Making Claims on the Bible's Behalf

If there's one thing that I've noticed while testing everything, it's the fact that the Church makes claims about what the Bible says about itself that, quite frankly, the Bible never makes!  These claims are made by the Church on behalf of the Bible, and if you dare to question whether the Bible makes these claims (or even claim that the Bible does not make them), then you are "undermining the authority of the word of God" (or something along those lines).  Responses like these are how the Church protects their doctrine from Biblical scrutiny.  Here are two of the claims that the Church makes about the Bible on the Bible's behalf:

1. The Bible claims to be the word of God.
2. The Bible claims to be inerrant.

Let's first take a look at the evidence that the Church provides to prove these claims about the Bible.  For the assertion that the Bible claims to be the word of God, some quote this passage:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. [1 Thessalonians 2:13; NKJV]

And that is how we get 100% proof that the Bible claims to be the word of God!  Never-mind the fact that Paul was referring to what he spoke to the Thessalonians when he was physically with them!  So what was Paul referring to?  Probably the Law of God and the writings of the prophets in order to prove that Yeshua is the Messiah, and also the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah.

After reviewing all of the instances in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" appears (71 times according to Bible Gateway), I have to conclude that every single one of those appearances is referring to the "Old Testament" or specific portions of the "Old Testament", such as the Law of God and the writings of the Prophets.  There is no evidence that the phrase "word of God" is used to refer to any of the "New Testament" writings.  And in fact, if you look at the book of Revelations, you will find that the "word of God" is actually distinguished from the "testimony of Jesus [the] Christ" (that is, the Gospel message of Jesus the Messiah).

On a side note:  While none of the "New Testament" writings claim to be the word of God, Yeshua did claim to be God and he proved his claims to be true.  This makes all of Yeshua's teachings the word of God by definition, even though the writers of the Gospels never claimed that their writings were the word of God.

In the so-called "Old Testament", we see the phrase "word of Yahweh" many, many times.  Each time, it refers specifically to something that God has spoken through his prophets, or sometimes the law of God.  And in the case of the writings of the prophets, the phrase "word of Yahweh" is used many times specifically to claim that what is being said (or is about to be said) is indeed the word of God.  But the phrase "word of God" in the "Old Testament" usually just refers to the Law of God.

Does the fact that these prophetic writings claim to be the word of God mean that the whole Bible is claiming to be the word of God?  Not at all.

By the way, some within the KJV only cult will use Proverbs 30:5 to prove that the KJV is the word of God.  The line of logic behind that claim is this:  "The KJV says every word of God is pure, therefore the KJV (and only the KJV) is the word of God."  With that line of logic, you might as well use every single appearance of the phrase "word of God" as proof that the Bible itself is claiming to be the word of God.

Another passage often used as proof that the Bible itself claims to be the word of God is this verse:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [2 Timothy 3:16; NKJV]

What's the line of logic here?  The line of logic is that since the Bible is also called Scripture, this verse is the Bible itself claiming to be the word of God.  By the way, the word (singular) translated as "given by inspiration of God", literally means "God-breathed".  This fact is used to claim that God dictated every word that is in the Bible and that the Bible is therefore claiming to be inerrant.  But that's not what this passage is saying!  By the way, since we're on the topic of taking the Greek text literally, the word translated as "scripture" is the Greek word "graphe", which literally means "writing" or "document".  Have fun trying to explain that one away!

Actually, the "New Testament" outright tells us what it is referring to when it uses "graphe":

44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures [graphe]. [Luke 24:44-45; NKJV]

The "Scriptures" refer to the law of Yahweh, the writings of his prophets, and the Psalms.  Usually, when the word "graphe" ("writing") is used, it's referring either to the law of Yahweh or the writings of the prophets, but not the Psalms.  This passage is one of only a few exceptions to this rule.  In other words, the "New Testament" used the generic word for "writing" to refer only to the writings which were widely regarded as having a great deal of authority.  And we can see this usage clearly in 2 Peter 3:16.

Now, about the "God-breathed" part:  It does not necessarily mean that Yahweh dictated every word that's in the writings that Paul is referring to.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this is the case at all.  While the parts that claim to be quoting Yahweh directly are this way (and probably a significant portion that is not claiming to be quoting Yahweh directly), there is no reason why this cannot simply refer to Yahweh guiding the process, or motivating those who seek truth to write what they have written.  Of course, there are places where Yahweh dictated what these documents should say.  And nothing that comes directly from the mouth of Yahweh is ever in error.  But the Bible never claims to be without error.

Now, is the Bible even capable of making claims about itself?  No.  Why?  Because the Bible is a book that was compiled from 66 individual books.  It has no content of its own and is therefore not able to make any claims about itself.  Instead, what we see is some of the books in the Bible claim to be the word of God.  And some claim that other books (which are also in the Bible) are the word of God.  But the Bible itself makes no claims about itself whatsoever.  In fact, even when all of the 66 documents which are now contained within the Bible were completed, the Bible still didn't exist until these documents were compiled into a single book.  Ironically, this compilation was done by the Catholic Church, which is pretty much the only work of the Catholic Church that has any instructional value on how to carry-out the will of Yahweh, as Yeshua warned.  Though the 66 documents that are in the Bible were widely accepted as having a high level of authority long before that happened.

Weaponizing Matthew 12:31

In Matthew 12:31, Yeshua states that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.  For quite some time now, people have been claiming to have heard from the Holy Spirit various things.  Or claim that the Holy Spirit has done various things.  How do these people know it was the Holy Spirit?  They don't!  Because they don't know how to test the spirits.  Those who do know how to test the spirits will easily be able to find everything wrong with what the "Holy Spirit" is saying or doing, and prove that it's not actually the Holy Spirit saying or doing these things.  But what happens when these counterfeit spirits are exposed for what they really are?  Those who claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit invoke Matthew 12:31, and even 1 Thessalonians 5:19.  In other words, they will claim that you are blaspheming or quenching the Holy Spirit.

As with any doctrine that cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny, the wolves claiming that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them do not tolerate you testing the spirit to see if it's from Yahweh.  Instead, they claim that you have committed the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or that you are quenching the Holy Spirit in order to silence those who know better, and to cause impressionable people to believe that whoever opposes them are in the wrong.  Of course, if any spirit claims to be the Holy Spirit but is not, then that spirit must be quenched and exposed for the fraud that it really is.  For no spirit that is from Yahweh will falsely claim to be the Holy Spirit.

Testing to see if a spirit is actually the Holy Spirit requires knowledge and a robust understanding of the Bible.  Especially of the Law of Yahweh, the Prophets, and the teachings of Yeshua.  A good understanding of what the Holy Spirit has done historically is also of great significance.  Particularly, what the Holy Spirit did as recorded in the book of Acts.  It's actually a shame that so few Christians have even read the Bible, let alone understand it.  And while I'm not claiming to have a perfect understanding of Scripture, I understand enough to know that the spirits claiming to be the Holy Spirit, are actually from the enemy!

Let me give you an example.  Paul's conversion.  What does Acts say happened to Paul during his conversion?  Acts 9:1-9 reveals that Paul fell to the ground!  The Bible does not reveal if it was the Holy Spirit that did this, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that it was (though I don't believe it was).  Notice that Paul was receiving correction from Yeshua when this happened.  If we take a look at instances in the book of Acts, instances where Yahweh isn't correcting anyone, we see that not one of them ever fell to the ground.  The only ones who fell to the ground were the ones receiving correction!  Think about that!  And also think about how those who allegedly have the Holy Spirit fall in such a manner that there is a very serious risk of injury.  Funny how the alleged proof that the Holy Spirit is doing those things can result in injury instead of healing, which is often what is promised.

When these counterfeit spirits aren't making an awe-inspiring display that fools the people into believing that they are the Holy Spirit, there's saying things which contradict what Yahweh revealed through his Law, the Prophets, and his son, Yeshua.  And they also contradict the accounts that the historical records give concerning the Holy Spirit's actions.  Records that Yahweh made sure were written by people of integrity!  These spirits are calling Yahweh a liar!  Among the lies that these spirits teach are vein repetition and counterfeit tongues (which numbs the brain, making them more susceptible to possession), that those who have the Holy Spirit can lose control over their bodies (that's actually demon possession), and prosperity gospel.

Of course, we can't forget the most basic test:

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. [1 John 1:3; NKJV]

Nobody seems to test the spirit concerning this one basic thing, or other like it (eg: whether Yeshua is the son of Yahweh, or is the Messiah).  It's kind of important to get this information from the beginning, so that nobody will be deceived later on.

The Disciples Never Practiced Trinitarian Baptism

Next time you read through the book of Acts, pay close attention to who's name people were baptized in.  You will notice that, in the places where it is specific, it is always in the name of Jesus.  Never does it say that anyone was baptized "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit".  And in Romans 6:3, Paul states that we were baptized into Christ Jesus.  So, let's examine the Scripture and see what's going on.

In Acts 2:38, the Apostle Peter commanded the crowed to be baptized in the name of Jesus.  And he was with the Eleven, who were all with Jesus when Jesus commanded the disciples on making disciples of all nations in Matthew 28:19.  Nobody corrected Peter.  The disciples that were with him who also heard Jesus' command corrected him.  And neither did Jesus, either by vision or by angel.  Jesus said that those who keep his commands are those that love him (John 14:21).  Oh, and did I mention that in spite of this, those who were baptized still received the Holy Spirit?  Further more, in some cases, it was because Peter laid his hands on the new disciples that they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17)!  What's going on?

Let's consider the evidence so far:  Peter gave a command that is apparently contrary to the one Jesus gave, in front of ten others who should have been able to correct him.  And not only did God himself not correct the error, he even performed miracles and gave the Holy Spirit through Peter, who is apparently in rebellion to Jesus' command.  Does God honor those who are rebelling against him?  Or does he honor those who obey him?  He honors those who obey him!

Let's take a look at some more evidence.  Let's take 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, where Paul says that he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach.  Didn't Jesus tell command his disciples to baptize when they preach?  If this command is supposed to apply to all disciples who go out and preach (as the Church implies or even states as much), then that means Paul is also in rebellion, right?  Or perhaps there's something going on that we're not aware of.  Because Jesus would not give a command that's supposed to apply to everyone, only to contradict that by not requiring some to follow said command.

Let's take a look at the context of Matthew 28:19.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. [Matthew 28:18-20; NKJV]

Jesus said that all authority has been given to him, specifically.  When you do something in somebody's name, you are claiming you have authority from that somebody to do what you are doing.  Since all authority has been given to the Son, it means that only the Son has authority to do anything at all (except for the Father, who gave such authority).  In other words, it is the Son who has the authority to baptize, not the Holy Spirit.  And it is the Son who can give authority to his disciples to baptize nations on his behalf.  So baptizing the nations in the name of the Holy Spirit doesn't make any sense.  And since the Father delegated all of his authority to the Son, doing things in the name of the Father also doesn't make any sense, even though the Father still has all of the authority he gave to the Son.

Taking all of the evidence so far, it looks like somebody added to Matthew 28:19.  If the command includes baptism, then taking all of the evidence we have, the passage should say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name".  And if the command does not include baptism (which the evidence suggests that it doesn't), then the verse should say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations in my name".  If this is what the command was originally, then it fits perfectly with what we know the disciples did when they preached the Gospel.  There was no correction to the error because the command that they were carrying-out was the command that was given!  That also explains why God still performed miracles and gave the Holy Spirit through Peter, because Peter was doing exactly what Jesus commanded!

We don't have any of the original Greek manuscripts (or even the Hebrew from which it was translated), so the only evidence that we have that our version of Matthew 28:19 was modified is what is recorded in the rest of the books, and in Matthew 28:18.  If the command given does include baptism, then it means that Trinitarian baptism is actually heresy.  If the command given does not include baptism (which is probably the case), then Trinitarian baptism isn't necessarily heresy, but it also doesn't make any sense considering what Jesus said right before giving the command.