Was Jesus a False Prophet?

by JosephAlward 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    The Bible says that a prophet who predicts something that does not occur is speaking words that the Lord did not speak, but that is exactly what Jesus did, if you can believe the author of Mark. Here are the relevant verses:

    "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come about or come true, that is a word which the Lord did not speak;" (Deuteronomy 18:22).

    Jesus said, "These signs will accompany those who believe...if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them" (Mark 16:17-18)

    However, it is NOT true that those who believe in Jesus can drink poison without harm, so if Mark is correct and Jesus really said this, Jesus made a prediction that doesn't come true, so this prediction wasn't from the Lord. But, this contradicts 2 Timothy, which says that "all scripture is God-breathed."

    On other hand, if Jesus didn't really say this, then Mark was wrong and the Bible is in error. Thus, either way, the Bible is in error.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • logical
    logical

    Well... a lot of the bible was written by man, hence prone to errors. The sooner people realise this, the better. Is this a reason why Jah writes the law upon the hearts of his true servants? Because the written scripture has been added to / taken from / changed.

    2 Timothy says all scripture is inspired etc etc... which is TRUE! However, much of the bible is COMPILED BY MAN. Plus the above point relating to scripture. Do not put your trust in earthling man.

  • Scorpion
    Scorpion

    JA,

    Are you sure Mark actually wrote these things and Christ actually said them?

    Are these words written in the Bible's today actually written in the original manuscripts or have they been added?

    If you have The New Jerusalem Bible, check the reference on the bottom of the page of Mark 16. You may be a bit surprised that verses 9-20 may have been added to Marks original intent. Yes, I agree with you that the Bible's we have are in error, but I also believe that God did breath inerrant word that was penned, and through the ages tampered with.

  • larc
    larc

    Joseph,

    I like your stuff. If you like humor regarding religion, then take a look at the thread I started, "I joined a Church." It has two web sites that I think you will enjoy. If my thread is not on a current page, you can find through search which is at the top of this page. Also, you might look at my thread, "Our Suday School Lesson" Sunday is mispelled as shown in my quote of the thread.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Scorpion writes,

    "If you have The New Jerusalem Bible, check the reference on the bottom of the page of Mark 16. You may be a bit surprised that verses 9-20 may have been added to Marks original intent. Yes, I agree with you that the Bible's we have are in error, but I also believe that God did breath inerrant word that was penned, and through the ages tampered with."

    Alward responds:

    Yes, I know about the Mark 16:9-20 verses; they are later additions, not part of the original manuscript.

    Now, as for the original manuscripts being without error: One cannot know what was in them. If you can declare that they were God-breathed and without error, another person can equally well declare that they were riddled with error and were certainly not God-breathed; one might even imagine that those manuscripts contained no reference to a resurrection. You don't want to base your faith on a Bible we cannot be sure even existed, do you?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • Scorpion
    Scorpion

    JA,

    I am not basing my faith in a Bible that is written now or in the past. My faith is in God, not a book.

    Where does your faith lie?

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Scorpion,

    If you're not sure the Bible which describes your god is accurate, how do you know which god it is you have faith in?

    If you allow for the possibility that the original manuscripts have been altered, or have had errors inadvertently introduced into them, how can you be sure the "original manuscripts" describe a god at all? Or, if they do describe a god, how do you know what the attributes of this god are, and that that god is something you would wish to worship?

    How do you know what it is that the god described in this unknowable but "error-free bible" wants from you? Surely you don't want to guess about something this important.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • MikeNightHaShev
    MikeNightHaShev

    >>>if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them

    And we all know Jim Jones Proved this to be a false statement.
    We all know those in his church were as intense of believers in Christ as one could ever be (selling their possesions and living in a selfless environment commune), so they should not have been harmed by what they drank according to the NT.
    But just as Jesus lead his sheep to slaughter so to did Jim Jones on false promises.

    Some Good Shepherd that Figure people call Jesus turned out to be, losing his flock allowing them to become dispersed and slain.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    logical; Change your handle if you are going to post stuff like this;

    Well... a lot of the bible was written by man, hence prone to errors. The sooner people realise this, the better. Is this a reason why Jah writes the law upon the hearts of his true servants? Because the written scripture has been added to / taken from / changed.
    2 Timothy says all scripture is inspired etc etc... which is TRUE! However, much of the bible is COMPILED BY MAN. Plus the above point relating to scripture. Do not put your trust in earthling man.

    Okay, so are you seriously saying that God, Jah, whatever, the creator of the Universe, cannot ensure that an accurate record of his peoples' history and his desires for our conduct and plans for the future reaches us? That essentially the guide to life we've been given is 'inspired of god' but 'useless as it's compiled by man'. Please!

    logical, you probably get PERSONALISED MAIL from companies YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF that have been TAILORED TO YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE AND SHOPPING HABITS. It's not that difficult a task to deliver accurate messages.

    If our behaviour affects out future, then it is god's responsibility, if he/she/it exists, to make sure we are made aware of this as a certainty, no grey areas or doubts. However, all we have is a vast grey area over IF god exists, WHAT god is like, WHAT god wants.

    If god does not prove his existence and make clear its desires for us as individuals, and act in a way that impairs our future, it is god's fault. If god willfully allows us to act in ignorance, then god is not loving.

    God could prove that he/she/it exists. The fact he/she/it does NOT shows that;

    a) There is no god

    or

    b) If there is a god, it doesn't care about us or we are irrelevant to it (i.e., it's not about us, we are incidental) and the Bible and other holy books are unconnected with it.

    or

    c) There is a god, the Bible is right, but god likes being ineffable and hiding his existence from the world, and is essentially an asshole.

    Keep on rocking in the free world...

  • logical
    logical

    God did away with the old written law. He sent Christ to release us from it, and the only law true christians have is the one written on their hearts, which man cannot tamper with and alter like they have done with the bible.

    The Watchtower have altered scripture, do you really think that they were the first to?

    Books Samuel - Chronichles are mostly history as written down by man. We all know how man likes to alter history to make it look better than it really is.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts - eyewitness accounts compiled for others, but not directed by God. Read the opening part of Luke & Acts for details.

    The letters were just that, letters, and Paul has OPINIONS, further proof they were not inspired. And if they were, why is there a letter to the Chronicles MISSING?

    Cant you see why the bible is not what everyone says it is?

    Revelation 19:13, John 1:1, 14, funny how the book you worship so much even itself testifies to something else being the Word of God.

    John 5:39-40 also tells us the importance of scriptures (IE Moses, Pslams, Proverbs, major prophets)... life is not found IN them, but in the one who they BEAR WITNESS to.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit