Fallacies used against Paul

[doug yowell]

What you have written is exactly the point Wayfinder was trying to make. It was Paul that founded the churches in Asia, including the first at Ephesus. This is why the prophecy in Rev. 2:2 identifies those people in the church of Ephesus as putting these apostles and prophets to the test and finding them to be false. Who else but Paul could this prophecy be speaking of? He was the apostle with the highest profile and would have to have been included in the apostles and prophets that were put to the test. As a matter of fact it went even farther than that according to Paul's own words, where he admits that ALL of Asia has rejected his gospel. WHY would this be and how could this occur if Paul's gospel was the true gospel as taught by Jesus?

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 2Tim. 1:15.

Apparently the people in Ephesus put Paul (among others) to the test and found him to be false when they compared him to the words and teachings of Jesus, and they rejected him. From there this rejection snowballed until ALL of Asia 'turned away' from his gospel. All I and others have done is what those people in Ephesus did; put Paul to the test against the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, the result of which is that I (we) found him to be false.

Nice try but reading your private history into the biblical narrative is not very convincing.Remember, you're contending with the Holy Spirit who knew in advance what your arguments would be. First, Paul didn't say that all Asia had rejected his gospel. He said that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (not my gospel). Second, there is no historical or biblical documentation of your theory. Third, Paul had just sent his helper, Tychicus, back to Ephesus without reference to any apostasy from that church.Didn't sound like the total rejection that you paint it to be. Fourth, Paul's letter to the Ephesian church written a few days earlier indicates a Christlike bond between himself and the members of that church. Not coincidentally he refers back to Tychicus' mission which he later mentions in II Timothy 4:12 which he wrote a few minutes after he had finished II Tim.1:15.

[doug yowell]

The Bible also contains the words of the evil one, I know this because the are contradictions in teachings. I am not saying there are not discrepancies, there are, but I am not talking about discrepancies, I am talking about a teaching which stands in opposition to the teaching of God and His Son.

There are contradictions in your thinking, not God's Word.

[doug yowell]

If the teaching of Paul was not in the Bible we would not be having this particular discussion. God the Father and His Son, never promised to give us a scantified book without any aberrant teachings.

You show a real lack of understanding of the Bible itself. Every teaching of God's Word is subject to aberrant interpretations. The story of Jesus is a clear demonstration of that. In the Holy Scriptures, heresy is not set side by side with truth so that everyone who reads or hears will be confused and easily mislead.If Paul's writings were not in the Bible you'd still be arguing that the rest of the books that disagreed with your private interpretation were psuedo gospels,right? You reject the books of Acts,Luke,James,Peter & Mark. Paul is just the prime suspect. But God DID promise a sanctified book and that's just the point. "...and the Scripture cannot be broken." "To the law, and to the testimony..." "they are they which testify of Me" "...till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law..." Which part of the OT do you believe is aberrant?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

What you have written is exactly the point Wayfinder was trying to make. It was Paul that founded the churches in Asia, including the first at Ephesus. This is why the prophecy in Rev. 2:2 identifies those people in the church of Ephesus as putting these apostles and prophets to the test and finding them to be false. Who else but Paul could this prophecy be speaking of? He was the apostle with the highest profile and would have to have been included in the apostles and prophets that were put to the test. As a matter of fact it went even farther than that according to Paul's own words, where he admits that ALL of Asia has rejected his gospel. WHY would this be and how could this occur if Paul's gospel was the true gospel as taught by Jesus?

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 2Tim. 1:15.

Apparently the people in Ephesus put Paul (among others) to the test and found him to be false when they compared him to the words and teachings of Jesus, and they rejected him. From there this rejection snowballed until ALL of Asia 'turned away' from his gospel. All I and others have done is what those people in Ephesus did; put Paul to the test against the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, the result of which is that I (we) found him to be false.

Nice try but reading your private history into the biblical narrative is not very convincing.Remember, you're contending with the Holy Spirit who knew in advance what your arguments would be. First, Paul didn't say that all Asia had rejected his gospel. He said that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (not my gospel). Second, there is no historical or biblical documentation of your theory. Third, Paul had just sent his helper, Tychicus, back to Ephesus without reference to any apostasy from that church.Didn't sound like the total rejection that you paint it to be. Fourth, Paul's letter to the Ephesian church written a few days earlier indicates a Christlike bond between himself and the members of that church. Not coincidentally he refers back to Tychicus' mission which he later mentions in II Timothy 4:12 which he wrote a few minutes after he had finished II Tim.1:15.

So, Doug, what you are saying is that Paul said that all of Asia rejected him but this rejection really didn't include his 'gospel' to which he was explicitly and irrevocable tied. This is so typical of those who cannot take his words as he spoke them, anymore than they can take the words of Jesus Christ as He spoke them when those words become inconvenient to their own personal theology; they must alway change the meanings to fit their own interpretations.

This would be the same as a scientist manipulating data to prove a theory, or a CPA 'cooking the books' to hide income. It just means that you only see what you have decided to see, not what is really there. So of course if you don't believe that Paul actually meant what he said here you can change anything he said to mean anything you want.

"Second, there is no historical or biblical documentation of your theory."

Except his own words in more than one place. Note the following example:

(6) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—   (7) not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.   (8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.   (9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:6-9.

This passage shows an ANGRY man, upset that the people he trained and he raised up as a church were convince by the truth that he was wrong, and were deserting him for this different gospel, which was the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Disciples of the Way in Jerusalem. He called down curses upon anyone, including and Angel from Heaven, show they preach a gospel different that his own gospel. This must mean that God would be wrong and Paul would be right. Could an Angel from Heaven lie about the gospel the Angel would be bringing? Certainly not. This show you the arrogance and the boastfulness of Paul who put his gospel and his idea of truth over God. It appears that Paul was not as popular in Asia as you seem to think he was.

However, none of this will matter to you, because you cannot imagine in you darkest, wildest dreams that Paul could be anything except what you believe him to be. Therefore, anyone that believes counter to what you believe must either be out of their minds or of the Devil, or both.

I am neither out of my mind, nor am I of the Devil. What I am is a Bondservant of Jesus Christ. Therefore all I need is His word and teachings upon which to build Truth. ANYTHING OR ANYONE else only confuses the issue and leads away from finding the truth rather than toward the truth and toward the Kingdom of Heaven.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

If the teaching of Paul was not in the Bible we would not be having this particular discussion. God the Father and His Son, never promised to give us a scantified book without any aberrant teachings.

You show a real lack of understanding of the Bible itself. Every teaching of God's Word is subject to aberrant interpretations. The story of Jesus is a clear demonstration of that. In the Holy Scriptures, heresy is not set side by side with truth so that everyone who reads or hears will be confused and easily mislead.If Paul's writings were not in the Bible you'd still be arguing that the rest of the books that disagreed with your private interpretation were psuedo gospels,right? You reject the books of Acts,Luke,James,Peter & Mark. Paul is just the prime suspect. But God DID promise a sanctified book and that's just the point. "...and the Scripture cannot be broken." "To the law, and to the testimony..." "they are they which testify of Me" "...till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law..." Which part of the OT do you believe is aberrant?

Nothing in the OT is aberrant, the aberrancies are in the NT and are found in the books of Luke, Acts, Paul's letters and epistles, James, 1 and 2 Peter. I did not say aberrant interpretation, I was talking about the teaching itself. Paul teaches a salvation apart from works, he does say in some places to keep the law, but one can only do this because they have died to self, or died with Christ, they are no longer "alive" but the spirit of Christ has animated their flesh. Paul weaves a web that appeals to most everyone. I have offered a challange to anyone who wishes to accept. All I ask is to show me where Jesus taught what Paul taught (in total) and one must use the eyewitness testimony to Jesus ministry.

[Dr. Rich]

Doug wrote: "First, Paul didn't say that all Asia had rejected his gospel. He said that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (not my gospel). Second, there is no historical or biblical documentation of your theory."

Acts 21:27-29 And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from ASIA, upon seeing him (Paul) in the temple, began to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him crying out, "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to ALL men everywhere against our people, AND THE LAW (the Ten Commandments), and THIS place; and besides he has even brought Greeks (Gentiles) into the temple and has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the EPHESIAN in the city with him, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

Hmmm? Looks to me that those in Asia accused Paul of teaching against keeping the Ten Commandments.

[Ron Amnsn]

Hmmm? Looks to me that those in Asia accused Paul of teaching against keeping the Ten Commandments.

There's more to the story that shows your surmising is not correct.

First, there were Jews in Asia who opposed Paul while he was in Asia, just as there are Jews alive now who would oppose your own "gospel" if you were to preach it in any Jewish synagogue on earth. Some of those Jews came to the Feast of Weeks in Jerusalem, just as Paul did, and when they arrived they recognized Paul and continued to oppose him. There is no evidence that these were Jews who accepted Jesus, and they certainly weren't righteous Jews for they violated Torah when they attacked Paul.

Second, those Jews from Asia who opposed Paul had their day in court to accuse Paul before the council, but they failed to produce the evidence necessary to convict Paul. Some of the Pharisees of the council testified that they found no fault with Paul. Those Pharisees were eyewitnesses of the court proceedings, and fully capable of judging whether Paul taught against the commandments of God (which according to Scripture number more than 10).

[Dr. Rich]

Hmmm? again. Didn't Jesus say not to trust the Pharisees? By the way, what ever happened to Paul? Didn't Paul say that he would gladly give up his life at one time? What a coward!

You know what? You never answered my question! I asked you why does anyone need anyone else's words and writings other than those of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses to understand the truth regarding salvation? And why did Jesus tell the disciples to go to ALL the world and to every nation IF Jesus knew He was going to get Paul to go to the Gentiles? Didn't He know that would cause a conflict?

So just how many different ways are there to be saved? We know Paul said there was one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles, so are there more then that?

[doug yowell]

Doug wrote: "First, Paul didn't say that all Asia had rejected his gospel. He said that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (not my gospel). Second, there is no historical or biblical documentation of your theory."

Acts 21:27-29 And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from ASIA, upon seeing him (Paul) in the temple, began to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him crying out, "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to ALL men everywhere against our people, AND THE LAW (the Ten Commandments), and THIS place; and besides he has even brought Greeks (Gentiles) into the temple and has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the EPHESIAN in the city with him, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

Hmmm? Looks to me that those in Asia accused Paul of teaching against keeping the Ten Commandments.

I notice that you didn't address your botch of II Tim.1,4. I also notice that you didn't notice that Trophimus was from Asia and hadn't rejected Paul's gospel.You also failed to note that those who accused Paul of teaching against the Ten Commandments were all Jews!! These are the same guys that were persecuting the Way in Jerusalem. Since all the Asian churches were a mixture of both Jew and Gentile,why no Gentiles (like Trophimus of Tychicus,ect...)on the bandwagon? Isn't that your original point that Paul was teaching the Gentiles a different gospel?? Seems like you support those Jews that could not provide any proof of their slanderous charges against Paul in a court of law.deja vu.Yet, why do you keep referring to,as proof,an account that you say was falsified?

[doug yowell]

Hmmm? again. Didn't Jesus say not to trust the Pharisees? By the way, what ever happened to Paul? Didn't Paul say that he would gladly give up his life at one time? What a coward!

Paul did give up his life.On more than one occasion. Perhaps you missed the account of his life after he was converted. How many beatings have you received? How many times have you been stoned? How many miles have you traveled in dangerous territory? How many times have you been imprisoned? How much have you given up for Christ?? How many times have your friends rescued you from life threatening crowds? Yeah, what a coward he was!!

[doug yowell]

You know what? You never answered my question! I asked you why does anyone need anyone else's words and writings other than those of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses to understand the truth regarding salvation?

This is a thoughtless question.Simple logic would note that once the original eyewitnesses were dead then the gospel message would be kaput!! Who then would be able to give an accurate presentation?? Jesus command infers (common sense) that disciples make disciples who make disciples, and so on. Gone are the eyewitnesses. Where are the eyewitnesses and writings that give credence to your historical account? Was the entire Christian church bamboozled into preserving and promoting a bunch of accounts that weren't even true, and passing them on to future generations for cannonization?

[Gary K]

Nothing in the OT is aberrant, the aberrancies are in the NT and are found in the books of Luke, Acts, Paul's letters and epistles, James, 1 and 2 Peter. I did not say aberrant interpretation, I was talking about the teaching itself. Paul teaches a salvation apart from works, he does say in some places to keep the law, but one can only do this because they have died to self, or died with Christ, they are no longer "alive" but the spirit of Christ has animated their flesh. Paul weaves a web that appeals to most everyone. I have offered a challange to anyone who wishes to accept. All I ask is to show me where Jesus taught what Paul taught (in total) and one must use the eyewitness testimony to Jesus ministry.

wayfinder,

For you to claim Paul teaches a salvation apart from works just means you have a comprehension problem when reading Paul. He teaches no such thing. Romans 6 is a complete refutation of what you say. So are Ephesians 5 and 6, and Romans 13:8-14

Romans 13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

[Dr. Rich]

Yep, the old "May it never be" treatment! So tell me Gary K, how come there are so many different denominations all teaching different ideas and opinion's on Paul's writings? Hmmm? You have proven that one can form any belief they want from the words of Paul--is that unity, the same unity Jesus prayed for in Jn. 17?

The only way to have the same unity Jesus had with His Father is to practice the truth by obeying what Jesus said and taught. Nothing else will do. The Holy Spirit will not, and can not, dwell in anyone who practices a lie and keeps sinning. (1John 3:6-9)

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Hmmm? again. Didn't Jesus say not to trust the Pharisees? By the way, what ever happened to Paul? Didn't Paul say that he would gladly give up his life at one time? What a coward!

Paul did give up his life.On more than one occasion. Perhaps you missed the account of his life after he was converted. How many beatings have you received? How many times have you been stoned? How many miles have you traveled in dangerous territory? How many times have you been imprisoned? How much have you given up for Christ?? How many times have your friends rescued you from life threatening crowds? Yeah, what a coward he was!!

More times than Paul was! You don't know me do you???? Please show me evidence of what happened to Paul after all of this?

[Dr. Rich]

Doug, what is it that you don't understand about John 14:26 and 17:17-20?

[Ron Amnsn]

Hmmm? again. Didn't Jesus say not to trust the Pharisees?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

You know what? You never answered my question! I asked you why does anyone need anyone else's words and writings other than those of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses to understand the truth regarding salvation?

This is a thoughtless question.Simple logic would note that once the original eyewitnesses were dead then the gospel message would be kaput!! Who then would be able to give an accurate presentation?? Jesus command infers (common sense) that disciples make disciples who make disciples, and so on. Gone are the eyewitnesses. Where are the eyewitnesses and writings that give credence to your historical account? Was the entire Christian church bamboozled into preserving and promoting a bunch of accounts that weren't even true, and passing them on to future generations for cannonization?

I'll take a crack at this:

Your statement that the eyewitnesses were gone implied that 2nd and 3rd hand accounts have now become acceptable in making generational converts into disciples of Jesus Christ. The difficultly that I see with this is that there were still the personal writings of many (not just Matthew and John) of the eyewitness disciples that were extant then as well as now, and that the reliability and accuracy of the testimony of generational (2nd hand) disciples becomes less and less reliable and accurate the farther you get from the source. This is why it is important to use the MOST reliable and accurate sources you can in establishing your understanding of truth.

You believe that the entire Bible is the very Word of God from cover to cover, especially the N.T. Because of this belief would it not then be possible to prioritize the New Testament into the books MOST likely to be accurate such as Matthew, John and Revelation down to the least likely to be accurate books simply based on how these other books compare in accuracy and reliability to those of the eyewitnesses? This way you would not have to 'throw out' any books of the NT, all you would do is when ever you came across something that 'appeared' to be a 'conflict' you could compare it to the primary books to see if there are any discrepancies. I there are not you are home free. If there are then you must decide what to do with this secondary information vis a vis your belief system.

It is undeniable that Jesus told His own disciples that THEY would remember EVERYTHING He said to them because the of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). It is also undeniable that neither Luke nor Paul was among this company when Jesus spoke those words, so they would obviously not be able to remember anything that they did not hear directly from Jesus. And since he (Paul) never heard a single word from the lips of Jesus while He was here on earth this would be consistent with the priority Jesus intended for His own disciples to hold in the hierarchy of the many testimonies that would appear after He went back to Heaven. Since Jesus established this priority system based on eyewitness testimony do you not suppose it would be prudent to use this to our advantage in assessing what is true from what isn't? Or is it more prudent to believe that the Bible is in fact the word of God from cover to cover even counting the fact that the New Testament was assembled from a wide variety of writings, some proven to be correctly authored and some not, by a group of Catholic Bishops whose only goal was to win approval for their church by the pagan ruler of the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine?

One seems more prudent than the other. I'll leave it for you to decide.

[Ron Amnsn]

So tell me Gary K, how come there are so many different denominations all teaching different ideas and opinion's on Paul's writings? Hmmm? You have proven that one can form any belief they want from the words of Paul--

There are so many denominations based on different interpretations of Paul's writings because the denominations are all daughters of Rome and interpret Paul in the same context-less manner as the mother Church does. Without the Old Testament context of Paul's writings, they can indeed be easily twisted to support any belief, even your own.

But once you restore the Torah-observant context of Paul's lifestyle and teachings, the false teachings fall away revealing the everlasting gospel that runs throughout Scripture.

[Gary K]

Yep, the old "May it never be" treatment! So tell me Gary K, how come there are so many different denominations all teaching different ideas and opinion's on Paul's writings? Hmmm? You have proven that one can form any belief they want from the words of Paul--is that unity, the same unity Jesus prayed for in Jn. 17?

The only way to have the same unity Jesus had with His Father is to practice the truth by obeying what Jesus said and taught. Nothing else will do. The Holy Spirit will not, and can not, dwell in anyone who practices a lie and keeps sinning. (1John 3:6-9)

There are no denominations that agree on all of the Bible. That makes all of it untrue if you are to consistently apply your logic. You're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

So tell me Gary K, how come there are so many different denominations all teaching different ideas and opinion's on Paul's writings? Hmmm? You have proven that one can form any belief they want from the words of Paul--

There are so many denominations based on different interpretations of Paul's writings because the denominations are all daughters of Rome and interpret Paul in the same context-less manner as the mother Church does. Without the Old Testament context of Paul's writings, they can indeed be easily twisted to support any belief, even your own.

But once you restore the Torah-observant context of Paul's lifestyle and teachings, the false teachings fall away revealing the everlasting gospel that runs throughout Scripture.

In saying that the Bible is the wholly inspired, inerrant Word of God and that the Catholic church has spawned 'daughters' that misinterpret Paul you are admitting that you are following the leading and acknowledging the primacy of the very church which you so soundly condemn, because it was that very Catholic church that put the Bible together in the first place in 325 CE, which you claim is inspired by God and inerrant. Logic then follows that you must consider the Roman Catholic church equally inspired by God and inerrant to have produced a compendium of writing that is also inspired and inerrant.

Either the Catholic church is the ONE true church (as they claim) because they produced a book which contains the infallible, inerrant, inspired Words of God, or they are not infallible, inerrant or inspired by God; which would mean that neither is the Bible which they authorized as Canon. Which is it. You cannot have it both ways.

[Gary K]

In saying that the Bible is the wholly inspired, inerrant Word of God and that the Catholic church has spawned 'daughters' that misinterpret Paul you are admitting that you are following the leading and acknowledging the primacy of the very church which you so soundly condemn, because it was that very Catholic church that put the Bible together in the first place in 325 CE, which you claim is inspired by God and inerrant. Logic then follows that you must consider the Roman Catholic church equally inspired by God and inerrant to have produced a compendium of writing that is also inspired and inerrant.

Either the Catholic church is the ONE true church (as they claim) because they produced a book which contains the infallible, inerrant, inspired Words of God, or they are not infallible, inerrant or inspired by God; which would mean that neither is the Bible which they authorized as Canon. Which is it. You cannot have it both ways.

I have it in the way that God is able to over ride the corruption of the Roman Catholic church so that His word, His communication to us, will be preserved in a truthful manner. The Pharisees and the devil wanted to destroy Christ's mission and instead they made sure it was fulfilled. The same goes for the Bible.

I have to place my faith in something/someone, and I choose to place my faith in God. You choose to place your faith in what the devil would do if God did not place limits upon him.

You choose for yourself which is a better path to take. As for me and house....

[Ron Amnsn]

Musicman, the discussion will be more profitable if you stick to saying what you believe and allow me to say what I believe. You err when you try to tell me what I believe.

The Old Testament was actually brought together long before there was a church in Rome. The Old Testament was produced and compiled by God's chosen people, the Israelites, and endorsed by Jesus as recorded in the eyewitness accounts of His life and ministry.

I recently posted something in another thread that tells quite clearly what I believe:

I think we need to be careful about setting up a false dichotomy here. Personally, I believe that the Bible stands 100% (as it was written in the original manuscripts). However, we really don't have any guarantee from God that the men and committees who established the cannon made no errors. There would be no profit in saying the that the whole Bible falls if any part of it were found to be uninspired.

We can have confidence in the Bible without placing our faith in the men or committees who established the cannon we have today. Nor do we need to invent a doctrine of infallibility of the cannonization process; nor do we need to invent a doctrine claiming that God prevents men from corrupting God's word. (Men have corrupted the Bible and continue to do so with denominational versions such as the JW's bible and with the various paraphrases.)

The books of the Bible (and the cannon) developed over time, starting with the books of Moses. Each new book and author were tested to see if their lives and writings were in agreement with God's word that had been given earlier. Any new writing that disagreed with God's earlier word, would be rejected. The first books are the standard by which later books are judged. If you work your way carefully through the books and writings from the beginning, testing each book by those books that came earlier, you will probably end up putting your confidence in the same collection of books that are in the Bible we have today (unless you allow your personal biases to interfere).

Those who interpret the New Testament writings so that they [seem to] disagree with the Old Testament have set the stage for people like Dr. Rich to question the authenticity of the New Testament writings. But that need not be the case. Properly interpreted, the New Testament actually is in complete agreement with the Old Testament. Unfortunately, modern Christians have inherited many faulty interpretations of the New Testament from the Catholic fathers. Those faulty interpretations are what Dr. Rich and his cohorts have latched onto in order to question the credibility of the New Testament writings.

[Musicman1228]

Ron,

I apologize if I made it sound like I was putting words in you mouth. I never mean to do that as you are quite capable of stating your own case.

My goal was to show that while God protects the truth He is self-limited as to how much protection He is able to generate without giving unfair advantage to the side of righteousness. In the prophecy of the Wheat and the Tares Jesus shows that there will be lies mixed in with truth, and this will not be discovered until the time of the harvest. The Land Owner did not try to remove the tares because as He said 'it might uproot some of the good wheat'. In this the Land Owner shows that He doesn't control the content of the entire field. If He did exercise this level of control Satan could rightfully accuse Him of over protecting His people and not giving Satan a chance to get at them. God did not do this in the Garden of Eden, what makes you think He would do this through the ages or at the end of time?

God gives earthlings the power to choose in every situation in which they find themselves, which is why there is an 'age of accountability'. Nowhere does Jesus state that He will protect us from all evil, even though He said we should pray for such protection. God DID preserve TRUTH within the New Testament just as He did in the Old Testament. But the New Testament was never made immune to Tares/lies as was the Law and the Prophets, which Jesus used to great advantage while He was here on earth. To believe that it was made immune is to believe Jesus is in total control of this world and all of it's beings, which is clearly not the case.

Right now the Prince of this world is in control of this world, and gaining more control every day. This control was given to Satan by Adam in the Garden, and Satan has not relinquished one little bit of it since then. Yet one day in the foreseeable future the kingdom of this world WILL become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Rev.11:15).

Yet God has preserved some things for His own use, namely the words and teachings of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Those words Satan dare not tamper with because NO ONE tampers with the words of God and gets away with it. This is why I keep saying that the only fully reliable source for truth in the entire Bible is the Words of God as found in the Law and the Prophets, and in the Words and teachings of Jesus Christ the Son of God as given to His eyewitness disciple in the New Testament. In using any other words you risk falling under the ministry of the lies of Satan because God does not place any guarantees on any words but His own.

As for me, I will not risk trusting the words of anyone, no matter how pious or convincing, unless they agree in total with the words of Jesus Christ.

[Ron Amnsn]

Musicman, I agree that in Scripture some parts are more important, like the words quoted from God and from Jesus.

Most of your last post seems to be merely opinion that cannot be confirmed in Scripture. I don't see any reason why your writings should be believed more than the writings of Paul.

[Musicman1228]

Musicman, I agree that in Scripture some parts are more important, like the words quoted from God and from Jesus.

Most of your last post seems to be merely opinion that cannot be confirmed in Scripture. I don't see any reason why your writings should be believed more than the writings of Paul.

What gave you the idea that I want you or anyone to believe me over Paul? I don't want you to believe me at all. I want you to believe the words of Jesus and of God over Paul or anyone else, which you have just stated that you do. Good.

Please be specific as to what you believe that I wrote that is not found in Scripture. If there is something that is not Scriptural I would like to know about it so I can revise my position. I am always willing to learn.