Have you ever noticed ???

[Guest]

I don't see where I insulted you at all. I just felt you needed to understand that I have no ill will towards Rich. I know he knows that.

Unless it was an insult to say: "I don't understand you". It wasn't meant to be an insult.

[John317]

John said, "God didn't force Paul to do anything. He could have rejected God's commission."

I think it has been established on this forum (and not just by me) that the God of Heaven does not use force to accomplish a change of heart in an individual. (Pharaoh already had a hardened heart, God just provided the means by which this became apparent.)

By the same token, MM, can't you see that the apostle Paul had a heart to serve God, and God provided the means by which this became obvious? God could read Paul's heart and mind and He knew Paul honestly wanted to serve Him.

Quote:

If Paul was blinded by the God of Heaven to get him to have a change of heart then the only recourse by which Paul could get back his eyesight would be to succumb to the will of God. It is apparent that Paul knew that if he did not do what this Jesus said then he would remain blind. The being that accosted Paul on the road to Damascus told Him that he must to go to the city and visit someone who would give him his sight back. If this is not a description of coercion I don't know what is. The God of Heaven does not do this even to His enemies.

The above is your opinion and your interpretation of the events, but it goes against the testimony of the NT, including the eyewitness, Ananias, who received a vision from God at the same time that Paul received a visit from Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus.

Let's look at some of the evidence that shows Paul was a genuine apostle:

1) God showed Ananias a dream in which he was told about Paul being God's "chosen vessel." He was also told that Paul would have to suffer many things for Christ's name. Acts 9: 13-16.

2) Ananias was "a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who lived in Damascus" (Acts 22: 12).

3) This devout man told Paul that God had showed him he was to help Paul receive his sight back and also to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9: 17).

Note: The first three points confirm that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was genuine. A trusted and trust-worthy believer received a vision from God about Paul BEFORE Paul contacted him. All that God showed him in this vision came to pass.

4) Paul did receive his sight and the book of Acts and the letters Paul wrote show that he was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 9: 18; 13: 9)

5) Paul soon began to preach powerfully about Jesus, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah. (Acts 9: 20-22)

6) Barnabas, Silas, and others in the church accepted Paul and trusted him with responsibilities in preaching and taking relief to poor Christians. (Acts 9: 26-30; 11: 22-30; Acts 16.) Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. (Acts 11: 24)

7) The Holy Spirit told the early Christians to lay hands on Paul and Barnabas and send both men off to preach the gospel. (Acts 13: 1-5.)

8) The Holy Spirit gave proof that Paul was a true apostle. (Acts 13: 9-12; 15: 12; Acts 16: 16: 15-34.)

9) The Jerusalem Council accepted Paul's apostleship and the gospel he preached. (Acts 15: 22-35)

10) The immense suffering and persecution of Paul demonstrates his sincerity and show that he was a genuine believer in Christ. He eventually died for his faith in Christ.

11) The fruits of his labor in Christ in raising up many churches is strong evidence that Paul was a genuine apostle of Jesus Christ. This exactly fulfilled what Jesus told Paul at the beginning of his apostleship. (Acts 22: 21)

12) The influence of Paul's letters in changing the lives of many millions of people and in bringing countless millions to Christ is a powerful witness to Paul's genuineness as an apostle of Christ.

13) Finally, the fact that all the Christian churches in all parts of the world accept Paul's letters as Scripture is proof that Paul is a true apostle of Christ.

[Guest]

That was a good study John. Here's something to go with it.

As Saul journeyed to Damascus, with letters authorizing him to take men or women who were preaching Jesus, and bring them bound to Jerusalem, evil angels exulted around him. But suddenly a light from heaven shone round about him, which made the evil angels flee and caused him to fall quickly to the ground. He heard a voice saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" Saul inquired, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." And Saul, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?" And the Lord said, "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

The men who were with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. As the light passed away and Saul arose from the earth and opened his eyes, he found himself totally deprived of sight. The glory of the light of heaven had blinded him. They led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus, and he was three days without sight, neither did he eat nor drink. The Lord then sent His angel to one of the very men whom Saul had hoped to take captive and revealed to him in vision that he should go into the street called Straight, "and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight."

Ananias feared that there might be some mistake in this matter, and began to relate to the Lord what he had heard of Saul. But the Lord said unto Ananias, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things he must suffer for My name's sake." Ananias followed the directions of the Lord, and entered into the house, and putting his hands on him, said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." {EW 200}

[John317]

Excellent quote.

[Musicman1228]

Where do you find that Ananias was of God? Who is telling this story? The same person that has a vested interest in the story being believed. Does not Satan have the power to raise up prophets that appear as if they are from God? Did not Jesus say to His disciples, "See to it that you are not deceived"? The reason that counterfeits work is that they appear at first glance just like the real thing.

If we are to discern truth from lies, and learning to discern is part of our process toward righteousness and sanctification, then why would God remove from us the need for discernment by putting the truth in a place where we would know without a doubt that we were not being fooled? Why go through the process to learn to discern the truth from lies if the location of the truth is closed off from the lies that would call for the discernment in the first place?

If God clearly separates truth from lies such that there is no mistaking what is true, then how could God legally punish someone for being fooled if there is no possibility of them being fooled? How is it possible to believe a lie as if it is the truth if there is no way to NOT be able to see the difference?

If the Bible is 100% truth from cover to cover, and there is no possibility whatever that any thing in it is a lie then does that not remove the concept of free will from the decision making process? Why would you need 'free will' if you could not be deceived?

It is because of the concept of 'free will' that God HAD to allow lies in with the truth in the location of the source for truth, the Scriptures. Ref. the prophecy of the wheat and the tares.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard--about posting twice-the forum has changed some and I thought I had posted it once--but it did not show up so I thought I had not done it right. So, if that upsets you I wouldn't want to be around you when someone spills some milk!

[Dr. Rich]

Thanks Richard--ditto!

[John317]

Where do you find that Ananias was of God?

What is your evidence that Ananias was not of God?

[Dr. Rich]

John, you said that Muslims don't like Paul? Why not? Do Muslims like Jesus? I thought Muslims teach that Jesus was a true prophet of God--or am I wrong?

And by the way--ALL of the scripture you used to validate Paul was from the one who was taught by Paul and never even knew Jesus. Hmmmm--go figure? How do we verify that his writings are the real truth?

Same goes for the writer of the great fiction that Richard presented. Look, if I was on the stand in court to be a witness, do you think my testimony would be allowed if I was not at the sceen of the crime or was not an eyewitness? Of course not! I could say anything I want and even say that I got this information from God because God sees everything.

Our own government is in deep do do because of this same problem. Everything they do and say comes from circular reasoning. There is NO real foundation for anything that they do anymore!

The people (yes, you and I) need to start out with a solid foundation if they want to know the real truth. Jesus' parable about the house built on sand or rock is all about this one issue--and it is a foundation issue.

The real reason I started the program "The Bible On Trial" was for foundational reasons. I am sick and tired (and so should all of you be) of having our own SDA church teach and preach about things that have absolutly NO foundational evidence from God. John and Richard, I value your opinions but when it comes time to swear unto God what is true or not, this my friends is serious stuff and can't be taken too lightly.

Therefore, for my OWN spiritual wellfare, the only foundation I-myself will trust in, is the actual words of God. I hope that this does not cause you to think I am a nutcase. It has been said that those seeking real truth are not afraid of isolation. I can vouch for that! The more one moves to the side of truth, the less they are going to be accepted by the many.

So ask yourself this question--how many people who call themself a christian believe in salvation the way Paul teaches? If you say that most people do, then wouldn't this road to salvation be wide with many on it?

[Guest]

If the Bible is 100% truth from cover to cover, and there is no possibility whatever that any thing in it is a lie then does that not remove the concept of free will from the decision making process? Why would you need 'free will' if you could not be deceived?

It is because of the concept of 'free will' that God HAD to allow lies in with the truth in the location of the source for truth, the Scriptures. Ref. the prophecy of the wheat and the tares.

Contrary to what you believe MM, God did not have to allow lies to intermingle with the truths of Holy Scripture. People are decieved everyday by those who twist and misuse the word of God. The scriptures themselves don't have to be wrong at all. All it takes is one misguided soul willing to follow another misguided soul, and you have the blind leading the blind.

Let's use you for an example MM. You take perfectly good scripture, and tell people it means one thing, when in reality it means something quite different.

You see how that works? The Bible dosn't have to be wrong, just the one using it.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "You take perfectly good scripture, and tell people it means one thing, when in reality it means something quite different."

Could this also not apply to you? What is the significance of the prophecy of the Wheat and the Weeds, if not that the enemy put lies in the same field as truth? Could not the Master of that field prevented the enemy from sowing weeds in with the wheat if He so desired? Tell me why He didn't.

God does not protect anyone from deception. If He did Satan would have a legal case against Him for tampering with witnesses. We are required by the Law of God to make up our own minds about truth. If God put truth in a place where it could not be affected by lies then God would be acting in a manner outside of His own character.

God could make it possible for all of us NOT to sin against Him or each other. Why does He not do this? If grace saves us from our sins then what is God waiting for in coming back to get us? Why not just save everyone on earth against their wills because He wants to?

Truth is the key to salvation and entry into the Kingdom of God. Each of us must come to truth independently from the other. If God took away the opportunity for us to have to identify truth for ourselves then any salvation He could bring to us would be cheapened and made ineffective.

[Guest]

God does not protect anyone from deception.

Sure he does. Why then, does he tell us to pray not to be led into temptation? He also tells us what to look out for. Not only through his word, but through his prophets.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Also if you do not love the truth you will be deceived.

....because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:10,11

If you love God, and love the truth, and allow yourself to be led by the HS. Then he will not lead you astray.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

[John317]

John, you said that Muslims don't like Paul? Why not?

They dislike Paul because Paul speaks of Jesus as the Son of God and as having shed His blood [given His life] for our sins on the cross. Islam does not teach this. It teaches that Allah never had a Son.

Quote:

Do Muslims like Jesus?

They like the Jesus ["Isa" in Arabic] they find in the Qur'an. He is different there than in the Bible. He was born of a virgin, yet it says that Isa was no more than a human being, although there are passages that speak of his having talked like an adult when he was a baby in the cradle. When still a baby, He said, "I am a slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a prophet." The Qur'an (19: 29-34) predicts there will be those who doubt that He said these things while in the cradle.

Quote:

I thought Muslims teach that Jesus was a true prophet of God--or am I wrong?

Yes, in the Qur'an, Jesus is portrayed as simply a prophet, and He is inferior to Mohammed. According to it, Jesus had no pre-existence in heaven, and He was merely a servant of Allah. The Qur'an says that it's a lie that Allah ever had a Son, and it denies that Jesus was crucified. It says that Allah rescued Jesus before they could crucify Him. The shedding of blood is not required in order for Allah to forgive sin.

Surprisingly, the Qur'an teaches that Jesus will come again and that He will die and be resurrected in the future. (See Surah "Mary," 19: 33)

[John317]

ALL of the scripture you used to validate Paul was from the one who was taught by Paul and never even knew Jesus. Hmmmm--go figure?

I take it, then, that you don't believe anything in the book of Acts. That would mean you do not accept Stephen, Ananias, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Peter, James, Apollos, Mark, etc., or the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 where it calls Paul "beloved" (Acts 15: 25). You think the whole thing is a made up lie, including Paul's sufferings and martyrdom?

Quote:

How do we verify that his writings are the real truth?

How do you verify that Paul's writings and the books of Acts, Hebrews, etc., are not true? Since virtually the entire church has always believed Acts to be true, the burden of proof that it's not true is on those who deny its truthfulness.

[John317]

And by the way--ALL of the scripture you used to validate Paul was from the one who was taught by Paul and never even knew Jesus. Hmmmm--go figure? How do we verify that his writings are the real truth?

Could you tell us how you've determined that the following points are false or unreliable? Please comment on each one and show us your reasoning.

1) God showed Ananias a dream in which he was told about Paul being God's "chosen vessel." He was also told that Paul would have to suffer many things for Christ's name. Acts 9: 13-16.

2) Ananias was "a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who lived in Damascus" (Acts 22: 12).

3) This devout man told Paul that God had showed him he was to help Paul receive his sight back and also to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9: 17).

Note: The first three points confirm that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was genuine. A trusted and trust-worthy believer received a vision from God about Paul BEFORE Paul contacted him. All that God showed him in this vision came to pass.

4) Paul did receive his sight and the book of Acts and the letters Paul wrote show that he was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 9: 18; 13: 9)

5) Paul soon began to preach powerfully about Jesus, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah. (Acts 9: 20-22)

6) Barnabas, Silas, and others in the church accepted Paul and trusted him with responsibilities in preaching and taking relief to poor Christians. (Acts 9: 26-30; 11: 22-30; Acts 16.) Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. (Acts 11: 24)

7) The Holy Spirit told the early Christians to lay hands on Paul and Barnabas and send both men off to preach the gospel. (Acts 13: 1-5.)

8) The Holy Spirit gave proof that Paul was a true apostle. (Acts 13: 9-12; 15: 12; Acts 16: 16: 15-34.)

9) The Jerusalem Council accepted Paul's apostleship and the gospel he preached. (Acts 15: 22-35)

10) The immense suffering and persecution of Paul demonstrates his sincerity and show that he was a genuine believer in Christ. He eventually died for his faith in Christ.

11) The fruits of his labor in Christ in raising up many churches is strong evidence that Paul was a genuine apostle of Jesus Christ. This exactly fulfilled what Jesus told Paul at the beginning of his apostleship. (Acts 22: 21)

12) The influence of Paul's letters in changing the lives of many millions of people and in bringing countless millions to Christ is a powerful witness to Paul's genuineness as an apostle of Christ.

13) Finally, the fact that all the Christian churches in all parts of the world accept Paul's letters as Scripture is proof that Paul is a true apostle of Christ.

[Guest]

He's right Rich.

[Musicman1228]

I would be happy to help out, except for the fact that all of the verses that you use as proofs are from the very person that I do not believe can supply valid proof. That being said I believe I can start with #13 and give a reasonable answer.

13) Finally, the fact that all the Christian churches in all parts of the world accept Paul's letters as Scripture is proof that Paul is a true apostle of Christ.

Answer: since when does a majority of believers in anything dictate the accuracy and validity of a 'truth'. When Jesus was here on earth almost everyone of any standing in the religious community was against Him. Does that by itself make Him wrong? If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and came to earth to testify to the truth, and did speak the truth, then you cannot possibly accept the word of the majority of the 'faithful' of His day that He was wrong in His theology.

The same is true for today. Just because the majority of churches around the world believe that Paul is an apostle of Jesus does not and cannot automatically make that so.

[Musicman1228]

12) The influence of Paul's letters in changing the lives of many millions of people and in bringing countless millions to Christ is a powerful witness to Paul's genuineness as an apostle of Christ.

Again, a logical fallacy is exposed in this comment. Satan can and does do wonderful things in his effort to deceive the world. Religions of all stripe have charitable organizations associated with their effort to spread their brand of truth to the world. Catholic charities, The Red Crescent (Islamic Red Cross), Mormon Missions, Adventist Health System, Jewish League are all notable charities that do wonderful work in the world. Yet the sponsorship behind them can readily be seen as suspect when placed in comparison with the truth that Jesus Christ came to earth to testify about.

If Satan acted only in his capacity as the arch enemy of truth by using heavy handed tactics of a physical nature how many people would flock to his side and want to be a part of his kingdom? On the other hand Jesus warned His disciples to "see to it that no one deceive you." (Matt.24:4). Who is the author of lies and deceptions? Satan. The nature of deception is that it must look just like the truth, at least enough so as to fool (if it were possible) even the elect.

The fact that Paul has brought many to a knowledge of Jesus Christ, or back to Jesus (me included) is not evidence that this was not a program instituted by Satan to deceive the world into believing a lie as if it is the truth. There is a beautiful side of evil that Satan is more than willing to exploit to achieve his ends of getting humanity to believe a lie. Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddie, James Baker and Tammy Fae, TBN and the Popes have brought many to Jesus Christ. The prophet Mohammed, the Dali Llama, Ghandi all have sought to bring peace to the world. Do they have the truth that Jesus Christ brought to earth?

Truth matters. If Satan can get us to believe in something as truth when it is a lie then he can claim a great victory over the God of Truth. The only way to know the truth is to go to the source of truth which is Jesus Christ. If someone is teaching something that sounds like it came from Jesus Christ but is even a little bit off center then IT IS NOT OF GOD.

I am not saying that this is what is going on with Paul, but he should be looked at thoroughly with respect to the teachings of Jesus Christ and judged on his own merit. It is dangerous and could be fatal to assume that anyone that is in a position of authority in the church is automatically of God just because they have been placed in that position by a majority of believers.

[Guest]

The same is true for today. Just because the majority of churches around the world believe that Paul is an apostle of Jesus does not and cannot automatically make that so.

[Musicman1228]

Again, Richard, I can say the same about you. How you can let yourself be so thoroughly deceived is beyond me. And of course, just because I don't believe in Paul does not mean you should not. I never said that, and never implied that. If I did then I apologize.

And by the way it is not ironic that I actually believe that Paul is a false apostle, it is a blessing, because it allows me to focus on the source of all truth, the words of Jesus Christ. Most Christians know more about the words of Paul (and in the case of SDA's EGW) than they do about what Jesus Christ said. On the other hand I know more about what Paul wrote and taught than most Christians because I have spent a considerable amount of time comparing him to Jesus Christ. Paul is not Jesus Christ, or anything like him. But then again no one is, at least not yet. I am interested in seeing how things turn out for the 144,000, however.

[Guest]

If you know Paul so well, why do you mis-quote him, and say things about him that you know are not true. For if you truly know his writings, then you cannot use ignorance as an excuse. Then it becomes bearing false witness.

[Musicman1228]

Please show me one place, Richard, where I have mis-quoted Paul. That would be impossible because I pull the quotes directly from the bible of the Mac-sword project, which is E-sword for mac.

Now according to your position I have surely mis-interpreted Paul. But all I do is take Paul at his word. When he says that he had a 'messenger of Satan' given to him by God to 'buffet' him, and keep him from bragging, I believe him. Today we would use the word 'demon'. The only connection I have ever made with this is to ask the question "Would the God of Heaven give anyone a demon to keep them from doing something bad?"

According to your standard this question is unacceptable, and must not be asked. Why? Because it might show that there is something out of place with Paul, and that in itself would be unacceptable.

So just because I don't interpret Paul in the same way as you does not mean that I don't know what he says. I know exactly what he says. The difficulty that some people have with understanding Paul is that they don't believe him when he says what he says. They will say, (and I have heard this many time, personally) "Paul may have said that, but he didn't mean it." And then they go on to explain to me what he meant, as if they could get inside his head.

From this standpoint, Richard, I am more honest in my assessment of Paul than Christians who continually make excuses for him. At least I don't make excuses for Paul, but allow him to use his own words to explain his positions, without getting in the way.

[Guest]

How many times have I seen you say that Paul does away with the law? When you know full well that isn't true?

You intentionally leave out parts like this:

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

You don't seem to understand the difference between justification and sanctification. When Paul is speaking of justification, you act like he is talking about sanctification.

That's just for starters, you have other underhanded tricks that you use. Since you buy into that "higher criticism" nonsense, your Bible is still shrinking, and it will continue to do so. Even now you're having to discredit part of Matthew's testimony, (one of your own highly touted eyewitnesses) and ask that one believe that your knowledge is above Matthew's.

I love my e-sword. I keep notes in it, and even have EGW scripture commentary for it.

[wayfinder]

Richard, Paul is saying that by faith the Law is upheld, kept. He doesn't come out and say the law must be kept, he says that by faith it is kept and not by letter.

[Guest]

No he's not. Is that really what you think?