Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[Difflugia]

And I'm also sure sarcasm is lost on the uber-practical.

You made these three statements:

• who says he used a rope to hang himself?
• Acts 1 doesn't say that he died at all
• We can conclude that his dead body only fell after the hanging device broke of it's own accord

All three statements are equally absurd.

For himself is correctly middle passive as written. By himself is adverbial and not written.

I'll risk assuming that this isn't intended to be sarcastic. The point of the middle voice is that it encapsulates both and the subject is both actor and object. If you disagree, find an example that supports your word puzzle solution.

If we put aside word games, though, Matthew doesn't include Judas in the purchase and Acts 1:18 doesn't include anyone else. They're not the same story.

[marke]

It seems the wicked Pharisees determined they had nothing to do with the blood money so they took the money Judas threw back at them and bought the field in Judas' name, thinking that would clear them of any bloodguiltiness in the wicked murder of Jesus.

That's a possibility of Matthew's text, but not of Acts. In Acts, Judas is the one that did the actual buying.

Marke: Judas entered an agreement to buy a field. The Pharisees confirmed Judas's decision by taking the money Judas was supposed to have given for the field (but threw back into the temple) and consummated the sale agreement by declaring the property a field in which to bury the unwanted

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #185]

The hardness of heart is not on the part of the one writing the bill of divorcement, but on the part of the one found unclean in marriage.

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives"
(Matthew 19:8)

Strong’s Definitions
ὑμῶν humōn, hoo-mone'; genitive case of G5210; of (from or concerning) you:—ye, you, your (own, -selves)

Same word.

You've done well to apply the commandment to hard-heartedness, so that uncleanness is rightly defined as transgression of the law, which is fornication.

Uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) is not defined as fornication (וַיֶּזֶן) in Deut. 24:1, just as it isn't in Deut. 23:14.

We never read anywhere in the law a bill of divorcement for causes other than uncleanness.

We don't read in Deut. 24:1 of the wife's uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) being fornication (וַיֶּזֶן).

you first tried to argue getting divorced is like keeping commandments in order to please God.

I'm arguing that getting divorced with a bill of divorce was keeping a commandment to please God.

Jesus does not abridge the lawful permit for divorce, by keeping it to uncleanness. He rebukes the adulterous manner of divorce for any cause other than uncleanness.

But the uncleanness in Deut. 24:1 (עֶרְוַת) isn't fornication (וַיֶּזֶן), so it's a cause other than fornication.

It is when you rightly apply the commandment to hard-heartedness, and so specify uncleanness as disobedience to the law: Fornication.

Fornication isn't the only disobedience to the law.


The uncleanness in question isn't specified, but it isn't fornication

If you can't say what it is, then you can't say what it is not. If something isn't specific, then it's unspecific, and so nothing can be specifically denied.

Then non-sexual uncleanness, like the soldier using the latrine in Deut. 23:14, cannot be denied.


Again----Deut. 6:5, 10:16, 11:13, 13:18. The law clearly does command hearts not to harden [especially in 6:5, the "greatest commandment"], regardless of what Paul writes to the Romans.

Paul never writes to the Romans nor anyone else, that hard heartedness is not against the frist great commandment. In Hebrews 3 he confirms that disobedience to the commandment is by hardness of heart

You claimed that the law never commands hearts not to be hardened; I was pointing out that it does.

Confirming once again that the uncleanness in the law for divorce, is hard-hearted sinning against God, which is not for any cause other than uncleannes, and is certainly for fornication.

But uncleanness isn't limited to fornication (Deut. 23:14).


They wouldn't need a divorce for adultery, since the penalty for adultery was death (Deut. 22:22).

Well done. I've waited to see if you make the right point. If they were executing the law as written, then divorce would be by death due to fornication, not by any bill of divorcement.

Death was for adultery (תִּנְאָף), so the uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) in Deut. 24:1 obviously isn't that since it was grounds for divorce but didn't carry a death sentence.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #167]

The law only exposes hardened hearts by transgression. Lawful permit can suffer hardened hearts, without executing judgment for transgression.

If that's all the law does, why----again----does Deut. 30:14 declare of the law:

"this thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it"?

The word of the Lord is the Spirit delaring He will put His law in our hearts, and not only on tables of stone, if we turn to Him with a whole heart. The law of the Spirit begins in the heart to rightly do the letter.

Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess…Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.


The letter of the law only exposes an evil heart by transgransion, while only the Spirit can give life in the soul. The law alone can only justify or condemn outward man. Without the Spirit, the law cannot make anyone perfect within.

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Heb 9:12 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


Only the Spirit of the law, which is Christ Himnself, can make the heart good, as well as the life clean from transgression. (Divorce is only permitted from the unclean trasngressors of the marriage bed.)

And if the law "only exposes hardened hearts by transgression", why are the first 14 verses of Deut. 28 a promise of reward for keeping the whole law and the rest of the chapter a warning of punishment for not keeping the whole law?

Because the promises and curses of Deut 28 pertain to the life lived in this world, not necessarily to the inward spirit.

Deu 28:1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

Deut 28 is the common blessing and cursing in the life lived lawfully or unlawfully, no matter the faith and spirit of the heart. The soul is only blessed or cursed by having the Spirit, or not.

While the law alone cannot cleanse the inward part, obedience to the law alone can certainly cleanse and bless the outward life. The natural man ccertainly can keep the law outwardly for blessing the life lived, without punishment by the law. But it's only the spiritual that can do so from the heart for blessing the soul:

Psalms{119:113} I hate [vain] thoughts and abhor lying: but thy law do I love. {119:163} I hate and abhor lying: [but] thy law do I love.


Keeping the law outwardly alone is a blessing in this life, but loving the law by the Spirit is everlasting life:

1 Tim{4:8} For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

So long as the difference between the natural and spiritual are not discerned, then the Bible can only be understood in part, because the Spirit is hidden from the carnal mind.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #189]

Acts 9 is the Author accurately recording what He says happened. Acts 22 is the Author accurately recording what Paul says happened.....

But they certainly could lie to Paul about what they did or didn't hear. The only way for Paul to know what they heard, is by them telling him. Paul was wrong about their record, because he believed their lie.....

According the love and mercy of the LORD, Jesus would have all men to repent and be saved. He wasn't there just for Saul of Tarsus, but also for his companions, who did see the light standing speachless, and did hear His voice, standing against Him with hardened hearts. And lying lips.

In other words, you have to assume that they lied because it's the only way to keep the narrative intact.

I'm sorry, but I have to say it----that's just intellectually dishonest. Confronted with an undeniable inconsistency, you're resorting to the whole-cloth invention of a convenient escape, supported by nothing in the text, as an excuse for saving the story. If you found the same type of discrepancy in the writing of another religion and a follower of that religion were to go to this length to cut it slack, you'd call it out immediately, wouldn't you?

You wrote in the OP:

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it.

Well, I showed you one. I've met the challenge. If you can back up your excuse with text saying that they lied, then do so. If you can't, then either admit it or say nothing.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #172]

While the multitude of stars are not by one star, the mulititude of natural children of Abraham are by two sons, but the promised mulititude and land is only by the one son Isaac.

Then to whatever extent it might be a promise about one seed, the one seed is Isaac and not the Messiah.

Your intellectual honesty is duly noted and honored. Your unbelief however is by your own will alone.

Since Gal 3, as you say, might not contradict Genesis pertaining to the one seed, then it might at least intellectually be believed, that seed is Christ.

I.e. refusing to acknowledge that at least intellectually the Bible might be true, is not based upon intellectual fact, but solely upon the will of the person: It's not a matter of intelligent reasoning alone, but also of personal desire.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #194]

So long as the difference between the natural and spiritual are not discerned, then the Bible can only be understood in part, because the Spirit is hidden from the carnal mind.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee...."
(Deuteronomy 30:11)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #196]

Since Gal 3, as you say, might not contradict Genesis pertaining to the one seed, then it might at least intellectually be believed, that seed is Christ.

More wishful thinking than anything substantiated in the text.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #196]

It's not a matter of intelligent reasoning alone, but also of personal desire.

Personal desire mustn't be allowed to replace intelligent reasoning. Remember what Galileo said:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

[Difflugia]

Judas entered an agreement to buy a field.

Which Gospel says that?

The Pharisees confirmed Judas's decision by taking the money Judas was supposed to have given for the field (but threw back into the temple) and consummated the sale agreement by declaring the property a field in which to bury the unwanted

So, we're to read Matthew in a way that assumes details that aren't present in any New Testament text, but that make sense in light of Acts if we pretend that Greek grammar is different than it actually is?

Solid exegesis, that.