[Dark Tofu]

Apparently the night i left for vacation, i accidentally closed it. no longer getting you all's opinions so here it is reopened with a few new points added in. Please read my entire post before posting.

First and foremost let me say I am a Christian. I was saved in the 4th grade and have been a follower of Jesus ever since. I believe in him as strongly now as i ever did. Originally i wanted to believe that all of the Bible was the Word of God. After a while the spirit, i feel, helped me with this. Now listen to this statement and you should agree, We are Christians not Biblists. So please come to this with an open mind. And if you attack something, attack the doctrine that is below not me or my faith as a Christian, Please. Now to the issue i am posting about.

Why the Bible isn't the Word of God

1 Corithians 7:12
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
This verse obviously implys that some part of the letter of First Corithians is not God-breathed. This is because Paul is saying that this statement is of the Lord. Why would Paul write this if everything before it was God-breathed. Look 2 verses later

1 Corithians 7:10
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Now, how can the entire Bible be the Word of God if right here Paul is saying that his own words aren't God's? Why should we beleve that Pauls words are God-breathed if he didn't think so himself? This means two things, at least one verse in the Bible is not God inspired and thus the Bible may contain the Word of God, second it shows that Pauls letter wasn't entirely God inspired.

To counter this people will use Second Peter to say that all of Pauls letters are God-breathed.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lords's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the oter Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The argument used here is that Peter thus bestows Paul's writings as inspired because Peter says so. He can do this because he had "apostolic authority" given to him by Jesus.

There are 2 problems with this.

1) Apostolic authority doesn't exist. The main verse used to justify it is

Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and that gates of Hades willl not over come it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

But looking at the context reveals that Peter was "the rock of the church" not because he was Peter, but because he had been the one to utter what is the central tenet of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the son of the living God.

Also, Peter does some things described in

Galatians 2:11-14
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the cicumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

(also described in Acts 15:1-23, far too long to write out, look it up on your own)

That demonstrates that he had no true divine authority beyond that which all Christians have, the Word of God. Obviously apostolic authority is a joke, used only to prop up two things, the Roman Catholic papacy and the Biblical canon.

2) 2 Peter was probably forged. If you look at the basic makeups of both Jude and 2 Peter, they follow the same course and say basically the same things, except for that little bit about Paul's works tacked on at the end. For this reason, many theologians believe 2 Peter was a forgery, written by an anonymous Christian using Peter's name in order to get Paul's works accepted as Scripture. A forgery equals a lie equals not the Word of God, so ultimately whatever 2 Peter says is moot.

Next is Jude
Jude:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

The canonical book of Jude describes an event (the quarrel between Michael and Satan for the body of Moses) that only occurs in an non-canonical scripture (the "Ascension of Moses", which has been lost to time but mentioned by church fathers, is only in words now), and treats it as the Word of God. It could be argued (weakly) that the body of Moses was a metaphor for the Law, and not a reference to the Ascension of Moses. Some theologians have tried to do this, but to do that they disregard the intent of the author of Jude. What this verse suggests is that a canonical book calls a non-canonical book inspired. This right there means that the canon HAS to be wrong.

There's another instance of this phenomenon in the book of Jude.

Jude:14-15
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and all of the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Now look at

Enoch 1:9
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh
of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
Right there we have a canonical book quoting a noncanonical book. This forces the canon to in some way be wrong. For this reason, some of the early church fathers believed Jude wasn't inspired. And some of them thought that both Jude and Enoch were inspired. The book of Enoch is quoted indirectly many times in the New Testament.

To counter this some apologists who are aware of the Enoch/Jude argument try to argue that Paul quoted a pagan to make a point in his sermon on Mars Hill:

Acts 17:28
For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

However, they miss two points. Comparing a prophet with a poet is like comparing apples and oranges. Besides, even if the pagan had been a prophet in the Greek polytheistic religion, it doesn't matter, the prophet still wouldn't have been inspired by God.

Genesis 5:21-24
When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he had become the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God: then he was no more, because took him away.


So Enoch's prophecies would be legitimate. In fact, Enoch was SO holy that he didn't die, God took him away, a kindness only granted to one other human, Elijah (who was also a prophet). It's inescapable, if you believe that the book of Jude is the Word of God, you have to believe that the book of Enoch is the Word of God. You don't even have to believe in Jude's inspiration to believe in Enoch. The reason Enoch is ispired is because pretty much every single symbolic thing mentioned in Revelation makes reference to a similar thing in Enoch. The details of the throne room of God are too similar... if Enoch's not the Word of God, then Revelation really can't be either, because instead of them both having been inspired, Revelation would just be a knockoff of an uninspired book written earlier.

Now for the Gospels
The reason i am saying this next part is because of all of the contradictions in the gospels. For example compare Matthew 28:1-2, Mark 16:1-5, Luke 24:1-4, and John 20:1-2. These contradictions are here because these books were written by men trying to get their facts correct. They are obiously not going to get it completely correct unless they were at all of the events. So only Jesus' words are the Word of God because the rest could be mistakenly written. Thus if it contradicts it is incorrect.

To counter this people say that the contradictions are there to make you grow in your struggles to find the truth. I honestly don't think it is legitimate, though, because the inspired Word of God wouldn't have contradictions, and the Word of God is rich and profound enough to be able to cause you to grow without contradictions there to confuse you. Also, the contradictions aren't easily resolved, some Christians interpret things one way, others interpret it the other when there's only one actual Truth. I don't think God would have intentionally sown discord among His children.


To counter my overall points people a lot of times use

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness,

What they miss is that the Bible wasn't even entirely written when this verse was written. "All Scripture" in this sense refers to the Old Testament, and not to a Biblical canon that wasn't chosen or even entirely written yet.

Another they use is

Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

They ignore the actual words in there though, "this book" does not mean the Bible, which had yet to be canonized, it merely means "the book of the Revelation of John." Changing the words written in that book is the sin, not finding fault with the canon.

Another verse used is
Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what i command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that i give you.
The problems are
1) This was written way before most of the rest of the Bible was written
2) He is talking about the books of law

Another thing many people say is that you need to have faith that God made his scriptures simple so that we aren't confused. That it doesn't take 50 million hours of study(exagerated) to figure it out. But the problem with that statement is that if the Bible was meant to be easy to understand we wouldn't be having this discussion or any of the others under theology. They say we should have faith. Faith in what? Are we just supposed to uncritically accept whatever holy book we're raised with? If all we *REALLY* need is faith, then explain to me why that blind faith in the Bible is worth any more than a Muslim's blind faith in the Qu'ran. By that argument, I would have no rational, logical way to convince anyone of any other religion that Christianity is the one true religion, that Christ is the only way to Heaven. I'd basically be reduced to saying "MY INVISIBLE GUY IN THE SKY IS MORE REAL THAN YOUR INVISIBLE GUY IN THE SKY!"

God abides in the truth; and the truth will find itself out. It can only do so when it's ALLOWED to, though; blind faith blocks the process of reason that allows people to discover the truth. Therefore, blind faith must be done away with, and replaced with a rational faith; where you reason everything out that you possibly can and then let faith fill the gap to whatever's most reasonable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically whatever God says is the Word of God(No brainer there) Thus only things that God spoke or prophesies should be considered the Word of God.
Here are all the books and the whys

Genesis - Written Prophetically by Moses
Exodus - Written Prophetically by Moses
Leviticus - God speaking is all this book is
Numbers - Written Prophetically by Moses
Deuteronomy - Written Prophetically by Moses

Any quotes like the Lord God says, "something or another" in between Joshua and Job. Because these are just Historical books.

Psalms because it prophesied Christ several times

The books of wisdom (Proverbs, Song of Soloman, Ecclesiastes) because Soloman was obviously inspired by God.

Enoch and all other books of prophesy throughout OT (Isaiah-Malachi)
because they were prophets.

The words of Christ in the four canonical Gospels

Revelation because it is prophetic

Whatever bits that are scattered in Paul's writings that are specifically by God or any of his prophetic pieces (such as the endtimes stuff in 2 Thessalonians)

-Some of the Apocrypha and other non-canonical books (undetermined yet; I hold out the possibility of some of them being inspired)

So yeah that's what I believe. Remember that we're called Christians and not Biblists for a reason. The Bible is a collection of inspired books not an inspired collection of books. Don't forget that.

[+Donny]

I'm going to try and find time to respond to this soon. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by saying that not all the Bible is the Word of God, and also taking a very inconsistent look at which books are inspired and which aren't, though your willingness to at least consider the issues commendable. I think we need to draw some conclusions from what you bring forth, I just think you go a bit too far.

Anyway, hopefully I can flesh this out sometime later.

[Ted Logan]

Originally i wanted to believe that all of the Bible was the Word of God. After a while the spirit i feel helped me with this. Now listen to this statement and you should agree, We are Christians not Biblists so please come to this with an open mind.

Sir, let me first say that you ought to come to my reply with an open mind. Let me also say that your feelings about what the "spirit" did ought to be testable. If you can't test them against what God has spoken, then how can you ever know that the "spirit" said them rather than your sinful mind? Next, we discover who God is by His revelation to us. He reveals Himself in general ways through the Creation (Romans 1:17-25) and specifically through His revealed word, the Bible.

And if you attack something, attack the post that is below not my faith as a Christian, Please.

I wouldn't presume to attack Christian faith. The question is whether or not what you're about to say is Christian. We shall see.

Now, first i shall point out an obvious reason

1 Corithians 7:12
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

The obvious implication of this verse is that God did not inspire it.

That would be the implication if it were saying what you think it’s saying. But this passage does not say, “To the rest I say this (and it’s not from God)…” Paul is saying that Jesus did not address this subject. This is shown by v. 10, which you quote next:

Also,

1 Corithians 7:10
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

You see, Paul is saying that this is not a teaching from Paul’s pen, but from Christ’s mouth:

Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

You assume that Paul is saying that his words in verse 12 are not inspired. But this contradicts Paul’s purpose in directing the people not to divorce nonbelievers! If you place the Scriptures in their normal order, you’ll see that you have actually twisted what Paul says in order to fit it into your false belief.

1Co 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
1Co 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

The Lord says not to get divorced, and Paul explains that the command includes marriages between believers and nonbelievers.

Says that God did inspire this, but why would he need to say this in the middle of his letter, if all of it was God breathed?

Because he’s not saying what you’re trying to accuse him of saying.

This means two things, at least one verse in the Bible is not God inspired and thus the Bible may contain the Word of God, second it shows that Pauls letter wasn't entirely God inspired why would he have to state that one verse is if he thought that his whole letter was? He obviously didn't think most of his letter was God breathed so why should we?

First, notice that you started saying at least one verse wasn’t inspired to saying most of it wasn’t inspired. What a neat trick! Second, note that this entire complaint is answered by the proper understanding of the text.

Jude:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

The canonical book of Jude describes an event (the quarrel between Michael and Satan for the body of Moses) that only occurs in an non-canonical scripture (the "Ascension of Moses", which has been lost to time but mentioned by church fathers), and treats it as the Word of God. It could be argued (weakly) that the body of Moses was a metaphor for the Law, and not a reference to the Ascension of Moses. Some theologians have tried to do this, but to do that they disregard the intent of the author of Jude. What this verse suggests is that a canonical book calls a non-canonical book inspired. This right there means that the canon HAS to be wrong.

Once again, you’re twisting the Scripture. Look at Acts 17:28. Paul quotes the Greek poets Aratus and Cleanthus to make a point. He is not treating them as Scripture, but using them as examples. Jude 9 does not quote anything as Scripture, but references it to make a point. Note that Jude does not say “The Scripture says…” in v.9. Likewise vv.14-15. You should try to prove that Jude was quoting sources as Scripture instead of just claiming it. You haven’t done so.

For this reason, some of the early church fathers believed Jude wasn't inspired. And some of them thought that both Jude and Enoch were inspired. The book of Enoch is quoted indirectly many times in the New Testament.

What the early church fathers believed is irrelevant. Irenaeus believed that Jesus was in his sixties when he died. Tertullian became a Montanist. Just like reading modern writers, we must evaluate what the early fathers claimed against the Scriptures and reject whatever is not biblical.

Some apologists who are aware of the Enoch/Jude argument try to argue that Paul quoted a pagan to make a point in his sermon on Mars Hill:

Acts 17:28
For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'


However, they miss two points. Comparing a prophet with a poet is like comparing apples and oranges. Besides, even if the pagan had been a prophet in the Greek polytheistic religion, it doesn't matter, the prophet still wouldn't have been inspired by God.

That’s not the issue, Dark Tofu. Prove that they were quoting these writings as Scripture. Quoting a story is not the same as saying that the story is true or that the writer of it was inspired. You didn’t show any reason to believe that Jude claimed that the writer of the Ascension of Moses was inspired.

So Enoch's prophecies would be legitimate. In fact, Enoch was SO holy that he didn't die, God took him away, a kindness only granted to one other human, Elijah (who was also a prophet).
It's inescapable, if you believe that the book of Jude is the Word of God, you have to believe that the book of Enoch is the Word of God. (You don't even have to believe in Jude's inspiration to believe in Enoch, the book of Enoch fits in too perfectly with Daniel and Revelation to *NOT* be inspired.)

You can claim that it’s inescapable, but you haven’t proved it. You’ve made a lot of claims without proving them so far. Your logic seems to be this:

Jude quotes Enoch
Therefore, Jude believed Enoch was inspired
Therefore, since Enoch is not in the canon, the canon is wrong.

But you didn’t prove your first conclusion.

Another Verse used is

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness,

What they miss is that the Bible wasn't even entirely written when this verse was written. "All Scripture" in this sense refers to the Old Testament, and not to a Biblical canon that wasn't chosen or even entirely written yet.

On the contrary, Paul included the New Testament as “Scripture.”

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

Here, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and calls it Scripture. I recommend you check out this article: http://www.reformed.org/bible/warfield_canon.html.

Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his sharein the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

They ignore the actual words in there though, "this book" does not mean the Bible, which had yet to be canonized, it merely means "the book of the Revelation of John." Changing the words written in that book is the sin, not finding fault with the canon.

Agreed.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lords's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the oter Scriptures, to their own destruction.


The argument used here is that Peter, who was given apostolic authority by Jesus Himself, bestows said apostolic authority on Paul's works, therefore Paul's writings are inspired because Peter says so.

No, that’s not the argument (at least, that’s not the argument that should be given). Peter did not make the words of Paul Scripture by his apostolic authority; he recognized them as God-breathed just as all Christians ought to do, by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Paul said:

1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Peter did what all Christians do: He recognized the words of his Maker.

1) Apostolic authority doesn't exist.

I agree—apostolic authority doesn’t exist in the manner that you mention. However, the apostles have the authority to tell forth the words of God to His people, and God’s words have ultimate authority. If I quote the command of God to someone, saying, “Do not commit adultery,” am I claiming authority of my own? Of course not. I am declaring the commands of God, which are authoritative. Likewise, apostles and prophets declared the commands of God, which are authoritative, and the faithful recognized them as such. The faithful have preserved the oracles of God in the form of the Bible, and we trust GOD that He has not led us astray in this way. You seem to serve an incompetent god who can’t get his act together and protect his own words.

The main verse used to justify it is

Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and that gates of Hades willl not over come it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.


But looking at the context reveals that Peter was "the rock of the church" not because he was Peter, but because he had been the one to utter what is the central tenet of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the son of the living God.

First of all, perhaps you haven’t met our friends the Protestants. When we left Rome, we left that interpretation of Matthew 16 as well. When Jesus says “on this rock,” he is referring not to Peter, but to himself and his identity which Peter has spoken in verse 17.

Also, Peter does some things described in

Galatians 2:11-14
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the cicumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?


(also described in Acts 15:1-23, far too long to write out, look it up on your own) That demonstrates that he had no true divine authority beyond that which all Christians have, the Word of God. Obviously apostolic authority is a joke, used only to prop up two things, the Roman Catholic papacy and the Biblical canon.

On the contrary, the apostles have authority which we do not, and that is the authority which comes by the Holy Spirit to tell forth what the Holy Spirit gave them to tell. And how are we to know if they are speaking by inspiration or by their own will? Simple. There is no teaching in the New Testament which is not breathed out by God. Were the apostles infallible? No! But the Bible is, because it is breathed out by God. Did Peter court the Judaizers? Yes, for a time. But he did not write to churches or individuals commanding them to do the same.

2) 2 Peter was probably forged. If you look at the basic makeups of both Jude and 2 Peter, they follow the same course and say basically the same things, except for that little bit about Paul's works tacked on at the end. For this reason, many theologians believe 2 Peter was a forgery, written by an anonymous Christian using Peter's name in order to get Paul's works accepted as Scripture. A forgery equals a lie equals not the Word of God, so ultimately whatever 2 Peter says is moot.

Many theologians are trying to make names for themselves, but that’s nothing new. Here’s your argument:

1. Jude & 2 Peter have similarities
2. Therefore 2 Peter is a forgery.

Surely you can see that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Matthew and Mark are similar too, but that doesn’t make either a forgery. The same goes for the Chronicles and the Kings in the Old Testament. Furthermore, it would not be a forgery even if Jude or Peter had a copy of the other in front of them when they wrote their own letter. If I read a book about biblical interpretation and then preached a sermon on the topic, using the ideas I got from the book, I wouldn’t be forging anything. Likewise, if Jude read 2 Peter and decided to write a similar letter, he wouldn’t be guilty of forgery.

The reasoning that goes, “These two are similar, so 2 Peter couldn’t have been written by Peter” is ridiculous.

Basically whatever God says is the Word of God(No brainer there) Thus only things that God spoke should be considered the Word of God or Prophesies.

You’re mistaken, Dark Tofu. In Romans 11, Paul calls 1 Kings 18 and 19 “Scripture.” In 2 Timothy 3, Paul says all Scripture is breathed out by God, therefore the portions which are not “God says” are still the words of God. Thus, your argument is proved false.

Psalms because it prophesied Christ several times

What about the ones that don’t?

Whatever bits that are scattered in Paul's writings that are specifically by God or any of his prophetic pieces (such as the endtimes stuff in 2 Thessalonians)

Since you reject Paul based on faulty reasoning, you should reconsider this.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by Aaron Adams

Sir, let me first say that you ought to come to my reply with an open mind. Let me also say that your feelings about what the "spirit" did ought to be testable. If you can't test them against what God has spoken, then how can you ever know that the "spirit" said them rather than your sinful mind? Next, we discover who God is by His revelation to us. He reveals Himself in general ways through the Creation (Romans 1:17-25) and specifically through His revealed word, the Bible.

I wouldn't presume to attack Christian faith. The question is whether or not what you're about to say is Christian. We shall see.

You seem to serve an incompetent god who can’t get his act together and protect his own words.

Man, your god really screwed up. He needed YOU to come along and fix his mess! How grateful he must be to you, that you’re uncovering what is really his word. Maybe if he had been sovereign, like the triune God of the Bible, he would have been able to do a better job.

Christians recognize the words of their Maker. Since you reject them, perhaps the problem is that you have such a high opinion of your ability to figure out what God wrote that you aren’t willing to submit to the Holy Spirit’s clear instruction to you. You serve a weak, short-sighted god who can’t even keep his revelation straight! What a sorry excuse for a lord you have.

Repent of your sinful self-righteousness and turn to Christ, who doesn’t make mistakes with His Word

Sir, You could have completely debated this entire thing without saying I am not a Christian. You also say my words aren’t Christian. Please just debate with me without saying I am not a Christian. It isn’t necessary. Because I am.

Your God is my God. He has inspired many books and now they have become scattered with time. We need to put them together. Originally Christians didn’t have a Bible.

That would be the implication if it were saying what you think it’s saying. But this passage does not say, “To the rest I say this (and it’s not from God)…” Paul is saying that Jesus did not address this subject. This is shown by v. 10, which you quote next

Now Paul here is contradicting himself because in 2 Corinthians 6:14 he says it is better not to be yoked to an unbeliever. If this were God’s Word why would this contradiction be here.

You see, Paul is saying that this is not a teaching from Paul’s pen, but from Christ’s mouth:

Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Agreed

You assume (so that you can justify your wicked rejection of the Scripture) that Paul is saying that his words in verse 12 are not inspired. But this contradicts Paul’s purpose in directing the people not to divorce nonbelievers! If you place the Scriptures in their normal order, you’ll see that you have actually twisted what Paul says in order to fit it into your false belief.

Just need to say, How is this wicked? It is a debate, Sir. Please don't insist upon my being wrong and my beliefs corrupt.

1Co 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
1Co 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

So Jesus says that it is wrong for all of them so Paul wouldn’t need to cover it. So he is saying in verse
10 That Jesus spoke about this
11 That neither should but if so then remain unmarried
12 That Paul thinks that if someone is a believer and is married to a nonbeliever, and that that nonbeliever wants to live with the believer that they shouldn’t divorce.

The Lord says not to get divorced, and Paul explains that the command includes marriages between believers and nonbelievers.

You say that Paul says this because Jesus didn’t address it but the problem with your statement is he did. In the NIV translation Jesus says

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

First, notice that you started saying at least one verse wasn’t inspired to saying most of it wasn’t inspired. What a neat trick! Second, note that this entire complaint is answered by the proper understanding of the text.

When I said that I meant most of the Bible may be the Word of God. A simple Typo.

Once again, you’re twisting the Scripture. Look at Acts 17:28. Paul quotes the Greek poets Aratus and Cleanthus to make a point. He is not treating them as Scripture, but using them as examples. Jude 9 does not quote anything as Scripture, but references it to make a point. Note that Jude does not say “The Scripture says…” in v.9. Likewise vv.14-15. You should try to prove that Jude was quoting sources as Scripture instead of just claiming it. You haven’t done so.


That’s not the issue, Dark Tofu. Prove that they were quoting these writings as Scripture. Quoting a story is not the same as saying that the story is true or that the writer of it was inspired. You didn’t show any reason to believe that Jude claimed that the writer of the Ascension of Moses was inspired.

Jude is quoting the Ascension of Moses by saying that it really happened. That this event was real and Scriptural. Paul is just saying that the poets words were correct and that they fit with the Christian belief system, they are in no way words that are prophesies or anything of the sort, just something for them to compare to.

You can claim that it’s inescapable, but you haven’t proved it. You’ve made a lot of claims without proving them so far. Your logic seems to be this:

Jude quotes Enoch
Therefore, Jude believed Enoch was inspired
Therefore, since Enoch is not in the canon, the canon is wrong.

But you didn’t prove your first conclusion.

Jude believed Enoch was inspired because of his wording. He says Enoch’s prophesy and then begins talking about parts of it and how those specific men acted. Look at the context my dear sir.

On the contrary, Paul included the New Testament as “Scripture.”

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

Here, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and calls it Scripture.

He quotes Jesus’ words which are scripture and he says that because that book of Luke was actually written when he wrote the letter and it was accepted. Things like Revelation
Jude all the letters of John and Peter weren’t written yet.

I recommend you check out this article: http://www.reformed.org/bible/warfield_canon.html.

Sorry link isn’t working for my computer, I’d be glad if you’d explain it to me.

No, that’s not the argument (at least, that’s not the argument that should be given). Peter did not make the words of Paul Scripture by his apostolic authority; he recognized them as God-breathed just as all Christians ought to do, by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Paul said:

Well what Peter is saying (if it was written by Peter) is that Paul’s parts of his letters are Scriptural if they are the parts about the Day of the Lord or about the Lords patience with us. You seem to twist words a lot too. Sir.

1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Paul is saying that we should be eager to Prophesy and not forbid speaking in tongues. His command of the Lord is verse 38 only

I agree—apostolic authority doesn’t exist in the manner that you mention. However, the apostles have the authority to tell forth the words of God to His people, and God’s words have ultimate authority. If I quote the command of God to someone, saying, “Do not commit adultery,” am I claiming authority of my own? Of course not. I am declaring the commands of God, which are authoritative. Likewise, apostles and prophets declared the commands of God, which are authoritative, and the faithful recognized them as such. The faithful have preserved the oracles of God in the form of the Bible, and we trust GOD that He has not led us astray in this way.

We all have as much authority over things as the apostles did. They just had bounds more faith than we do nowadays. The Bible was put together by a group of men who were at the behest of the Roman Empire... you know, the same institution that lit Christians on fire to light the emperor's gardens. THOSE GUYS are responsible for the canon.

First of all, perhaps you haven’t met our friends the Protestants. When we left Rome, we left that interpretation of Matthew 16 as well. When Jesus says “on this rock,” he is referring not to Peter, but to himself and his identity which Peter has spoken in verse 17.

That is for a different thread.

On the contrary, the apostles have authority which we do not, and that is the authority which comes by the Holy Spirit to tell forth what the Holy Spirit gave them to tell. And how are we to know if they are speaking by inspiration or by their own will? Simple. There is no teaching in the New Testament which is not breathed out by God. Were the apostles infallible? No! But the Bible is, because it is breathed out by God. Did Peter court the Judaizers? Yes, for a time. But he did not write to churches or individuals commanding them to do the same.

What authority? And the Bible is a collection of so-called inspired books, not an inspired collection of books

Many theologians are trying to make names for themselves, but that’s nothing new. Here’s your argument:

1. Jude & 2 Peter have similarities
2. Therefore 2 Peter is a forgery.

Surely you can see that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Matthew and Mark are similar too, but that doesn’t make either a forgery. The same goes for the Chronicles and the Kings in the Old Testament. Furthermore, it would not be a forgery even if Jude or Peter had a copy of the other in front of them when they wrote their own letter. If I read a book about biblical interpretation and then preached a sermon on the topic, using the ideas I got from the book, I wouldn’t be forging anything. Likewise, if Jude read 2 Peter and decided to write a similar letter, he wouldn’t be guilty of forgery.

The reasoning that goes, “These two are similar, so 2 Peter couldn’t have been written by Peter” is ridiculous.

Matthew and Mark are similar and may be copies but there are no statements in them that say who wrote them thus no forging. Chronicles and Kings don’t have names on them either. I agree that if Jude did that he wouldn’t be forging. But, the letters are to the same people. Jude may have written 2 Peter or some other person who read Jude and said, Hey I want Paul’s words to be called Scripture so I’ll say I’m Peter and call it scripture. That would be forgery.

You’re mistaken, Dark Tofu. In Romans 11, Paul calls 1 Kings 18 and 19 “Scripture.” In 2 Timothy 3, Paul says all Scripture is breathed out by God, therefore the portions which are not “God says” are still the words of God. Thus, your argument is proved false.

All that he call scripture is words by Elijah, a prophet, or God. Thus your argument is proved false.

What about the ones that don’t?

Only the ones that do, forgot to specify.

[Dark Tofu]

Not trying to be rude, but is anyone going to respond?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Basically whatever God says is the Word of God(No brainer there) Thus only things that God spoke or prophesies should be considered the Word of God.

Why? Why only things which the writers claimed God spoke? And why prophecies? Those seem rather arbitrary.

Genesis - Written Prophetically by Moses
Exodus - Written Prophetically by Moses
Leviticus - God speaking is all this book is
Numbers - Written Prophetically by Moses
Deuteronomy - Written Prophetically by Moses

Where is your proof these are written "prophetically" by Moses? What does that even mean?

Psalms because it prophesied Christ several times

Why do the chapters involving Messiah-prophecies magically avoid your axe? Arbitrary again.

The books of wisdom (Proverbs, Song of Soloman, Ecclesiastes) because Soloman was obviously inspired by God.

Obviously? Prove it.

The words of Christ in the four canonical Gospels

Of course, since the rest of the Gospels aren't inspired they may be quoting Christ out of context so who really knows.

So yeah that's what I believe. Remember that we're called Christians and not Biblists for a reason. The Bible is a collection of inspired books not an inspired collection of books. Don't forget that.

I would honestly be curious to see what kind of religion you end up with once you remove all those books. I imagine it is no form of Christianity.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by joshaber

Why? Why only things which the writers claimed God spoke? And why prophecies? Those seem rather arbitrary.

Where is your proof these are written "prophetically" by Moses? What does that even mean?

Why do the chapters involving Messiah-prophecies magically avoid your axe? Arbitrary again.

Obviously? Prove it.

Of course, since the rest of the Gospels aren't inspired they may be quoting Christ out of context so who really knows.

I would honestly be curious to see what kind of religion you end up with once you remove all those books. I imagine it is no form of Christianity.

This is a response paragraph for paragraph.

The Word of God, hmm what would that mean, possibly words spoken by God, what else could it mean? And prophesies because they are God's knowledge of the future given to men to write down and are many time quoted by Jesus as scripture.

Genesis - How else could it have been written
Exodus - Same as Numbers Defence
Numbers - Moses was a prophet so anything he writes is legit
Deuteronomy - Because Moses predicted his own death

Because they are prophesies that makes them the word of God.

Read 1 Kings 4:29-34
Soloman was a very wisdomatic man, his wisdom was given unto him by God so all of his proverbs would be of God

Explain in better terms.

You end up with christianity, how wouldn't you?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Genesis - How else could it have been written

Made up.

Exodus - Same as Numbers Defence

Now prove that entire book is prophecy and written by Moses.

Numbers - Moses was a prophet so anything he writes is legit

See above.

Deuteronomy - Because Moses predicted his own death

How does that prove anything?

Because they are prophesies that makes them the word of God.

So not necessarily Messianic prophecies, just prophecies in general?

Soloman was a very wisdomatic man, his wisdom was given unto him by God so all of his proverbs would be of God

Non-sequitur. Show where Soloman claimed to be a prophet.

Explain in better terms.

Luke 7:9 (ESV):
When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

You claim that the entire context leading up to that quote is not God's Word. So Jesus could have been talking about anything. Suddenly we have no context for Jesus' words.

You end up with christianity, how wouldn't you?

Because, if you were consistent, you'd axe the Gospels; or at the very least not have any context to use to interpret them.

[joshaber]

To hopefully make my point a bit more clear, here is the Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection using only the "words of Christ in the four canonical Gospels."

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34 ESV)
"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43)
"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46)
"What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?" (Luke 24:17)
"What things?" (Luke 24:19)
"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25-26)
"Peace to you!" (Luke 24:36)
"Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39)
"Have you anything here to eat?" (Luke 24:41)
"These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. [...] Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:44-48)

I could make up all kinds of contexts to these that completely distort Christianity, and, if your "bible" is true, then they could be accepted.

[Dark Tofu]

First let me say you've given me a lot to think and study on so my response might take some time. Also, my defences weren't very strong and I may change them and you can follow suit. Don't attack my defences until they're edited, feel free to attack my first post though.

[joshaber]

That's fine. I'll give you time to update your defense but I'll stick with my original argument for now. That argument being that if we accept your standard and apply it consistently we end up without the Gospel and/or another core part of Christianity.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Sir, You could have completely debated this entire thing without saying I am not a Christian. You also say my words aren’t Christian. Please just debate with me without saying I am not a Christian. It isn’t necessary. Because I am.

Jesus says "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" in John 10:27, Peter calls Paul's words Scripture, and Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as Scripture. Paul also says that if anyone is of the spirit (1 Corinthians 14:37), he should recognize that Paul's words are commands from God. Every other Christian agrees on this, but you persist in your stubbornness.

Your God is my God. He has inspired many books and now they have become scattered with time. We need to put them together. Originally Christians didn’t have a Bible.

My God is Lord of all Creation, the Creator, the Almighty, the Holy One of Israel, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Divine Trinity, Yahweh who works all things according to the council of His Will. Your god can't even keep his books straight. He needs us to put them together because he didn't keep them safe.

And you are correct. Originally, Christians didn't have a Bible. But, AS THE BOOKS WERE BEING WRITTEN, they were also being recognized as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Peter 3:15-16). This is because the Lord Himself authored them and by His Holy Spirit caused His children to recognize them. Two thousand years later, He has preserved His Word. He didn't allow it to become scattered as you think, because God has protected it.

Psa 138:2 I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

Psa 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

God's word endures, it is exalted, and it does not become scattered over time. The Psalmist even speaks as you ought to speak, if you repent. Perhaps my words have afflicted you, and the Lord will use my unworthy offering to bring you to repentance:

Psa 119:67 Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word.

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Now Paul here is contradicting himself because in 2 Corinthians 6:14 he says it is better not to be yoked to an unbeliever. If this were God’s Word why would this contradiction be here.

This is not a contradiction. A contradiction must take the form where something both is and is not true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, I contradict myself if I say that it is true that men can fly and that it is not true that men can fly, if I am using the words “men” and “fly” in the same sense. However, if I meant that it is true that men can fly (in an airplane) and it is not true that men can fly (by flapping their arms), then it would not be a contradiction.

In 2 Corinthians 6:14, we are told:
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

and in 1 Corinthians 7, we read:
1Co 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
1Co 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1Co 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.

Notice that 1 Corinthians is talking about those who are already married. Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7 that believers should not divorce unbelieving spouses, and in 2 Corinthians 6 that believers should not marry unbelievers. In other words, if you are married to an unbeliever, you must not divorce them. But if you are not married, do not marry an unbeliever.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Just need to say, How is this wicked? It is a debate, Sir. Please don't insist upon my being wrong and my beliefs corrupt.

I say it is wicked because God says that it is wicked. I insist upon upholding what the Lord has said, and because the Lord does not lie, you are wrong and your beliefs are corrupt.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

So Jesus says that it is wrong for all of them so Paul wouldn’t need to cover it. So he is saying in verse
10 That Jesus spoke about this
11 That neither should but if so then remain unmarried
12 That Paul thinks that if someone is a believer and is married to a nonbeliever, and that that nonbeliever wants to live with the believer that they shouldn’t divorce.

No. Paul is doing what he often does, and what Jesus Himself did: he’s expounding upon a topic already covered even to a greater degree. The prohibition against divorce would have been enough except that (obviously, from the context of 1 Corinthians 7) some people are unsure if their marriages are real marriages if they’re between a believer and a nonbeliever. So, Paul begins with a teaching from Jesus and expands it according to the will of the Holy Spirit.

You haven’t taken responsibility for twisting Paul’s words, however. You claimed that Paul was stating that his words were not inspired. I showed you that it is a false claim. You should repent of your mishandling of the word of God.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

You say that Paul says this because Jesus didn’t address it but the problem with your statement is he did. In the NIV translation Jesus says

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

You’re misunderstanding. Paul is saying that Jesus instructed them against divorce, and Paul is showing that that includes divorce between believers and unbelievers.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Jude is quoting the Ascension of Moses by saying that it really happened. That this event was real and Scriptural. Paul is just saying that the poets words were correct and that they fit with the Christian belief system, they are in no way words that are prophesies or anything of the sort, just something for them to compare to.

1. Prove that Jude is quoting the Ascension of Moses as history rather than parable.
2. Prove that Jude is quoting the Ascension of Moses as Scripture.

You can’t. The text won’t allow it. You assert that the situation is different than that of Acts 17, but you have yet to give ANY reason that it must be so. You begin with your own interpretation and you require that it must be this way, because that’s the way it is. You say that they are not prophecy. PROVE THAT JUDE IS QUOTING IT AS PROPHECY rather than as a parable or a pop culture reference.

I may quote The Matrix to make a point; it doesn’t mean I believe that The Matrix is history, prophecy, or Scripture.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Jude believed Enoch was inspired because of his wording. He says Enoch’s prophesy and then begins talking about parts of it and how those specific men acted. Look at the context my dear sir.

This is a red herring. You have yet to prove the following:
1. That Jude quotes the pseudepigraphal work “The Book of Enoch” rather than an oral tradition or another work now lost
2. That Jude quotes it as Scripture

If Jude quotes it as Scripture and it is lost, then we have a problem. God obviously would have failed. But not all prophecies are Scripture! You assert (with no reason given) that Jude has quoted a written work which survives in the Book of Enoch. But you cannot show that this is the case. Can you prove to me that the Book of Enoch is not a forgery which purposefully included portions of the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy?

Originally Posted by dark tofu

He quotes Jesus’ words which are scripture and he says that because that book of Luke was actually written when he wrote the letter and it was accepted. Things like Revelation
Jude all the letters of John and Peter weren’t written yet.

And yet, the whole Church recognized them as Scripture as they were written.

You stated that 1 Timothy 3:15-16 referred to the Old Testament. This has been shown to be false. Again, you have mishandled the very words of the Lord God. This should make you tremble before Him. The gravity of this situation doesn’t seem to have sunk in your heart yet. You have told a lie about God Himself. Be amazed that He has spared you this long, and repent of your wickedness!

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Sorry link isn’t working for my computer, I’d be glad if you’d explain it to me.

It’s an article on the formation of the canon. No worries. I just thought it would be helpful to you.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Well what Peter is saying (if it was written by Peter) is that Paul’s parts of his letters are Scriptural if they are the parts about the Day of the Lord or about the Lords patience with us. You seem to twist words a lot too. Sir.

Let’s see if that is true:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Some things in them are hard to understand and are mishandled by the ignorant and unstable, and they twist them and the other Scriptures. To what does the word “them” refer? ALL HIS LETTERS. This is the third instance that I have documented where you have twisted the words of God. Why do you persist in this? Perhaps you came to CGR looking for open minds, but you certainly have not come with a discerning heart of your own.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Paul is saying that we should be eager to Prophesy and not forbid speaking in tongues. His command of the Lord is verse 38 only

He says that “the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord”. Nowhere does he limit it to the topic of tongues or prophecy. This goes hand in hand with 2 Peter 3, where Peter calls all of Paul’s letters Scripture.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

We all have as much authority over things as the apostles did. They just had bounds more faith than we do nowadays. The Bible was put together by a group of men who were at the behest of the Roman Empire... you know, the same institution that lit Christians on fire to light the emperor's gardens. THOSE GUYS are responsible for the canon.

No, that’s not true. First, there is no council which defines the canon until the late Middle Ages, yet the canon was known and settled long before that. The canon is not created by men, but only recognized by them. Second, it is equivocation to set Nero’s Rome alongside Constantine’s, as though they were the same. Third, none of us has the authority of an apostle because we do not receive new commands from the Lord.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

That is for a different thread.

You brought it up.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

What authority? And the Bible is a collection of so-called inspired books, not an inspired collection of books

The authority to tell forth what the Holy Spirit gave them to tell. I don’t know why you included the second sentence, but here’s a simple bit of logic: If all of them are inspired, then the collection is inspired. Of course, I think what you’re trying to say is that the list of what’s in and out is not inspired, which I agree with. There is no canon list. There doesn’t need to be, however, since the sheep hear their shepherd’s voice and follow Him.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Matthew and Mark are similar and may be copies but there are no statements in them that say who wrote them thus no forging. Chronicles and Kings don’t have names on them either. I agree that if Jude did that he wouldn’t be forging. But, the letters are to the same people. Jude may have written 2 Peter or some other person who read Jude and said, Hey I want Paul’s words to be called Scripture so I’ll say I’m Peter and call it scripture. That would be forgery.

You just invented a new definition of forgery. Forgery is passing off someone else’s work as your own, and you haven’t shown any reason to believe that the author of 2 Peter did so. Nor have you given any reason to believe that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal. You’re just claiming that it’s so.

Originally Posted by dark tofu

All that he call scripture is words by Elijah, a prophet, or God. Thus your argument is proved false.

Now you’re changing your story! You said this:

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Basically whatever God says is the Word of God(No brainer there) Thus only things that God spoke should be considered the Word of God or Prophesies.

Any quotes like the Lord God says, "something or another" in between Joshua and Job. Because these are just Historical books.

In Romans 11, Paul says:

Rom 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
Rom 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."
Rom 11:4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

If you were being consistent, you would have to say that Paul was wrong here, that only verse 4 is quoting Scripture and that verse 3 is just quoting “history”. It is interesting that there is no Scripture you can give to prove your claim, but that the Scriptures themselves oppose you! The Scripture says that Elijah spoke thus, and all Scripture is breathed out by God, therefore 1 Kings 19:10 (the words of Elijah to God, and not the words of God to Elijah or anyone else) is Scripture and breathed out by God, therefore the “just historical” books are Scripture and the Word of God.

The problem, of course, is that no one in the entire Bible thinks the way you do; the whole counsel of God is against you. So now, you change your story, and say that Elijah’s words count because he was a prophet. But Elijah was not prophesying here!!

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Only the ones that do, forgot to specify.

Oh, okay. Once again, we see what a terribly scatterbrained god you serve. He couldn’t even keep the inspired psalms separated from the uninspired ones!

Originally Posted by dark tofu

Not trying to be rude, but is anyone going to respond?

I apologize, but the likelihood that I will continue to respond is very small. I have many responsibilities which prevent me from doing so.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

First let me say you've given me a lot to think and study on so my response might take some time. Also, my defences weren't very strong and I may change them and you can follow suit. Don't attack my defences until they're edited, feel free to attack my first post though.

Did you not read this? Give me time to edit my defences, they are weak. Then you can follow suit.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Did you not read this? Give me time to edit my defences, they are weak. Then you can follow suit.

This is just about debate to you?! It's not just your defense, but your premises that are weak. You asked us to be open-minded, but you obviously aren't open-minded yourself. I didn't take your arguments apart because I'm a crafty debater; I took them apart because they are false.

I am not interested in your ability to shore up your defenses; I am interested in your repentance and salvation!

[Dark Tofu]

You mentioned that you were a pastor above. Is this how you act at church? Is it really necessary to condemn someone because they have different beliefs than you?