What is the Spirit of Prophecy?

[John317]

2 Thessalonians 3:17 NAS

I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter ; this is the way I write

So Paul writes "with my own hand" and it is the distinguishing mark in every one of his letters. Paul wanted his converts to know which letter was from him, and which was not and they could do so by noting his distinguishing mark. Every one of Paul's letters contains his greeting and that he is the one who is writting it,

Doubtless that's because there were people writing phoney letters in Paul's name. In fact, Paul speaks of these phoney letters. So it was important for Paul to have a way of letting his readers know how to tell the difference between his genuine letters and the fake ones.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

this is why the book of Hebrews could not have been written by Paul, it does not contain his greeting or identify him as writting it.

Hebrews is not a letter as such. It reads more like a sermon. It shows evidence of Paul's influence but the style is not Paul's. It's very possible that they are Paul's ideas. But since it was not a letter, we shouldn't expect it to have the kinds of details we find in Paul's letters to the churches.

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

Paul claims to be a Pharisee and as such would have been able to read and write.

No one is saying Paul couldn't read and write. They're saying that Paul had some problems with his eyes.

Some of the evidence for eye trouble is found in Gal. 6: 11:

See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

Galatians 4:15

What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me.

NOTE: It is entirely reasonable to suppose that Paul had such bad eyes, and his friends loved him so much, that they would have been happy to exchange their eyes for his.

[John317]

I think you're right, but there are some who would like it to be otherwise.

[wayfinder]

As far as the author of the book of Hebrews, I agree with you that is was more than likely someone who was a contemporary of Paul's and who had similar beliefs. My guess would be Apollos...

1Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?

5 What then is Apollos ? And what is Paul ? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one ; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

9 For we are God's fellow workers ; you are God's field, God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.

Clearly there were differences between what Paul and Apollos taught, but apposed to one another.

As for the large letters Paul draws attention to, I think he was using them to show how serious he was as to what he was saying, like we would use bold or underline text. Paul felt strongly that his converts (Gentile) should not be circumsized and it was a real problem in Galiatia, because of "some from James".

11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ

[Dr. Rich]

I object John317 and it is because you clearly don't understand Revelation as some of us do. The words are very clear why and what Jesus had John write. "what shortly will take place" is NOT thousands or hundreds of years--it is ONLY for the last generation. And yes, you are probably sinful. I do not practice sin as I make it known to everyone I practice righteousness. Test me and see for yourself. Read John 3:20-21. Perhaps you may want to seek the truth and repent for believing all of the lies that have deceived those who call themselves christians?

[Dr. Rich]

ClubV12, just because something is 'generally accepted' does not make it the truth. It is generally accepted that one must pay their income tax, but it is not the truth nor can it be proved that it is the truth by their own laws. Trouble is, since it is generally accepted, one is called a nut case when he demands that someone verify and prove it.

Same goes for generally accepted ideas about Christianity. Most clearly believe that no one can become righteous/sinless. Most don't believe that anyone can keep all of the ten commandments but that is not the truth. Most christians believe they go to heaven when they die and that is just not the truth. Most believe that the whole bible is the inspired word of God and that is just not the truth.

All of these things that were/are generally accepted MUST be put to a test IF you want to actually practice righteousness. But then, if you don't care and believe you are saved by grace as what Paul says, then that is your own choice. But remember, some day we all will be rewarded for what we do or don't do.

As for Paul's thorn in the flesh, what is so hard to understand about what HE HIMSELF WROTE--IT IS A MESSENGER OF SATAN===a demon! And Paul's god was not God the Creator for God the Creator would NEVER give anyone a demon! But it is clear that Paul believed God could do that since Paul did the same thing as found in 1Cor. 5:5 "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Since Paul clearly believed that the dead could be saved by having living people baptized for the dead (1Cor. 15:29) as do the Later Day Saints, then sending one to Satan was no problem for Paul.

[miz3]

Dr. Rich,

Can you prove that the Bible is not wholly and completely NOT inspired?

Of course you can't!!!!!!!!!

This like saying, "Prove God exists"! Of course we can't prove it anymore than the atheist can prove that God doesn't exist. The evolutionist cannot prove that their views of the "beginning" are true. In fact among atheists and evolutionists just like Christians there varying views.

So for you to say it is a "FACT" that the Bible is no inspired from cover to cover is an opinion on your part at best. Maybe in your mind it is a fact that the Bible is not inspired but it is a fact that it is inspired in many other minds.

To say that "it is not the truth" (I quoted your phrase here) is an assertion on your part that is also not true.

[John317]

I object John317 and it is because you clearly don't understand Revelation as some of us do. The words are very clear why and what Jesus had John write. "what shortly will take place" is NOT thousands or hundreds of years--it is ONLY for the last generation.

Rev. 1:1

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Notice that the above does not say that everything in the book of Revelation is going to take place soon. The things he describes takes place over a long period of time. The beginning chapters of Revelation were of things that would happen soon, but much of it would happen many hundreds of years later. And of course a large share of it would take place over 2000 years later.

The book of Revelation was not written only for the last generation. It written to the churches of John's day as well as for Christians who have lived all through history. There are important truths in it for all generations.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

And yes, you are probably sinful. I do not practice sin as I make it known to everyone I practice righteousness. Test me and see for yourself. Read John 3:20-21.

I hope you don't practice sin, but whether you do nor not, you and I and all others humans are still sinful in the sense of having a sinful nature. In other words, 1 John 1: 5-10 still applies to all of us. But you said that sinful people can't understand the book of Revelation. However, that is not true. Neither the book of Daniel or Revelation teach that those books can't be understood by sinful people. If that were the case, no one would understand them, ever.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Perhaps you may want to seek the truth and repent for believing all of the lies that have deceived those who call themselves christians?

I suppose you are referring to believing in what's written in Luke and Mark and Hebrews and James and Jude and Acts and in all of Paul's Letters to the churches. I certainly will not repent for believing them, for they are from God.

It is the Devil who would like people to believe what you are saying about Paul and the other Bible writers.

[John317]

.. Most don't believe that anyone can keep all of the ten commandments but that is not the truth.

Through the power of the Holy Spirit, believers who've been born of the Holy Spirit can keep all of the Ten Comamndments. No doubt about it. 1 John 3: 1-10. However, that will not save anyone or make anyone perfectly "righteous" in the eyes of God for the purpose of earning merit. In order to earn merit and salvation through law-keeping, you would need to obey the law perfectly all of your life.

If you don't, you are depending on God's grace for your justification and salvation. God's grace and his righteousness can only be received as a gift through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. You can't earn His righteousness through works of any kind.

[John317]

Most clearly believe that no one can become righteous/sinless.

Being "righteous" is not the same as being "sinless."

Righteousness by faith is not "sinlessness by faith," is it?

What is the righteousness of faith, anyway?

[John317]

.. Most believe that the whole bible is the inspired word of God and that is just not the truth.

Of course it is. If the Bible is not truth from God, it must be lies from the Devil. But there are no lies of the Devil in the Bible, Dr. Rich. Mark and Luke and Hebrews and James and Jude and Acts and Paul are all telling the truth of God. There are lies, yes, but they are not in the Bible. They are in the mouths of people who teach against the Bible. When you claim the Bible contains lies, it is you who are lying, and lying on behalf of the devil.

You don't accept this truth any more because of listening to lies for so many years. As soon as you began to hear those lies, you should have rejected them and refused to hear them.

[miz3]

Where is Dr. Rich? I wish he would reply to my post.

You see I know the tricks of the 'world' and how they argue and are indeed Babylon (babel, babel, in other words foolish talk and foolish reasoning).

Romans chapter one is correct about them when it states that they think they are wise but really they are most foolish and filled with darkness.

Thank God for His marvelous Light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This Light allows us to confound the enemy and the enemies lies and the enemies false thinking.

The wisdom of God is foolishness to man!!!!!

I thank God every moment that He is so gracious and kind to me, a nothing, in that God has revealed Himself to me and shared with me the secrets of His Kingdom of Heaven and its Righteousness. Secrets that seem foolish and nonsense to others but to those who truly seek the Light they are like billows of peace washing over us again and again.

[John317]

....As for Paul's thorn in the flesh, what is so hard to understand about what HE HIMSELF WROTE--IT IS A MESSENGER OF SATAN===a demon! And Paul's god was not God the Creator for God the Creator would NEVER give anyone a demon! But it is clear that Paul believed God could do that since Paul did the same thing as found in 1Cor. 5:5 "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Since Paul clearly believed that the dead could be saved by having living people baptized for the dead (1Cor. 15:29) as do the Later Day Saints, then sending one to Satan was no problem for Paul.

No wonder you reject Paul. You don't even understand what he's saying, and you dont' appear to want to understand Paul. I say this directly to you because we have been talking about these things for a couple of years now, yet you continue to push the same false teachings, even though it has often been proven to you that you are wrong. (Remember Acts 2: 3, for instance.)

ESV--1 Cor. 15:29

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

NOTE: Paul does not say that those people are doing what's right. He simply points out that there are people who are baptizing on behalf of the dead.

It's significant that the preposition, huper, also means "with regard to," or "concerning" or "in view of." Understood this way, the verse would mean that the people were being baptized with the view of meeting their beloved dead again.

The verse can also be translated literally as follows:

Quote:

Else what shall those be doing who are baptizing? It is for the sake of the dead absolutely if the dead are not being roused. Why are they baptizing also for their sake? (Concordant Literal Translation)

You also need to consider the fact that Paul teaches clearly that the dead do not go directly to their rewards but are asleep in Jesus. He doesn't teach that the dead get a second chance to be saved. That's a Mormon belief that can't be blamed on Paul. There are lots of misinterpretations of the Bible, including perversions of what Jesus taught. It's not honest and fair to blame people for perversions of their teachings. I am sure you wouldn't want people to do it to you.

As for the Mormons, they got their ideas of baptism by proxy through Joseph Smith, not from a correct or careful exegesis of 1 Cor. 15: 29.

[phkrause]

Maybe Paul's thorn in the flesh was his mother-in law.. Nuff sed

Good one nuff sed. LOL but if I'm not mistaken, Paul was never married?

[Woody]

LOL pk. Being technical again. smile smile

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

.. Most believe that the whole bible is the inspired word of God and that is just not the truth.

Of course it is. If the Bible is not truth from God, it must be lies from the Devil. But there are no lies of the Devil in the Bible, Dr. Rich. Mark and Luke and Hebrews and James and Jude and Acts and Paul are all telling the truth of God. There are lies, yes, but they are not in the Bible. They are in the mouths of people who teach against the Bible. When you claim the Bible contains lies, it is you who are lying, and lying on behalf of the devil.

You don't accept this truth any more because of listening to lies for so many years. As soon as you began to hear those lies, you should have rejected them and refused to hear them.

Would someone PLEASE show me where Jesus said that there would not be any lies in the Bible? Please show me where Jesus endorses 'the Bible' as the wholly inspired, inerrant word of God? And don't quote me any of this 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God' business. Not even Paul said that 'the Bible' was Scripture, and he NEVER included himself or any of his writings as part of or on an equal basis with Scripture.

If Jesus was so dead set on having a compilation of writings set apart to be included in 'Scripture' and then named 'the Bible' then why didn't He make a statement to the effect that 'I am going to send you an infallible written source for truth, such that all you have to do to find truth is follow these writings and you will be saved'? Jesus made no such declaration, nor did He ever give any such instruction.

What Jesus DID say was "See to it that you are not deceived, For many will come in my name saying that I am the Christ and will lead many astray" Matt. 24:4-5. Here He place the responsibility for NOT BEING DECEIVED squarely on the individual, and not on a misplaced belief that they could not be deceived IF they simply believed in a compilation of writings that were later to be endorsed as 'canon' by the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, I just don't get the kind of muddy and fuzzy thinking that would believe this. If you do believe this then I have a nice bridge in the desert I'd like to sell you, cheap.

[John317]

Would someone PLEASE show me where Jesus said that there would not be any lies in the Bible?

In John 10: 35, Jesus said, "...the scripture cannot be broken."

But could you explain why it be necesary for Jesus to say that the "whole Bible" contains no lies? He doesn't say that the Hebrew Scriptures have no lies in them, either. God doesn't work that way. It would be a mere claim, anyway, just like you find the claim made in the Koran. if you don't believe the Koran's claim, why would anyone necessarily believe such a claim if it was in the Bible?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Please show me where Jesus endorses 'the Bible' as the wholly inspired, inerrant word of God? And don't quote me any of this 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God' business. Not even Paul said that 'the Bible' was Scripture, and he NEVER included himself or any of his writings as part of or on an equal basis with Scripture.

Paul said, 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. 1 Cor. 14:37

NOTE: The Scripture contain the commands of the Lord. Paul said that what he wrote was the command of the Lord. Ergo, Paul was conscious of writing Scripture. Only prophets and apostles/disciples of Jesus had the authority to write the words of God.

Consider the following verses regarding the words of God--

Luke 24:25

And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

John 15:20

Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

NOTE: Jesus said these words when obviously anticipating that His disciples would write Scripture.

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

2 Peter 3:2

that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

2 Peter 3:15-16

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, [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.

2 Thes. 3:14

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

2 Cor. 13:2-3

I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them— [3] since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.

1 Cor. 14:38

If anyone does not recognize this [Paul's instructions], he is not recognized.

Isaiah 66:2

All these things my hand has made,

and so all these things came to be,

declares the Lord.

But this is the one to whom I will look:

he who is humble and contrite in spirit

and trembles at my word.

Psalm 12:6

The words of the Lord are pure words,

like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,

purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God proves true;

he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 119:89

Forever, O Lord, your word

is firmly fixed in the heavens.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Numbers 23:19

God is not man, that he should lie,

or a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Has he said, and will he not do it?

Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

John 17:17

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

NOTE: Jesus did not say God's word is true, but that God's word is truth iself.

Titus 1:2

God, who never lies, ...

Hebrews 6:18

....it is impossible for God to lie...

2 Samuel 7:28

And now, O Lord GOD, you are God, and your words are true...

[Dr. Rich]

Tell me John, what good would it do to understand Revelation for anyone who is now dead?

Miz3, have not you read 2Cor. 7:12?

[wayfinder]

Quote:

In John 10: 35, Jesus said, "...the scripture cannot be broken."

John317, Whaaaat? You cut out a parenthetical phrase and use it out of context and expect that we will acknowledge our error. Jesus was specifically speaking of the writings of the prophets, and I doubt that He made the parenthical remark, it probably was added by John, then you make a broad application to a corpus that was not even in existence.

[miz3]

Dr. Rich,

Is this your proof that the Bible is not inspired?

Please!

[Musicman1228]

John,

I know you spent a long time on your reply, and for that I thank you. Yet the central point of your response was based on a 'logical fallacy' stemming from 'cut-and-paste' theology; you took one phrase completely out of context that was probably not spoken by Jesus and based your theology that the entire Bible is the very word of God on that fallacy. For someone that is obviously as smart as you this demonstrates sloppy and fuzzy thinking, which is unusual for you.

The Bible is a compendium of writings that in the case of the Old Testament has been confirmed as authoritative by Jesus Christ (by personal use), and in the case of the New Testament there are diverse writings from both eyewitnesses and people who never knew Jesus. The New Testament was put together by a group of Roman Catholic Bishops for the purpose of solidifying the Roman empire under Constantine for political reasons. It WAS NOT to disseminate truth. So how you can make the claim that God inspired every word of the New Testament and authorized all of the authors as giving information directly from God is beyond my comprehension.

[John317]

Tell me John, what good would it do to understand Revelation for anyone who is now dead?

The book of Revelation was written to give encouragment and comfort to Christians who were undergoing persecution and suffering. Whether a reader is living just before Christ returns or was living long before, there are things in the book of Revelation that help people put their trust in God and in His wisdom. For one thing, the book of Revelation shows that God will ultimately defeat the Devil and sin.

Are you saying that if you were to die today, and not live to see the events in the Apocalypse fulfilled, the book wouldn't have done you any good? Or let's say the Lord doesn't come for another 50 years-- would that fact mean you got nothing worth while out of the Apocalypse?

[John317]

Quote:

In John 10: 35, Jesus said, "...the scripture cannot be broken."

John317, Whaaaat? You cut out a parenthetical phrase and use it out of context and expect that we will acknowledge our error. Jesus was specifically speaking of the writings of the prophets, and I doubt that He made the parenthical remark, it probably was added by John, then you make a broad application to a corpus that was not even in existence.

Whether you have the whole context or not doesn't matter. It is saying that the Scriptures cannot be broken.

You can read the whole text if you want to. No one is trying to hide anything.

John 10:35

If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

It doesn't alter what Jesus was saying. He is saying you can trust the Scriptrues. They won't fail.

Do you think that Christ was unaware when He said those words that the New Testment Scriptrues would be written and read all around the world? Of course he was. At least we know for sure that God the Father was aware of it.

There's no doubt that Christ and the Holy Spirit not only inspired the New Testment Scriptures but helped to protect them, just as God's Spirit inspired and protected the Old Testament Scriptures. The same God worked the same way during those times. It makes no sense to say that the God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, protected the Old Testament but allowed Satan to contaminate the New Testament. The Old Testament predicted the coming of Christ and was written to the Jews to help them prepare for Christ first coming. But the New Testament describes the fulfillment of those OT prophecies, and also contains the teaching of the Messiah. Those writings are for the entire world of billions of people. It's nonsense to think that God would keep the OT pure for the Jewish people, but then allow the Devil to introduce his lies into the part of the Bible which is to go to all the world and which describes how God was manifested in the flesh.

Please explain why the unchangeable God would do this.

[John317]

John,

... you took one phrase completely out of context that was probably not spoken by Jesus and based your theology that the entire Bible is the very word of God on that fallacy.

You are wrong to think that I am basing my theology on a fallacy or even on that single verse. John 10: 35 was actually an after-thought, and my thesis could easily be sustained without it or without a number of other verses. (It is like the Trinity doctrine in that way-- the Bible is so redundant that the doctrine can be proved without 1 John 5: 7 or Matthew 28: 19 or even Romans 9: 5 or Heb. 1: 6 and 8.)

You are also wrong to think that Jesus did not speak those words. I presume you mean John 10: 35. However, even if we assume for the sake of discussion that Jesus didn't speak those words, they are still a part of the inspired Scriptures, and as such they are authoritative. Or are you saying that you no longer trust the writings of John the Beloved?

If you read the texts I gave you, and if you consider all the facts relevent to the case, you will see that my position is certainly a lot more solid than yours. You base your argument on nothing but your own doubts. That is nothing but smoke compared to the weight of evidence of the New Testament; the history of the early church; 2000 years of textual studies which confirm the 27 books; the way a consistent God has always worked in leading innumerable millions of Christians through the entire history of the church; the testimony of a woman who I know without a doubt to be a genuine prophet of God; the conviction and the voice of the Holy Spirit to my mind and heart; the testimony of my own personal experience in seeing the effect of the whole NT on my life; and finally, the fact that you can produce no convicning evidence that the NT is not from God. If it is not from God, there is only one other possible source, and that's the Devil. I find it absolute madness to think that the NT is from the Devil.

Speaking of what people base their theology on, you have yet to explain why you would be so fool-hearty as to base your theology on your idea that Acts 2: 3 should be translated "tongue" rather than "tongues." And, in addition, it's utter nonsense to believe that Peter and the other disciples were inspired by Satan rather than by the Holy Spirit of God. There's absolutely no valid evidence that this is so. If there is, you certainly have not produced it, and if such existed, I have to believe you already would have brought it forward by this time.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

John,

... you took one phrase completely out of context that was probably not spoken by Jesus and based your theology that the entire Bible is the very word of God on that fallacy.

You are wrong to think that I am basing my theology on a fallacy or even on that single verse. John 10: 35 was actually an after-thought, and my thesis could easily be sustained without it or without a number of other verses. (It is like the Trinity doctrine in that way-- the Bible is so redundant that the doctrine can be proved without 1 John 5: 7 or Matthew 28: 19 or even Romans 9: 5 or Heb. 1: 6 and 8.)

You are also wrong to think that Jesus did not speak those words. I presume you mean John 10: 35. However, even if we assume for the sake of discussion that Jesus didn't speak those words, they are still a part of the inspired Scriptures, and as such they are authoritative. Or are you saying that you no longer trust the writings of John the Beloved?

If you read the texts I gave you, and if you consider all the facts relevent to the case, you will see that my position is certainly a lot more solid than yours. You base your argument on nothing but your own doubts. That is nothing but smoke compared to the weight of evidence of the New Testament; the history of the early church; 2000 years of textual studies which confirm the 27 books; the way a consistent God has always worked in leading innumerable millions of Christians through the entire history of the church; the testimony of a woman who I know without a doubt to be a genuine prophet of God; the conviction and the voice of the Holy Spirit to my mind and heart; the testimony of my own personal experience in seeing the effect of the whole NT on my life; and finally, the fact that you can produce no convicning evidence that the NT is not from God. If it is not from God, there is only one other possible source, and that's the Devil. I find it absolute madness to think that the NT is from the Devil.

Speaking of what people base their theology on, you have yet to explain why you would be so fool-hearty as to base your theology on your idea that Acts 2: 3 should be translated "tongue" rather than "tongues." And, in addition, it's utter nonsense to believe that Peter and the other disciples were inspired by Satan rather than by the Holy Spirit of God. There's absolutely no valid evidence that this is so. If there is, you certainly have not produced it, and if such existed, I have to believe you already would have brought it forward by this time.

Amen!

[Musicman1228]

John,

I guess blind faith wins out when logic, reason, and taking Jesus at His words loose. You speak that my position is based in doubt, and you state categorically that you have 'no doubt' that God inspired and protected the entirety of the Bible even when there is evidence within that very same Bible that God allowed and planned that lies would be therein, and that we would have to discern the difference in order to not be deceived.

You make it sound as if it would be impossible for anyone to be deceived as long as they believe in the compendium that was put together for what is proven by history to be reasons other than that which brought Jesus to earth in the first place. This belief in itself is the deception which this same Jesus knew would occur. He even warned His disciples of this deception (Matt.24:4-5), yet because the deception is so well brought it has become the truth in the bringing. Even the most sincere and intelligent believers have been turned by this deception, which proves it's worth to the evil one.

If it were impossible to be deceived just because of the 'belief' that the Bible is inspired and inerrant would show that mere belief is all the protection one needs to not be deceived and gain eternal life. But we both know that it is possible for anyone to believe anything they want without proof and without confirmation that that belief has any validity what-so-ever.

But WHAT you believe in and HOW that belief is generated is much more important than just merely believing. Faith is believing a lie as if it were the truth, and you have plenty of faith. Jesus had no need for faith because He knew who He was and what He had been sent to earth by His Father to accomplish. And like Jesus if we know the truth we have little or no need for faith. So if your faith in your belief that the Bible contains only inspired truth protected by God which will save you from having to discern truth for yourself based on the evidence then more power to you, you will need it.