longer important because paul taught you they aren't, but why? are they not in thesame word of God? your answer would be that there is a new covenant and jesus fulfilled the law, then this would mean that you do not adhere to every letter of the bible as your authority because you can't, the bible itself does not permit you to do that.

You Wrote....Claim #1: [i]I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys.

l cannot accept it because jesus said in Luke 9v55-56, ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, the son of man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save. Jesus also said turn the other cheek in Matthew 5. This is not made up by me alone, l also get this from the bible.

You Wrote...Note: the prophet was Elisha, not Elijah (you make mistakes like that a lot, and that suggests to me that you are not as familiar with the Bible as one who is questioning its authority ought to be),

Ok, so because l was not in a condition to cross check and give you direct names and quotes, then l don't know the story or bible, lol. That's a common fallacy my man, you can do better than that. lf l made a mistake in the telling of the story itself, then that make sense, not on issues like names, or are you now like strict muslims who claim that every word of the Quran must be recited as it is? come on now.

Also Read Luke 9v55-56, jesus doesn't permit such, so l am not the one saying it, jesus whom you claim he is the word of God, he is the one saying it, even if he didn't say it, l know that it contradicts a God of love and wisdom. Except God is not love, and those parts of the bible that says he is, are contradictory.

This also is not justice, insulting a man for bald head as teenage children, and then they dying for that, how is that just to you? when in thesame bible jesus healed the ear of the captain who wanted to arrest him.

You Wrote...<Note: Who says that there was no canon in the early church?

Anyone can do their research on this, so I leave this for others to judge. The Ebionites for instance, we know had only parts of Matthew. Before the gospels were written, the message of the kingdom was spread only by oral traditions. Others can investigate these things easily.



Also you are making my point for me about Peter not believing everything. So would that mean Peter wasn't a Christian then because he didn't believe that, even after that, paul had a disagreement with him on the matters of keeping the law, did they go ahead calling each other heretics. That is my point, from the very beginning, the bible has been understood differently, and this is why paul says we know in part and we prophesy in part, but let us continue to love one another. We can correct each other, but love should make us humble enough to listen to each other and not seclude each other as long as we all are willing to obey the teachings of christ, then we are brothers, because we want to do the things jesus commanded us.

MuttleyLaff:
"¹These are the commandments and statutes and ordinances that the LORD your God has instructed me to teach you to follow in the land that you are about to enter and possess,
²so that you and your children and grandchildren may fear the LORD your God all the days of your lives by keeping all His statutes and commandments that I give you, and so that your days may be prolonged."
- Deuteronomy 6:1-2

"²¹If you walk in hostility toward Me and refuse to obey Me, I will multiply your plagues seven times, according to your sins.
²²I will send wild animals against you to rob you of your children, destroy your livestock, and reduce your numbers, until your roads lie desolate."
- Leviticus 26:21-22

"They will be wasted from hunger and ravaged by pestilence and bitter plague;
I will send the fangs of wild beasts against them, with the venom of vipers that slither in the dust."
- Deuteronomy 32:24

Please leave richard in peace Daejoyoung ooo. I previously have said there was a there was a covenant between them and God at Mount Horeb.. It was this that Elisha activated, because these young men trainnee prophets from the traditional home where God "lives", Bethel, rejected God and disgracefully sent his prophet away

Now, if Muhammed wont go to the mountain, the mountain will be brought to Muhammed. If you wont go read about the covenant's terms and conditions, I will bring excerpts of them here for you to read, if reading the whole of Deuteronomy 5:1-33 and Deuteronomy 6:1-25, at one go was the problem, lol to know more about the covenant made between them and God at Mount Horeb.

Give it a rest Daejoyoung, because they agreed to the terms and conditions of that contract, lol

ok sir, l would give it a rest. Thanks for giving us your understanding of these passages, and they are quite reasonable.

Daejoyoung:


yeah lhedinobi3 l am not doing it for you to necessarily respond, l am doing it for those who read and others who may respond to the points without dismissing me or using words like heretics, blasphemy, etc people like Richard. So yes this is not a token response to you but for others and of course myself. That is why l put these things out, let others do their research and truth would always prevail. And it may just happen to be your truth that is prevailing here, who knows? l am interested in truth not in the person speaking whether he be blasphemer, heretic, satan, etc.


So as to your first point, Can humans be more just than God? no.
lf God created us and we tell atheists that all humans must base their morality on who God is and what God commands, then when we go to the bible to see who God is, shouldn't we see a compass for morality that is objective and not subjective? you don't need to answer, others can answer me, l am tired of your pride as though l am forcing you to discuss with me.

You wrote..<The only way that I can get a hint of God's Character outside the Bible is by looking at creation around me, and when I do, I see people of all ages die in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons. If God made the world and rules over it as it is, then the Bible must know what it is talking about in this instance>

Fair enough, but thesame bible also tells you that it is a fallen world and the world is not a perfect place and there would be a new age where there would be no more death, sin, suffering, pain, sickness, etc. or am l making this up? do you reject this and are you saying God is responsible for killing all these people you see dying for no reason?
When l look at the world l see an imperfect world which we are going through as a kind of test to make our spirit man come alive, and to Learn the principles of the kingdom of God. Even the animal kingdom, innocent animals are killed everytime and we eat chicken for Christmas but the question is.. ls this the final will of God? what does lsaiah say about how animals would live and relate to us in the new age.

ln jesus teachings he says we should love our enemies, but this is almost impossible in our world today, because we need armies in many nations and we have to kill our enemies sometimes else we get killed, but it was worse in time past, does that mean it is the will of God that we continue to have armies and fight wars? no, but the world is against the Father and the Father is against the world, the world does not know the Father, only the Son knows him, and we have the gospels that teach us about the son and indirectly the Father and his ways.

You wrote...<And you take issue with Him for calling faith righteousness. All of this as if you yourself had any true ability to tell the Lord God what is right and what is wrong>

No, you don't even read what l say to understand because you are dismissive of heretics, l take issues with many Christians for how they understand faith. The faith that produces righteousness can only be seen in our works not blind belief. Did l make this up also? or doesn't the bible teach that?



Thesame bible said Wouldn't the judge of all the earth do right?Abraham asked if there are 10 righteous people in Sodom and Gommorah, would you destroy them and the lord said no.Yet thesame bible turns around to say that God flooded the entire world ( which may have included babies) and even moreso it states directly that God commanded the killing of Amalekite babies. So l am not rejecting the bible, l am using one scripture to interpret another as impossible, so l have backing not only from my conscience on what is right and wrong but also from thesame bible as well, so it is 2 against 1. lf your conscience tells you that there is nothing wrong with killing babies or burning promiscuous daughters of priests alive then for you it is the other way round of course.

ln the bible St Paul says in Romans that even those without the law have innate conscience, so even those who were without the old testament in the time of Moses could possibly keep the ten commandments, because in addition to scripture God has given us conscience to judge what is right as well as logic. This is part of the reasons you reject the pagan gods who accept human sacrifices and do all sort of terrible things.
This is why we would reject a pope who would want to tell us to carry out crusades today, and not only kill the men but also kill babies and take only virgin women for ourselves in certain circumstances. lf we do not use one scripture to override another and then measure with our conscience, how would we stand a chance to oppose these things or tell the pope that he is wrong?

You Wrote...<You complain about textual variants and interpolations in the Bible, but are you not ignoring how education and academics works? Who will reject the authority of Isaac Newton on the basis of corruptions of his actual writings and research by later hands?

Except that isaac newton 's writings are not taken as the word of God, they can be challenged and yes he was wrong about certain things, and now we know because his writings though important to us did not become everlasting dogma, but we understand the spirit and principles behind his writings and they have changed our worldview of things, and it is also by that yardstick that we challenge some of his writings as well that seem wrong.
You are actually making my point for me.
Also l take it to mean that you reject Mark 16v9-20 as possible corruptions of satan right? as well as 1 john 5v7, or maybe l am not understanding you clearly. lnterestingly l don't think they are corruptions of satan, l think they are both inspired. lf you think they are not inspired and should be out of our bible, l disagree with you but would not call you an heretic for what you choose or don't choose in the bible as long as you don't reject the gospel of the kingdom of God taught by jesus and his cross.



To your other points, do you agree that women should not speak in church then?
Do you agree that we shouldn't keep the laws of Moses today except the law of love( which covers everything) , if you believe this then both you and paul are not different from me and jesus, you are using one part of scripture to interpret another, you are extracting principles from scripture and not necessarily the letter, it doesn't mean that you reject scripture.
Even so those who allow their women to speak in church would argue about context, and also that women were important to jesus. You may disagree with them, but a Christian who wants to keep the old testament laws may disagree with you because those laws are in the bible. You would say they are no longer important because paul taught you they aren't, but why? are they not in thesame word of God? your answer would be that there is a new covenant and jesus fulfilled the law, then this would mean that you do not adhere to every letter of the bible as your authority because you can't, the bible itself does not permit you to do that.

You Wrote....Claim #1: I cannot for instance accept the old testament stories that Elijah was angry and asked God to kill young boys.

l cannot accept it because jesus said in Luke 9v55-56, ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, the son of man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save. Jesus also said turn the other cheek in Matthew 5. This is not made up by me alone, l also get this from the bible.

You Wrote...Note: the prophet was Elisha, not Elijah (you make mistakes like that a lot, and that suggests to me that you are not as familiar with the Bible as one who is questioning its authority ought to be),

Ok, so because l was not in a condition to cross check and give you direct names and quotes, then l don't know the story or bible, lol. That's a common fallacy my man, you can do better than that. lf l made a mistake in the telling of the story itself, then that make sense, not on issues like names, or are you now like strict muslims who claim that every word of the Quran must be recited as it is? come on now.

Also Read Luke 9v55-56, jesus doesn't permit such, so l am not the one saying it, jesus whom you claim he is the word of God, he is the one saying it, even if he didn't say it, l know that it contradicts a God of love and wisdom. Except God is not love, and those parts of the bible that says he is, are contradictory.

This also is not justice, insulting a man for bald head as teenage children, and then they dying for that, how is that just to you? when in thesame bible jesus healed the ear of the captain who wanted to arrest him.

You Wrote...<Note: Who says that there was no canon in the early church?

Anyone can do their research on this, so I leave this for others to judge. The Ebionites for instance, we know had only parts of Matthew. Before the gospels were written, the message of the kingdom was spread only by oral traditions. Others can investigate these things easily.



Also you are making my point for me about Peter not believing everything. So would that mean Peter wasn't a Christian then because he didn't believe that, even after that, paul had a disagreement with him on the matters of keeping the law, did they go ahead calling each other heretics. That is my point, from the very beginning, the bible has been understood differently, and this is why paul says we know in part and we prophesy in part, but let us continue to love one another. We can correct each other, but love should make us humble enough to listen to each other and not seclude each other as long as we all are willing to obey the teachings of christ, then we are brothers, because we want to do the things jesus commanded us.

I am glad that others are giving you responses that you are willing to respond to.

Let me reiterate: my problem with you is that you couch your questions and challenges in language that is suggestive of strife. I don't like to quarrel, nor should I quarrel, and as long as what you are doing is challenging the authority of the Bible, I cannot treat you as kindly as I would like to, so I can only offer you warnings and leave unless I see that you are heeding them, in which case I would stay and try to help you embrace and grow in the Truth. If you consider that pride, just as you considered my preference for the Bible's Testimony arrogance, then I would rather be a very proud man than a humble one.

You say that you are interested in Truth. Well, the Bible is Truth. It is THE Truth that the Lord has given to us to save us from the condemnation of Satan and his angels who slandered Him and who believed that slander respectively. So, you should see my difficulty with you. If you don't consider the Bible to be Truth, then what are you calling truth? What exactly are you interested in and thus how can I, a Bible teacher, help you?

Granted that this is a public forum and our conversation cannot be limited to each other - and that is partly why I don't assume that my responses are everything for anyone here - it is an act of courtesy on my part to notify the person that I am responding to that I may not continue to respond and offer my reasons for disengaging. That way, my position cannot be misconstrued by anyone who reads our conversation.

As for dismissing you and calling you a heretic and a blasphemer, not only are you those things, but those who love the Truth and are truly seeking it can never be discouraged or turned away by the way that they are treated in their search for i. Of course, if your ego is more important to you than the Truth that you say is what you seek, then you will only be offended and reject admonition as a result (Proverbs 12:1; 15:5):

21 Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.
Matthew 15:21-28 NASB

5 Then He said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs. 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.
Luke 11:5-10 NASB

But, of course, you are quite wrong that I have been dismissing you. As I said, I have only been warning you about your behavior. If I had not been, I would be disobeying the Scriptures and certainly not walking in love toward you. But, as I said, you have set yourself up as the authority to be deferred to, so warning you is a sin in your eyes. It is pride on my part to do so, in your eyes, not an act of love that is done to fetch you out of the fire. Nonetheless, what I do for you is going to be rewarded to me by the Lord, not by you, so how you receive it or judge it is of no consequence to me.

As for your question, it is the Lord Who defines what justice is and what it isn't, not humans. Anyone can pretend to define justice and demand that God act in accordance with their definition. Whether that is reasonable or not, I'm sure that you can judge. As for the question of subjectivity and objectivity, God sets objective standards for us but those standards are subject to Him. He is the King. There is no authority above Him that may dictate to Him. So, if He answers Elisha's request and sends bears to mail 42 "children" for disrespecting Him, that is justice and righteousness because God did it. So, just as you said, the standard is objective and it is God Himself, not us.

Regarding your second challenge here, there is where the difficulty lies. You ask me if God is the One responsible for all the dying we see. If I answer you one way or the other, how can I prove to you that my answer is true? Will you accept Scriptural evidence for my answer or will you tell me that the Bible contradicts itself and therefore cannot be trusted for an answer here?

For what it is worth, this is what the Bible teaches:

5 “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Isaiah 45:5-7 NASB

Yes, it is a fallen world that lies in the wicked one (1 John 5:19), but that is precisely why there is suffering in it. That suffering is God's judgment on the moral evil in the world. It will remain until God destroys this universe and makes a new one where there will be no unrighteousness. That is the only time in human experience when there will be no death or any kind of suffering, since no one will be sinning against God anymore. But, of course, all sinners will be in the Lake of Fire then suffering eternally for their rebellions against God. That too is what God does.

Daejoyoung:


...

As for the wars in the world and the Lord's command that we should love our enemies, this is why the Bible is written the way it is. It is written like a puzzle with its pieces scattered across all the books of the Bible. If you insist on simplistic answers to complex questions in the Bible, you will err. As individuals, we must love even those who hate us and not seek revenge for wrongs done to us, but the Lord also gave law and governments to protect good people from evil ones (Genesis 9:1-7; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14; Daniel 4:24-32). Therefore governments have a divine exception to kill criminals in order to protect law-abiding people from them. With respect to war specifically, God created the nations in order to prevent the coercion of human beings to abandon the Truth or cease from seeking it (Genesis 11:1-9; Acts 17:26-27). This was (and still is) necessary because when people band together to do anything, those who oppose it are usually killed by the majority. So, the separation of the nations preserved the lives of those who may wish to continue to seek after God. Armies are then godly tools used to preserve the integrity of each unique nation to allow those in it to continue to seek after God. This is what wars are about.

In other words, for as long as the human race is still making its choice whether to submit to God or persist in rebellion against Him, these things will remain part of human experience. During the Glorious Millennium of which I spoke before, it is true that there will be no armies, no weapons of war, and no war, but this is because the Perfect Government of the Lord Jesus will be resolving every international and intranational dispute in the perfect way, still preserving national integrity and punishing corporate wickedness (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3-4; Psalm 2:8-9; Revelation 2:26-27; 19:15). Only after our seven thousand years are up, and this Creation has been destroyed and replaced with a perfect new one will these things end.

As for the righteousness of faith, I do read what you say, and I shudder for you. The Bible teaches that faith, that is, confidence that the Lord is true and right in all that He does (cf. Daniel 4:37; Hebrews 11:1) is considered righteousness by the Lord (Romans 4:3-8 ). It is true that faith demonstrates itself in obedience to God, for, after all, how can one claim to believe what God says if they never do what He says? That is a clear contradiction. But there are works that come from unbelief, including legalism:

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
Matthew 23:23-33 NASB

13 Then the Lord said,
“Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote...
Isaiah 29:13 NASB

10 Hear the word of the Lord, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah. 11 “What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the Lord. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. 12 “When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts? 13 “Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. 14 “I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them. 15 “So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:10-15 NASB

What God wants is Faith in His Son Jesus Christ (John 6:29). That is the thing that produces the kind of works that God is pleased with. But when you say that it can only be seen in our works, given everything else you say, I cannot agree with you. There are many who believe but are living terrible lives. If they die believing, the Bible teaches that they will still be saved although they will lose eternal rewards (1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 5:5). On the other hand, there are plenty enough people who think that they are doing righteous things that will merit their salvation when they stand before the Lord. About those, this is something else that the Lord said:

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Matthew 7:21-23 NASB

As for Abraham's prayer and the Flood, how did Abraham know what "right" was? He was a prophet, I hope you know. So, although he had no Bible, he did receive revelations of the Truth by which to walk. Also, there was the oral tradition that would have been passed down from Adam and Eve through believing descendants like Seth, Enoch, and Noah, that Abraham could also use to tell what God is like and therefore what He would do or would not do. In other words, Abraham was not dictating to the Judge of all the earth what was right for Him to do and what wasn't, as you seem to want to do. Rather, he was beseeching Him to do as He would normally do. That is how we treat Kings. No one talks presumptuously before a King (Ecclesiastes 5:1-2). You don't presume to dictate to a King, but you may humbly ask a King to do as a King would ordinarily do: that is, be just. The Lord is just and cannot be otherwise. He had never and has never destroyed the righteous with the evil ones. Abraham was begging the Lord to spare the righteous as He always does. Prayer is not made because the Lord will not do right, if we don't pray. It is made in obedience to Him because He commands us to pray. As you yourself noted, God still destroyed all of Sodom and Gomorrah, sparing only Lot and those of his family as obeyed His Command to flee and escaped. When you say that this proves that the Flood was not true, I can't imagine what you are thinking. The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah while saving the only righteous man there with his family. How is this different from what happened in the Flood?

In Genesis, we are told that Noah was the only man who pleased the Lord in his generation, therefore God spared him and his family while destroying the rest of the world. Sodom and Gomorrah was only the Flood in miniature (that is, not counting that the Flood was a watery destruction while Sodom and Gomorrah was a fiery one).

As for your conscience dictating to God what must be right and what must be wrong, what is your conscience and where did it come from? Everyone has a conscience, yet everyone does evil, and many people call their evil good. Even the Bible tells us that:

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!
Isaiah 5:20-21 NASB

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.
Proverbs 3:5-7 NASB

Incidentally, this is what I have kept warning you that you are doing. We may have consciences, but we also have a sin nature (Romans 7; 1 John 1:8 ), so we are often making our own moral code up, pretending that what is good is really evil and what is evil is really good. The world today is overflowing with such madness. So, you have no leg to stand on to claim that you can use your conscience to dictate to the Bible what it is right about and what it is wrong about.

As for using Scriptures to override one another, as I said, the Lord Himself said that that is impossible. Perhaps your conscience is also telling you that He could not have said that. Peter also said through the Holy Spirit that the Scriptures are often twisted by ignorant and unstable people who have no idea how they work to their own destruction. These things ought to give you pause, at least, even if they do not terrify you:

35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)...
John 10:35 NASB

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16 (NASB)

That is, the Scriptures cannot be broken, although they certainly can be distorted or twisted by people too arrogant to be taught and who are therefore unstable in all their ways because they do not know the Truth. Still that distortion leads to the destruction of such people. So, at the very least, the Bible denies that what you claim that you can do is actually impossible. You cannot override any part of the Bible with any other. You may distort Scriptures and twist them, but even that will be obvious to those who have been taught the Scriptures. That is why I have been warning you.

As for knowing how to oppose lies, I told you before: learn the Bible from a gifted and prepared pastor-teacher and you will not be vulnerable to all the lies out there anymore:

11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Ephesians 4:11-16 NASB

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Acts 17:11 NASB

It is true that there are many false teachers about. When we are looking for teachers, we ought to do so with our Bibles open, comparing what they say to what we read in them. That is the only way to be safe from false teaching. In other words, by throwing out the authority of the Scriptures in favor of your fickle conscience, which can be silenced by you (cf. 1 Timothy 4:2), you pretty much hand yourself over to false teachers.

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Matthew 7:15-20 NASB

What you see above is what the Bereans in Acts 17, quoted above, did. By comparing what they heard from Paul to what they read in the Scriptures, they were able to tell whether he was lying to them or not. That is what you too must learn to do, or else you will persist in darkness and eventually put yourself in the condemnation of evildoers.

Daejoyoung:


...

Per Isaac Newton, you did not understand the analogy that I made. Isaac Newton is an authority on physics, not on God and His Eternal Plan. I was demonstrating to you that scientists who built on his work did not dismiss it because any of the manuscripts that they inherited were corrupted. If they were, they would have worked to figure out what he actually wrote, rather than just take it corruption and all or throw it out. If scientists would do this, how much more should we with the Bible? The Bible is a far more important document than all the science literature that has ever been written put together. If scientists, historians, and literary historians would go to so much trouble to figure out what was actually written by whoever in the distant past, why on earth should we believers not do the same with the Bible, which is far more important than all that other stuff?

As for the longer endings of Mark 16, whether vv. 9-20 or the unversed ending, and 1 John 5:7, you are free to believe whatever you want. The reward for that will be for you alone and it will come from the Lord, not from me. As for not calling me a heretic, please, don't think that I care. Anyone is free to call me anything that takes their fancy or treat me however they please. I only get troubled if I find that their opinions or actions toward me are sanctioned by the Scriptures. That is when I try to correct whatever it is that they see in me. So, call me whatever you please, or don't, if you prefer, but don't imagine that I see it as any favor of any kind. I will still warn you that you are being a heretic and a blasphemer if, in fact, you actually are being those things. If you listen to me, the warning will do you good. If you don't, that is really your own problem with the Lord. I can assure you though that neither Mark 16:9-20 nor 1 John 5:7 are part of the Bible at all. And there are quite a number of other interpolations and corruptions too that we have inherited besides them. If you wish to believe them all as Truth, by all means, do. It's not my problem.

As for women speaking in church etc, first, of course, Scriptures interpret each other. That is how they work. One part of the Bible explains and contextualizes or delimits another in order for a perfect system of Truth to emerge. But they don't negate or break each other. As to your specific questions, I preferred not to address them because the conversation is stretching with objections from you to the authority of the Bible. I can give you short answers to these things, but I cannot start developing comprehensive discussions of the in's and out's of each issue in addition to demonstrating to you the folly of challenging the authority of the Scriptures. Just look how long this response already is from answering each challenge you've thrown out. So, short answers:

1. The Bible does teach not only that women are not to speak in church (and neither should anyone else who is not the pastor-teacher or who is asking a question in an orderly fashion or offering some kind of useful help that the pastor-teacher allows), but also that women ought not to have teaching authority over men. Although this is spelled out in the epistles, it is part of the fabric of the Bible from beginning to end.

2. We are no longer under the Law, but the Law is still part of Scripture and a pastor-teacher worth his weight will teach from both the Law and the New Testament:

52 And Jesus said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”
Matthew 13:52 (NASB)

The Law is a shadow of the Cross, so in many ways it helps us understand the New Testament. But that does not mean that we are responsible to keep the Sabbath or make sacrifices or observe feasts and holidays and pay tithes of all kinds. Doing those things is pretending that the Cross never happened. That is the blasphemy that can never be forgiven, it is the sin of unbelief.

As for your response to your claims, regarding the first, the words attributed to the Lord in Luke 9:55-56 are not part of the Bible. They too are a corruption. As for "turn the other cheek," the Lord was teaching us how to behave as individuals suffering humiliation, not when our lives are threatened or when our legitimate civil authority is challenged. Elisha was a prophet of God in the land where God was supposed to be King (1 Samuel 8:7; 12:12). That made him a civil authority. When he was challenged in the manner that he was, it was right for the Lord to stamp His Authority on those children and teach others to respect His Emissary (cf. Psalm 105:15; Revelation 11:5). People who have authority must exercise it for the sake of others, not necessarily for theirs. That was what happened there. So, no, that claim cannot be backed by any Scriptural appeal.

As for the mistake, I said you make a lot of mistakes like that. I was not making a demand for perfection. There are slips and then there is carelessness.

Per your second claim, you just made more claims. I don't see any proof. But you need not provide any. In the Scriptures themselves, we learn that every church made copies of every writing that they received from the Apostles and prophets like James and Jude and passed them on to other churches (cf. Colossians 4:16). As for what they had before the New Testament, the Old Testament was fully available and kept in places where believers assembled (cf. Luke 4:17). When the New Testament was being written, each assembly made copies and kept in their meeting places where they were read to the assembly whenever they gathered. Each individual believer could, would, and did, in fact, make copies of Scriptures according to their ability to afford the services. So some individuals had the Scriptures in varying degrees of completeness, with some having only a passage from this part of the Bible or other, and others (especially the wealthy) having the whole Bible copied on the most durable material that they could get. Additionally, sometimes, fragments that are found today are only fragments not because they were not complete documents nearly two thousand years ago, but because they were degraded until now.

As for Peter, the Lord Jesus actually called him Satan for trying to turn Him away from the Cross in the example that I gave you. If I were to follow that example, my language would be much harsher than you have endured so far. So, I don't see how you can see your point being made here. It is clear that Peter later repented his earlier foolishness and embraced the Truth and taught it enthusiastically too. So, being called Satan worked out for him. If you have only been called a heretic and blasphemer, that should work out even better for you.

Ihedinobi3, your posts sometimes are verbose, you often sometimes, write continuingly at tedious lengths. Tbh, if you arent aware, you would lose someone like Daejoyoung in the thick of your write-up because it all becomes and/or turns into information overload. Besides, lengthy post sets off the antispam bot and the result is like your post getting hidden, just as in above. Talking of Daejoyoung, he too is guilty of this too. you look at his posts, you wonder where should I jump in, which part should I respond or not respond, which one should I let pass, which one should I leave as hmm, lol

MuttleyLaff:
Ihedinobi3, your posts sometimes are verbose, you often sometimes, write continuingly at tedious lengths. Tbh, if you arent aware, you would lose someone like Daejoyoung in the thick of your write-up because it all becomes and/or turns into information overload. Besides, lengthy post sets off the antispam bot and the result is like your post getting hidden, just as in above. Talking of Daejoyoung, he too is guilty of this too. you look at his posts, you wonder where should I jump in, which part should I respond or not respond, which one should I let pass, which one should I leave as hmm, lol

l have stopped responding o, if both you and maximus, or any other, have questions on the things l wrote, you can ask and l'll expound on them in a more precise way than l normally do. Cheers.

Daejoyoung:

l have stopped responding o, if both you and Maximus, or any other, have questions on the things l wrote, you can ask and l'll expound on them in a more precise way than l normally do. Cheers.

I only ask questions when i'm on our house to house preaching as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

After we've made an impression, we don't ask any question again, the LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, GENTLENESS, KINDNESS, FAITH, MILDNESS and SELF-CONTROL {Galatians 5:2-23} we exhibit is enough to spark up interest in the minds of those we are searching for. Matthew 10:6,15:24
Because it's not everyone that can benefit from what we are preaching and teaching, Jesus specifically mentioned the type of individual that we should concentrate on {2Thessalonian 3:2} The benefits are for only those who are already hungry and thirsty to know what is right {Matthew 5:6, 13:8 compared to John 4:20}

So i'm through now until anyone have thought provoking questions to know why/how Jehovah's Witnesses became the one and only Christian group on this planet!

God bless you Sir!

Read the gospels, jesus rarely taught people to believe in his so called sacrifice as a sacrifice of substitution appeasing God's wrath as many Christians understand it today,but his major message was the coming of the kingdom of God, which was both political and spiritual and is here with us, not marked by human observation nor is it a physical place but in our midst.

I think Daejoyoung and ihedinobi3 would agree that the substitution on the cross was not exclusive of our part to follow the Lord's example he left in His earthly life(1Pet 2:21) and its an official contract every believer signs whether they keep to it or not. If they don't of course, there are well meted consequences like satanic torments(1Cor5) etc. In other words faith in Christ always includes corresponding actions on the believers part of taking Christ's place as He took ours. And this substitution was not about appeasing God's wrath by mere pardon, while keeping us in sin nature but by making a pathway for dealing with sin nature in humanity, which is realized at the end of this path, hence appeasing God's wrath. If so, then you both have no disagreement on substitution.
Daejoyoung here is a picture showing how you could quote people without typing ...You said.. Just highlight whatever you wish to and click the 'message' button just before the first smiley/emoji.
[img][/img]

I also think its dangerous for you to cherrypick what scriptures to believe and what not to. Jesus Christ of the old testament is the same with
Jesus Christ of the new. Its just that He had a less effective covenant in the old that many times veiled His truest revelation of Himself. If you have any issues understanding God's acts in the old testament, its safe to just see it as your inability to see His true intention. The old testament is all the early church had for validating doctrine and from Paul(2Tim3:15-17) and Peter( 2Pet1:19-21) you should never cherrypick old testament scripture but accept it all as authoritative, nevertheless requiring the Holy Spirit to give it perspective.

Finallydead:


I think Daejoyoung and ihedinobi3 would agree that the substitution on the cross was not exclusive of our part to follow the Lord's example he left in His earthly life(1Pet 2:21) and its an official contract every believer signs whether they keep to it or not. If they don't of course, there are well meted consequences like satanic torments(1Cor5) etc. In other words faith in Christ always includes corresponding actions on the believers part of taking Christ's place as He took ours. And this substitution was not about appeasing God's wrath by mere pardon, while keeping us in sin nature but by making a pathway for dealing with sin nature in humanity, which is realized at the end of this path, hence appeasing God's wrath. If so, then you both have no disagreement on substitution.
Daejoyoung here is a picture showing how you could quote people without typing ...You said.. Just highlight whatever you wish to and click the 'message' button just before the first smiley/emoji.
[img][/img]

I also think its dangerous for you to cherrypick what scriptures to believe and what not to. Jesus Christ of the old testament is the same with
Jesus Christ of the new. Its just that He had a less effective covenant in the old that many times veiled His truest revelation of Himself. If you have any issues understanding God's acts in the old testament, its safe to just see it as your inability to see His true intention. The old testament is all the early church had for validating doctrine and from Paul(2Tim3:15-17) and Peter( 2Pet1:19-21) you should never cherrypick old testament scripture but accept it all as authoritative, nevertheless requiring the Holy Spirit to give it perspective

.

First thank you for lessons on how to quote, still not just working out for me, l end up quoting the whole thing.
Your interpretation about God's revelation of himself in the old testament as not been perfect means that you agree with me and not lhedinobi3. The actions of God in the old testament are majorly that of a king( as agreed by lhedinobi3). Kings and Emperors of those days were brutal, this is why the Jews cannot accept jesus as the true messiah today, because to them, it is a poor copy of the old testament character. Tell me what l have to understand by these actions:

1) He commands the stoning of a man to death for gathering food on the sabbath.
2) He tells the Israelites to kill every young man from the canaanites as well as the women and take only virgin girls for themselves.
3)He commands the Israelites to kill not only amalekite men( for the crimes of their forefathers) but also women, infant, horses, etc.
4) On instructions for priests, he commands that their promiscuous daughters should be burnt alive.

When you begin to see God like you see ancient middle eastern warlords, then these actions are excusable. But when you read the old testament not as a literal story but rather the Jewish story which gives you prototypes of God( for instance the Angel of Yahweh in Exodus who probably also appeared to Abraham) then you read it differently, you don't necessarily reject it.

l said somewhere in answer to Richard, that l read proverbs all through as a child and it has helped me a lot, but that doesn't mean l can't criticize Moses for what he wrote about God. lf God gave us a brain and conscience, then of course he wants us to use it as a filter also. l know our conscience is subjective, but we must use it in combination with scripture and science in our search for truth and righteousness.