PastorAIO:
4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mark 10:5


“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
Deuteronomy 24:1

According to Jesus Moses wrote laws that were not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites. Yet these laws are part of our God given biblical laws, according to some bibliolaters.
How much of the OT is a directive from God and how much is Moses' own tinkering?

Moses'law was issued from God. Jesus DID NOT say that the passage did not issue from God. He only said that it was not so from the beginning. Genesis to deuteronomy is generally said to be written by Moses, it is in this context that Jesus used the name Moses. All Scripture is given by divine inspiration.

Image123:


Moses'law was issued from God. Jesus DID NOT say that the passage did not issue from God. He only said that it was not so from the beginning. Genesis to deuteronomy is generally said to be written by Moses, it is in this context that Jesus used the name Moses. All Scripture is given by divine inspiration.

I'm not discussing what Jesus 'DID NOT say'. I'm discussing what Jesus said. Jesus also tells us the inspiration for the law. It was a compromise for the 'hardness of heart' of the hebrews.

PastorAIO:
4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mark 10:5


“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
Deuteronomy 24:1

According to Jesus Moses wrote laws that were not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites. Yet these laws are part of our God given biblical laws, according to some bibliolaters

Adam has a purposeful reason for adding more to God's first directive and this made Eve the first bibliolater
Notice that the serpent didnt correct Eve about taking Adam's ''touch it'' words literally
Guessing that Eve touching the fruit and not dying propelled her to eat the fruit

Moses said the LORD their God commanded him to teach the Israelites, so it was left to him to use his best effort initiative, imagination and common sense to do this

PastorAIO:
How much of the OT is a directive from God and how much is Moses' own tinkering?

How much of the OT ''You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die'' is a directive from God and how much is Adam's own tinkering?

Whatever tinkering Moses or Adam did were purposeful and were for the good of the Israelites and Eve in order to prevent trouble, problems, screw-ups, diseases, infections etc

Image123:
Moses' law was issued from God. Jesus DID NOT say that the passage did not issue from God. He only said that it was not so from the beginning. Genesis to deuteronomy is generally said to be written by Moses, it is in this context that Jesus used the name Moses. All Scripture is given by divine inspiration

Deuteronomy 5:1-3
1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day

Deuteronomy 6:1
Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you,
that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:

The 10 commandments written by the Hand of God at Mount Horeb are part of the 613 statutes, ordinances and decrees.

The 613 statutes, ordinances and decrees including the 10 commandments are rules for the Israelites to live by

All these 613 statutes, ordinances and decrees including the 10 commandments are anchored on the Law of Christ
Those 2 Laws of Christ or commands are the core of the entire Old Testament Law.

PastorAIO:
I'm not discussing what Jesus 'DID NOT say'.
I'm discussing what Jesus said. Jesus also tells us the inspiration for the law. It was a compromise for the 'hardness of heart' of the hebrews.

Absence of the soakingly watering water of God, causes ''hardness of heart''
Rejection of God's directive causes ''hardness of heart'' and Pharaoh's hardened heart is an infamous example

QuentinDay:
Adam has a purposeful reason for adding more to God's first directive and this made Eve the first bibliolater

I want some of whatever you're smoking. Does it help you to see the leprechauns better?

Please guy, there was no bible in the time of Eve so Eve cannot be a Bibliolater. In fact no one in the bible can be a bibliolater.

Notice that the serpent didnt correct Eve about taking Adam's ''touch it'' words literally
Guessing that Eve touching the fruit and not dying propelled her to eat the fruit

What has any of this got to do with Moses laws on divorce? Where did Adam tell Eve not to 'touch it'? You're doing a lot of guessing and tinkering with the original text yourself.

Moses said the LORD their God commanded him to teach the Israelites, so it was left to him to use his best effort initiative, imagination and common sense to do this

I have no gripe with any human being doing his best under the circumstances he finds himself in. My gripe is with people worshiping the words of the bible and claiming that they were written by God.

How much of the OT ''You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die'' is a directive from God and how much is Adam's own tinkering?

I won't do any speculating and guessing. You're doing a fine job of it all by yourself.

Whatever tinkering Moses, the priests or Adam did were purposeful and were for the good of the Israelites and Eve in order to prevent trouble, problems, screw-ups, diseases, infections etc

Okay. I have no beef with that, again. Every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw 7ups, diseases, infections etc.

That is not my beef. I repeat, My beef is the claim that it is an absolute edict from the mouth of God.

Deuteronomy 5:1-3
1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day

Deuteronomy 6:1
Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you,
that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:

The 10 commandments written by the Hand of God at Mount Horeb are part of the 613 statutes, ordinances and decrees.

The 613 statutes, ordinances and decrees including the 10 commandments are rules for the Israelites to live by

All these 613 statutes, ordinances and decrees including the 10 commandments are anchored on the Law of Christ

So was Jesus lying or what when he said that Moses gave them the law out of the hardness of their hearts?

Those 2 Laws of Christ or commands are the core of the entire Old Testament Law.

Absence of the soakingly watering water of God, causes ''hardness of heart''
Rejection of God's directive causes ''hardness of heart'' and Pharaoh's hardened heart is an infamous example

So which of the 2 laws are being referred to when Moses says it's okay to divorce your wife if she doesn't please you?

I thought it was god that deliberately hardened pharaoh's heart. anyway, it's irrelevant.

PastorAIO:
I want some of whatever you're smoking

My apologies, no can do, sorry cant help you with your covetousness besides the surgeon general's warning is that smoking is hazardous to your health. Smoking hurts yourself, and hurts others

PastorAIO:
Does it help you to see the leprechauns better?

Irrelevant and rising above this a bit offhand ''see leprechauns better'' remark

PastorAIO:
Please guy, there was no bible in the time of Eve so Eve cannot be a Bibliolater. In fact no one in the bible can be a bibliolater

LOL going by your reasoning, Eve cannot be a Bibliolater and in fact no one in the bible can be a bibliolater because the Bible wasnt written then. Abi? Isnt that your reasoning Eve and others in the Bible cannot be Bibliolaters?
OK, Eve was the first literalist then. Happy now with the modification?

PastorAIO:
What has any of this got to do with Moses laws on divorce?

Just as Moses ordinance on divorce, was not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites, so was ''do not touch it'' not issued from God but rather was Adam guarding against a possible disposition of Eve to go against a command with fatal consquences

PastorAIO:
Where did Adam tell Eve not to 'touch it'?

Before Genesis 3:3 is where Adam told Eve not to 'touch it'
Who except from Adam will Eve have got the ''do not touch it'' directive from

PastorAIO:
You're doing a lot of guessing and tinkering with the original text yourself.

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning my dear friend and nothing with doing a lot of guessing and tinkering with the original text
Example:
It is the only other human, Adam or the only talking animal, serpent who could have told Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree
but the serpent did not talk to Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree
so it is Adam who talked to Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree then

PastorAIO:
I have no gripe with any human being doing his best under the circumstances he finds himself in

Considering that ''human being doing his best under the circumstances'' is done totally above board then nor do I have no gripe over the matter

PastorAIO:
My gripe is with people worshiping the words of the bible and claiming that they were written by God.

Quit griping, the words of the bible are not to be worshipped, as it is advised you must worship the LORD your God and serve only Him.

You also need to get a firm grasp of the proper meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 and how it relates or is connected to scripture or the words of the bible

Noticeably, you my dear friend, you are mixing up statutes, ordinances and decrees of God with ''written word by God''
Twice has God, in any shape or form actually written words.
The first time was with His finger, on two tablets at Mount Sinai
and the second time was when Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground, again with His finger

PastorAIO:
I won't do any speculating and guessing. You're doing a fine job of it all by yourself.

As you please

PastorAIO:
Okay. I have no beef with that, again. Every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc.

Glad you accept that every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc as it should settle the gripe you have with the divorce guideline set by Moses for the Israelites

PastorAIO:
That is not my beef. I repeat, My beef is the claim that it is an absolute edict from the mouth of God

I dont know your source or references to this ''absolute edict from the mouth of God'' spurious claim
Please share your source quotations or references of this. Justify yourself or forever remain silent

PastorAIO:
So was Jesus lying or what when he said that Moses gave them the law out of the hardness of their hearts?

Is this meant to be a silly joke question?

PastorAIO:
So which of the 2 laws are being referred to when Moses says it's okay to divorce your wife if she doesn't please you?

What is with the jaw locking on the 2 laws?

The 2 laws obviously have no relevance or bearing with almost all of the Israelites if not all, so much that the Pharisees told Jesus ''Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away'' at which Jesus told them, ''Moses wrote this guideline commandment for you because your hearts were hard'' and you had said you have no beef with that sort of ''commandment'', again because every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc

Release your grip on the 2 laws jor and peep into Exodus 20:14

It isnt ''if she doesn't please you'' the manner you're trying to make it sound or look.
Re-read about the divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 and Mark 10:2-6 contextually.

The displeasing part in Deuteronomy 24:1 is not without a caveat. It is based on the wife becoming displeasing to the husband after he had found some uncleanness in or about his wife

No prize for guessing what the euphemism uncleanness is about

If the 2 core laws are valued, understood well enough and respected, Moses wouldnt have needed to churn out Deuteronomy 24:1
Deuteronomy 24:1, as a matter of fact, is an extension of Exodus 20:14
and that said, let's face reality, Deuteronomy 24:1 shouldn't have seen the light of day,
as God hates divorce and what God has joined together, let not man put asunder
but for the rebellion of the people, Moses was compelled to adjust the marriage goal-post width

PastorAIO:
I thought it was God that deliberately hardened Pharaoh's heart. anyway, it's irrelevant.

Technically God hardened Pharaoh's heart
but there is more to the actual meaning of God hardening Pharoah's heart
and which incidentally explains why and how God hardened Pharoah's heart

Reiterating the absence of the soakingly watering water of God, causes ''hardness of heart''
and Psalm 95:8, Hebrews 3:8 and Hebrews 3:15 confirms that rejection of God's directive causes ''hardness of heart''
Left to your sponge aka ''kankan'', it wants to dry up
but what can stop or will stop your sponge aka ''kankan'' from drying, preventing it from becoming brittle and eventually crumbling or breaking up?
(i.e. what can stop or will stop your sponge aka ''kankan'' from hardening)

PastorAIO:


I'm not discussing what Jesus 'DID NOT say'. I'm discussing what Jesus said. Jesus also tells us the inspiration for the law. It was a compromise for the 'hardness of heart' of the hebrews.

Your OP focuses on the supposition that the passage did not did not come from God but from Moses'personal ideas. That is why it needs to be clearly stated that Jesus did not say so. You quoted Jesus to drive us to the assumption that Jesus said so. Jesus tells us the REASON for the divorce law, not the inspiration. All Scripture is given by divine inspiration.

QuentinDay:

LOL going by your reasoning, Eve cannot be a Bibliolater and in fact no one in the bible can be a bibliolater because the Bible wasnt written then. Abi? Isnt that your reasoning Eve and others in the Bible cannot be Bibliolaters?
OK, Eve was the first literalist then. Happy now with the modification?

Haba!! You can't be that slow ke? No one can. Eve and the others in the bible cannot be bibliolaters. Why are you repeating what I said and asking if I said it? What did you read? My reasoning is what you read me write.

What has 'literalist' got to do with anything? There is no point that it even pertains to this thread. I'm talking about people elevating the bible beyond what it is and you're talking about literalist. Explain how that is even relevant.

Just as Moses ordinance on divorce, was not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites, so was ''do not touch it'' not issued from God but rather was Adam guarding against a possible disposition of Eve to go against a command with fatal consquences

Thank you. That bolded part is all that I wanted to hear from you. It is a human inspiration.

Before Genesis 3:3 is where Adam told Eve not to 'touch it'
Who except from Adam will Eve have got the ''do not touch it'' directive from

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning my dear friend and nothing with doing a lot of guessing and tinkering with the original text
Example:
It is the only other human, Adam or the only talking animal, serpent who could have told Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree
but the serpent did not talk to Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree
so it is Adam who talked to Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree then

I know that there are people who've lost the capacity to think for themselves, e.g. those who are spoon fed what to think from their pastors etc. The frown upon any form of autonomous reasoning.
However it would be a mistake to think that everyone in the world is like you.

Your 'deductive reasoning' is very wanting. You seem to think that the only reason that Eve said 'do not touch it' is because Adam told her, because someone must tell her. You can't seem to contemplate that Eve herself might be prone to exaggeration.
You so called 'deductive reasoning' is nothing but poor guesswork that fails to consider every possibility.

Considering that ''human being doing his best under the circumstances'' is done totally above board then nor do I have no gripe over the matter

Thank you. Neither do I. My gripe, I repeat, is with people trying to make of the bible what it is not.

Quit griping, the words of the bible are not to be worshipped, as it is advised you must worship the LORD your God and serve only Him.

You also need to get a firm grasp of the proper meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 and how it relates or is connected to scripture or the words of the bible

You obviously read something in 2tim 3:16 that you feel is pertinent to this thread. Could you please share it? I see no relevance myself, maybe I'm missing something.

Noticeably, you my dear friend, you are mixing up statutes, ordinances and decrees of God with ''written word by God''
Twice has God, in any shape or form actually written words.
The first time was with His finger, on two tablets at Mount Sinai
and the second time was when Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground, again with His finger

What about Mene mène Tekel upharsin?
Answer if you fancy a diversion from the main issue of People making more of the bible than what it is.

As you please

Glad you accept that every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc as it should settle the gripe you have with the divorce guideline set by Moses for the Israelites

I dont know your source or references to this ''absolute edict from the mouth of God'' spurious claim
Please share your source quotations or references of this. Justify yourself or forever remain silent

My gripe with the 'divorce guideline' is that it is a human solution and was contradicted by Jesus himself. Humans have ideas and that is cool. But don't raise them to the level of divine edicts.

Is this meant to be a silly joke question?

No, it's a serious question. If you cannot answer it for any dubious reason that is okay.

What is with the jaw locking on the 2 laws?

The 2 laws obviously have no relevance or bearing with almost all of the Israelites if not all, so much that the Pharisees told Jesus ''Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away'' at which Jesus told them, ''Moses wrote this guideline commandment for you because your hearts were hard'' and you had said you have no beef with that sort of ''commandment'', again because every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc

I thought you were saying that the laws of Moses were based on those 2 laws. I didn't see the connection between those 2 laws and the 'divorce guidelines'. I was only asking you to show me what the connection was.

Release your grip on the 2 laws jor and peep into Exodus 20:14

It isnt ''if she doesn't please you'' the manner you're trying to make it sound or look.
Re-read about the divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 and Mark 10:2-6 contextually.

The displeasing part in Deuteronomy 24:1 is not without a caveat. It is based on the wife becoming displeasing to the husband after he had found some uncleanness in or about his wife

No prize for guessing what the euphemism uncleanness is about

If the 2 core laws are valued, understood well enough and respected, Moses wouldnt have needed to churn out Deuteronomy 24:1
Deuteronomy 24:1, as a matter of fact, is an extension of Exodus 20:14
and that said, let's face reality, Deuteronomy 24:1 shouldn't have seen the light of day,
as God hates divorce and what God has joined together, let not man put asunder
but for the rebellion of the people, Moses was compelled to adjust the marriage goal-post width

Is Duet 24:1 based on the two laws or not? How? Everything else you're spewing here is just hot air.

PastorAIO what stream of expletive(s) or violation was in your above post that made it auto-hidden by the Anti-SpamBot?
It possibly handed you a temporary Religion section posting ban too. Coolu temper. Sorry o.

QuentinDay:

LOL going by your reasoning, Eve cannot be a Bibliolater and in fact no one in the bible can be a bibliolater because the Bible wasnt written then. Abi? Isnt that your reasoning Eve and others in the Bible cannot be Bibliolaters?
OK, Eve was the first literalist then. Happy now with the modification?

Haba!! You can't be that slow ke? No one can. Eve and the others in the bible cannot be bibliolaters. Why are you repeating what I said and asking if I said it? What did you read? My reasoning is what you read me write.

What has 'literalist' got to do with anything? There is no point that it even pertains to this thread. I'm talking about people elevating the bible beyond what it is and you're talking about literalist. Explain how that is even relevant.

Just as Moses ordinance on divorce, was not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites, so was ''do not touch it'' not issued from God but rather was Adam guarding against a possible disposition of Eve to go against a command with fatal consquences

Thank you. That bolded part is all that I wanted to hear from you. It is a human inspiration.

Before Genesis 3:3 is where Adam told Eve not to 'touch it'
Who except from Adam will Eve have got the ''do not touch it'' directive from

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning my dear friend and nothing with doing a lot of guessing and tinkering with the original text
Example:
It is the only other human, Adam or the only talking animal, serpent who could have told Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree
but the serpent did not talk to Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree
so it is Adam who talked to Eve about not to touch the fruit of the tree then

I know that there are people who've lost the capacity to think for themselves, e.g. those who are spoon fed what to think from their pastors etc. They frown upon any form of autonomous reasoning.
However it would be a mistake to think that everyone in the world is like you.

Your 'deductive reasoning' is very wanting. You seem to think that the only reason that Eve would say 'do not touch it' is because Adam told her, because someone must tell her. You can't seem to contemplate that Eve herself might be prone to exaggeration.
You so called 'deductive reasoning' is nothing but poor guesswork that fails to consider every possibility.

Besides it has no bearing on the issue. The fact that Eve or Adam added jara, and moses too added jara does not make the adding of jara acceptable.

Considering that ''human being doing his best under the circumstances'' is done totally above board then nor do I have no gripe over the matter

Thank you. Neither do I. My gripe, I repeat, is with people trying to make of the bible what it is not.

Quit griping, the words of the bible are not to be worshipped, as it is advised you must worship the LORD your God and serve only Him.

You also need to get a firm grasp of the proper meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 and how it relates or is connected to scripture or the words of the bible

You obviously read something in 2tim 3:16 that you feel is pertinent to this thread. Could you please share it? I see no relevance myself, maybe I'm missing something.

Noticeably, you my dear friend, you are mixing up statutes, ordinances and decrees of God with ''written word by God''
Twice has God, in any shape or form actually written words.
The first time was with His finger, on two tablets at Mount Sinai
and the second time was when Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground, again with His finger

What about Mene mène Tekel upharsin?
Answer if you fancy a diversion from the main issue of People making more of the bible than what it is.

As you please

Glad you accept that every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc as it should settle the gripe you have with the divorce guideline set by Moses for the Israelites

I dont know your source or references to this ''absolute edict from the mouth of God'' spurious claim
Please share your source quotations or references of this. Justify yourself or forever remain silent

My gripe with the 'divorce guideline' is that it is a human solution and was contradicted by Jesus himself. Humans have ideas and that is cool. But don't raise them to the level of divine edicts.

Is this meant to be a silly joke question?

No, it's a serious question. If you cannot answer it for any dubious reason that is okay.

What is with the jaw locking on the 2 laws?

The 2 laws obviously have no relevance or bearing with almost all of the Israelites if not all, so much that the Pharisees told Jesus ''Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away'' at which Jesus told them, ''Moses wrote this guideline commandment for you because your hearts were hard'' and you had said you have no beef with that sort of ''commandment'', again because every human being has the right to purposefully lay down guidelines for the good of the people in their care to prevent problems, screw ups, diseases, infections etc

I thought you were saying that the laws of Moses were based on those 2 laws. I didn't see the connection between those 2 laws and the 'divorce guidelines'. I was only asking you to show me what the connection was.

and about the 2 laws having no bearing on the israelites, actually that is totally false nonsense (as is typical). They occur in the old testament. They are called the Shema.

Release your grip on the 2 laws jor and peep into Exodus 20:14

It isnt ''if she doesn't please you'' the manner you're trying to make it sound or look.
Re-read about the divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 and Mark 10:2-6 contextually.

The displeasing part in Deuteronomy 24:1 is not without a caveat. It is based on the wife becoming displeasing to the husband after he had found some uncleanness in or about his wife

No prize for guessing what the euphemism uncleanness is about

If the 2 core laws are valued, understood well enough and respected, Moses wouldnt have needed to churn out Deuteronomy 24:1
Deuteronomy 24:1, as a matter of fact, is an extension of Exodus 20:14
and that said, let's face reality, Deuteronomy 24:1 shouldn't have seen the light of day,
as God hates divorce and what God has joined together, let not man put asunder
but for the rebellion of the people, Moses was compelled to adjust the marriage goal-post width

Is Duet 24:1 based on the two laws or not? How? Everything else you're spewing here is just hot air.

My gripe, I repeat, is with people trying to make of the bible what it is not. Talk about the man in the mirror, oops.

Image123:
My gripe, I repeat, is with people trying to make of the bible what it is not. Talk about the man in the mirror, oops.

The bible is for the most part a compilation of texts written by humans using their human understanding.

The bible has been subjected to all the vicissitudes of history that such texts would normally go through.

The bible has been used as a political tool, by investing it with an authority and calling it the foundation of christianity it has been used to attack the political power of the Roman Catholic church.

The above are just a few examples of what the bible is, just to put you in the light.

PastorAIO:


The bible is for the most part a compilation of texts written by humans using their human understanding.

The bible has been subjected to all the vicissitudes of history that such texts would normally go through.

The bible has been used as a political tool, by investing it with an authority and calling it the foundation of christianity it has been used to attack the political power of the Roman Catholic church.

The above are just a few examples of what the bible is, just to put you in the light.

Pastoraio weytin happen, u have been jaming tins for sometime now.

are u implying God can not enlighten men to write his truth? i dont really get ur point, does d human instruments in d process of making d bible invalidate its inspiration?

Ubenedictus:
Pastoraio weytin happen, u have been jaming tins for sometime now.

are u implying God can not enlighten men to write his truth? i dont really get ur point, does d human instruments in d process of making d bible invalidate its inspiration?

Of course he can. And indeed he does. All the time. But the Bibliolatrians don't think like that. For them it stops at the bible.

God can inspire a man to write a song, to write a poem, to build a house. It happens all the time. There is no exclusivity of inspiration for the bible.

PastorAIO:


Of course he can. And indeed he does. All the time. But the Bibliolatrians don't think like that. For them it stops at the bible.

God can inspire a man to write a song, to write a poem, to build a house. It happens all the time. There is no exclusivity of inspiration for the bible.

OK, if dat is the issue, i can't disagree with you. inspiration didnt end with the bible, it continues even today in our individual lives.

Xtians blive they've gat the holyspirit with them, why would they dispute the continuation of inspiration?

I'm not sure d real issue is the continuation of divine inspiration, i think the issue is the continuation of public revelation. The two issues are different.

Ubenedictus:
OK, if dat is the issue, i can't disagree with you. inspiration didnt end with the bible, it continues even today in our individual lives.

Xtians blive they've gat the holyspirit with them, why would they dispute the continuation of inspiration?

I'm not sure d real issue is the continuation of divine inspiration, i think the issue is the continuation of public revelation. The two issues are different.

For me the issue here is claims such as: The bible is the foundation of Christianity. (bible based christianity).
The bible has been protected by God from the ravages of history.
The bible is inerrant.
and many many more.

PastorAIO:


For me the issue here is claims such as: The bible is the foundation of Christianity. (bible based christianity).
The bible has been protected by God from the ravages of history.
The bible is inerrant.
and many many more.

i'll agree that the original writtings were inerrant, i.e contain no errors concerning the stuff for which they were written (d knowledge oe God), what is ur argument against inerrancy of d bible?

PastorAIO:
Without a doubt I have a beef against 'bible based' christianity.

In fact I have a beef against any religion that is based on any text.

Then when that text is blatantly obviously written by men and even within the text there is an admission from the highest authority in the religion (Jesus in christianity) that a part of the text was written by a human precisely as a compromise for human recalcitrance I am left flabbergasted that people still walk around claiming that the text is the basis of their religion and that it was given directly by God. What Nonsense!

There is always a window for people to deduce from certain aspect of the scriptures to justify their lackadaisical attitude owing to other unrelated stimulus, but they will always be unsatisfied till they rope the Bible in as the basis for all they have become. How convenient!

This same people will never see anything wrong with themselves for lack of compliant on other aspect of same Bible that they have not measured up to, be it that those aspect of the Bible is all plausible. "A bad workman always blame the tools" an African proverb says.

Then next, what such People will say will practically denied Jesus to justify their almighty self gratifying ways.

The above post was an attempt in rubbishing what the prophet of old wrote, no two ways about that. with such postulation, we can as well conclude that since the prophets prophesied about Jesus, if they were wrong or not inspired, then Jesus himself is a hoax. No? why not? We cannot eat our cake and have it.
If what they wrote was of God, then we should not be selective, God's spirit CANNOT dwell/propel a filthy person.

Jesus said that Moses, in other to accommodate the Hard heartedness of the Jews or to accommodate them, Moses gave them some allowance to Mary more than one wife then or divorce them, how then did Jesus come to know that this was the reason for the allowance if Yahweh did not know what Moses was doing and Moses did not speak from God ?

Yes, Yahweh must have been in the know of what Moses was doing that is why Jesus had the explanation as to what really happened. So, taking Jesus statement out of context to Justify ones lawlessness is no excuse. The Bible says that men spoke from God as they were borne by the Holy spirit.

This Jews were to produce the seed Jesus for the benefit of Mankind, God gave them a lot of tolerance. They even sin over and over but Yahweh kept forgiving them, and that was exactly what Jesus was saying be for the crucked at heart proceeded to twist and take Jesus words out of context.

On same prophets, Jesus said that "all the things the Prophets wrote concerning him will come to pass", was he Jesus lying? would God use self willed prophets? (LUKE 18:31)

Jesus also said that those things written by the prophets were written down so that we might have faith, how can that be if we cannot trust that the prophets spoke by God? How can that be if we are to be selective and picky? it is either Jesus is lying or someone else is deceitful. (JOHN 20"31)

Again, it is either Jesus was suffering from amnesia/forget fullness. Same with Paul, for him to have said that " 'ALL' the things that was written beforehand was written for our benefit so that we might have faith". If Jesus was not suffering from amnesia, it there mean that the person twisting Jesus words here have lost his mind or is simply ignorant.

Am asking, Between the prophets, Jesus existence and you, who should one belief?
When someone is confused, the Bible ask that he should beg God for wisdom, but when the Person does not belief in the Bible and God, such sound advise is lost to such a person.

The Beroeans were recommended for Going back to those same scriptures to verify if what the apostle Paul taught them was so. Meanwhile, here, someone is saying we should not follow such fine example of depending on the scripture as a guide that we were recommended to follow, as the Beroeans did, extolling them, that they were Noble minded.

Again, all the Bible writers must be daft for haven't written a book called Bible, a best seller of all times and end up denying that such beautiful work was theirs. who is there in a class that will score an 'A' in a subject, but on being called out will say the slip is not his? what should such a person be called? certainly, such a person will have to be a nut case. we have to accept that all the Bible writers are a NUT case for rejecting their best seller BOOK (Bible) and saying it is God's word.

Pastor AIO must know what they did not know. SHM.

PastorAIO:


The bible is for the most part a compilation of texts written by humans using their human understanding.

Should they have used animal understanding, or what other understanding are you familiar with. We all know humans wrote the Bible, it did not fall out of the sky. Christians however say that God authored it.

The bible has been subjected to all the vicissitudes of history that such texts would normally go through.

So?

The bible has been used as a political tool, by investing it with an authority and calling it the foundation of christianity it has been used to attack the political power of the Roman Catholic church.

Anything can be used, misused and abused. That does not negate its right use.

The above are just a few examples of what the bible is, just to put you in the light.

Praise you i guess, you finally got me out of darkness. What next?

Image123:


Should they have used animal understanding, or what other understanding are you familiar with. We all know humans wrote the Bible, it did not fall out of the sky. Christians however say that God authored it.

You're playing dumb now. So after human understanding the only other understanding you know is animal understanding. You no longer believe in divine understanding. That foolishness of God that is Wiser than the wisdom of men.

I'll repeat. The bible is full of human understanding and further more it is also full of human folly. This puts the lie to your claim that God authored it. God also authored Skelewu dance in the same capacity as he authored the bible.

So?

So if an almighty God wrote a special book with a special message for his people, a unique communicating of his will and thoughts that he has not put anywhere else in the universe I would expect that he would take special care to ensure that it remains intact.

Anything can be used, misused and abused. That does not negate its right use.

I never said it did. I agree with you. The claim that it is the 'User's manual' for the human race sent from God is one such misuse, even abuse of it.

Praise you i guess, you finally got me out of darkness. What next?

I'm not sure that you've passed that class yet, it sounds like you might have to repeat, but in case you insist then the next stage is to read the bible in the clarity of the light. Don't let NEPA catch you out.

Ubenedictus:
OK, if dat is the issue, i can't disagree with you. inspiration didnt end with the bible, it continues even today in our individual lives.

Xtians blive they've gat the holyspirit with them, why would they dispute the continuation of inspiration?

I'm not sure d real issue is the continuation of divine inspiration, i think the issue is the continuation of public revelation. The two issues are different.

Pray tell, What is the difference?

Ubenedictus:
i'll agree that the original writtings were inerrant, i.e contain no errors concerning the stuff for which they were written (d knowledge oe God), what is ur argument against inerrancy of d bible?

I do not think that the originals were inerrant either.

If you want to limit the purview of the bible to 'knowledge of God' then the issue is undebatable. We'd have to verify facts about God separately and see if they tally with what we read in the bible. I don't see how 2 people can do this and arrive at concord.

But if you broaden the purview from just 'knowledge of God' then we find it jam packed to the helm with errors of all sorts.

truthislight:


There is always a window for people to deduce from certain aspect of the scriptures to justify their lackadaisical attitude owing to other unrelated stimulus, but they will always be unsatisfied till they rope the Bible in as the basis for all they have become. How convenient!

Pastor AIO must know what they did not know. SHM.

This was very long and incoherent. Come again please, and order your thoughts so I can follow. Thanks.

PastorAIO:


This was very long and incoherent. Come again please, and order your thoughts so I can follow. Thanks.

Same old AIO. as usually, Escapes.

I have said what i wanted to say.

You can keep dancing to your Rhythm, even though the drummer is unknown.

Again, all the Bible writers must be daft for haven't written a book called Bible, a best seller of all times and end up denying that such beautiful work was theirs. who is there in a class that will score an 'A' in a subject, but on being called out will say the slip is not his? what should such a person be called? certainly, such a person will have to be a nut case. we have to accept that all the Bible writers are a NUT case for rejecting their best seller BOOK (Bible) and saying it is God's word.

Pastor AIO must know what they did not know. SHM.

truthislight:
Again, all the Bible writers must be daft for haven't written a book called Bible, a best seller of all times and end up denying that such beautiful work was theirs. who is there in a class that will score an 'A' in a subject, but on being called out will say the slip is not his? what should such a person be called? certainly, such a person will have to be a nut case. we have to accept that all the Bible writers are a NUT case for rejecting their best seller BOOK (Bible) and saying it is God's word.

Pastor AIO must know what they did not know. SHM.

Okay, so that is what you meant to say. You see, it is possible to get to the point without all that verbal diarrhoea.

To address your point: 1. No bible writer denied that their was their own with the exception of a handful and even they didn't claim god, they claimed other human beings. The idea that the books of the bible were written by god came later after the writers had died and gone.

Matthew, Mark, John were written by unknown people and it was later claimed to be written by Matthew Mark and Luke. This is the same case as with Daniel. And possibly many other books too, or parts of other books which have been copied, added to and redacted numerous times over the centuries.

2. The bible is far from a Grade A piece of work. Grade A in what sense. It's a total fail in terms of scientific knowledge. Morally it is extremely questionable.

truthislight:


Same old AIO. as usually, Escapes.

I have said what i wanted to say.

You can keep dancing to your Rhythm, even though the drummer is unknown.

I presume that your following post was the shortened version which I have now responded to. I don't need to escape from anyone. Least of all you.
All I required was for you to be coherent. That's all.


oh, and brief..

That's all.

PastorAIO:


Pray tell, What is the difference?

Inspiration, simply says there is divine influence, u can be inspired to write a book, a song, draw a portrait or just show love. the bible is inspired i.e d God used human, with their own understanding and xperience to write down his truth, even though it may be coloured by d writers understanding and perspective.
public revelation is what God wants d whole world to know about himself, d world, ourselves, etc.

inspiration can be personal, ...a voice in ur head, a set of xperience u blive is leading to a reality, public revelation is public, meant 4 d world.

public revelation may be a subset of inspired thing.

e.g i fink my career choice is inspired, all my being every circumstance i encounted, d problems i faced, my mind points to it as if God wants it for me, bt that is hardly a tin of public revelation, it doesnt even concern d next person, if d next guy denies my claim it doesnt matter, it personal inspiratn nt public

PastorAIO:


I do not think that the originals were inerrant either.

If you want to limit the purview of the bible to 'knowledge of God' then the issue is undebatable. We'd have to verify facts about God separately and see if they tally with what we read in the bible. I don't see how 2 people can do this and arrive at concord.

But if you broaden the purview from just 'knowledge of God' then we find it jam packed to the helm with errors of all sorts.

OK, i'll broaden it, the bible is inerrant as regards all truth that the authors intended to convey.

is dat wide enough?

PastorAIO:


You're playing dumb now. So after human understanding the only other understanding you know is animal understanding. You no longer believe in divine understanding. That foolishness of God that is Wiser than the wisdom of men.

I'll repeat. The bible is full of human understanding and further more it is also full of human folly. This puts the lie to your claim that God authored it. God also authored Skelewu dance in the same capacity as he authored the bible.

Of course, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. That is why you consider the Bible a foolish book foolishly written, yet it is wiser than your opinion. Pretty obvious one would think. The Bible is written in language and format that anyone would understand. The ideas however are divine.

So if an almighty God wrote a special book with a special message for his people, a unique communicating of his will and thoughts that he has not put anywhere else in the universe I would expect that he would take special care to ensure that it remains intact.

What YOU expect of God is irrelevant. Do you have any reference point for your mere expectations? The Bible is good enough for the function for which God gave it.

I never said it did. I agree with you. The claim that it is the 'User's manual' for the human race sent from God is one such misuse, even abuse of it.

What is its right use? The Bible answers all of man's basic questions for all time better than any other book, source, research or learning. For instance, origin, destination, purpose, and the conditions of the heart and its best remedies.

I'm not sure that you've passed that class yet, it sounds like you might have to repeat, but in case you insist then the next stage is to read the bible in the clarity of the light. Don't let NEPA catch you out.

Inspire me please, what did you discover or what makes you distinct after this elusive light you have that i don't have?

Image123:
Followed thread, wetin happen. Anyway, for the love of God, where is JeSoul. Nostalgia. People don dey this forum sha.

Abi o.

musKeeto:

Abi o.

Muskee, which kain fake resurrection be this one. Where is your manfrom mars abi sonof satan account? You don lose password?