The Spirit of Prophecy and the Modern Gift of Prophets

[BobRyan]

My belief is that the Son of God also speaks through His prophets. So everything spoken in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy IS the Son of God speaking. It's that simple.

That is true.

We must always test the prophets - but once someone is confirmed in that regard - the claim is that they "speak from God" as Peter said in 2Pet 1:20-21.

Those who are inside the SDA church and who choose to attack God's prophets - show by their fruits the true spirit behind their message.

in Christ,

Bob

[Lysimachus]

Now, how do I know that the Testimonies of EGW are not the Testimony of Jesus? Simple; Jesus did not say that His testimony was given by anyone other than Himself.

Interesting. Which leaves me to wonder, "did Musicman even read the first post in this topic?" My very article that began this thread was exactly designed for that: To REFUTE this faulty interpretation.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Now, how do I know that the Testimonies of EGW are not the Testimony of Jesus? Simple; Jesus did not say that His testimony was given by anyone other than Himself.

Interesting. Which leaves me to wonder, "did Musicman even read the first post in this topic?" My very article that began this thread was exactly designed for that: To REFUTE this faulty interpretation.

I don't read long articles on these threads because I just don't have the time. Say what you need to say in a few well chosen words and I will be glad to listen to what you have to say. It is only your own opinion that my understanding that Jesus did not authorize any other end time prophet after John is 'faulty'. You use as proofs of the validity of your 'opinion' the words of Paul which to me is no proof at all. You only reference a couple of texts in Revelation, one in Peter (which Peter did not write) so the only thing that I can say is that you are placing the 'fault' on the wrong person; It is your understanding that is faulty because you cannot use the words of Jesus Christ to support you views, you have to use Paul otherwise there is no proof.

Try this experiment: use ONLY the words of Jesus Christ as He gave them to His own eyewitness disciples to prove your point and see what you come up with. If you don't do this I will know that you CAN'T do it, and therefore all will know that it is your understanding that is faulty.

An observation; I just don't understand people who try to tell me that the words of Jesus Christ are not sufficient for me to understand how to be prepared for His return. What is this? Is this some kind of joke? When you (whoever you are) try to tell me that I need Paul or EGW or ANYONE to explain what Jesus said it makes me furious. How dare you belittle the words of Jesus that way. How dare you belittle the power of the Holy Spirit to work in my life, or anyones life, to teach me ALL the truth that are in His words. Because that is what you are doing when you say that the words and teachings of Jesus Christ are not everything and the only thing anyone needs to know the truth. What you are doing is calling Jesus and the Holy Spirit a liar; and frankly I would not want to have to explain THAT to Jesus when you meet Him face to face.

[John317]

Now, how do I know that the Testimonies of EGW are not the Testimony of Jesus? Simple; Jesus did not say that His testimony was given by anyone other than Himself. Please read again Rev. 12:17. The last phrase in that verse does not say 'the testimony of Jesus as given by Ellen White'; it stops right after 'Jesus'.

That's no better than your claim that Acts 2: 3 should read "a tongue" instead of "tongues."

Rev. 12: 17; 19: 10 shows us that God will have a people near the end of earth's history who will keep the commandments of God and have the spirit of prophecy. There's no reason to believe such a verse would mention Ellen White by name, so the argument that it doesn't refer to Ellen White by name is invalid.

The Bible also does not refer by name to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, yet you say you believe the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the Kingdom of heaven.

[John317]

Yes, John, the SDA church 'now' does include the belief in the 'Testimonies of EGW' as part of the 28 Fundamentals of the church. However, back when I was baptized this was not the case; EGW was not a test of faith of the SDA church 50 years ago, so I am 'grandfathered' in and cannot be excommunicated (to use an appropriate RCC term) because I don't slavishly follow her teachings.

I don't think anyone should be surprised that the work and ministry of Ellen White are part of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church. After all, it is a fundamental belief of the Church. It was a fundamental belief of the SDA Church in the 1800s as well, although it was not described as a "fundamental belief."

Originally Posted By: Musicman

I don't slavishly follow her teachings.

You not only do not follow her teachings-- you believe and teach that Ellen White (as well as Paul et al) was a false prophet. That is not the same as simply not "slavishly following her teachings."

[John317]

....I just don't understand people who try to tell me that the words of Jesus Christ are not sufficient for me to understand how to be prepared for His return. What is this? Is this some kind of joke? When you (whoever you are) try to tell me that I need Paul or EGW or ANYONE to explain what Jesus said it makes me furious. How dare you belittle the words of Jesus that way. How dare you belittle the power of the Holy Spirit to work in my life, or anyones life, to teach me ALL the truth that are in His words. Because that is what you are doing when you say that the words and teachings of Jesus Christ are not everything and the only thing anyone needs to know the truth. What you are doing is calling Jesus and the Holy Spirit a liar; and frankly I would not want to have to explain THAT to Jesus when you meet Him face to face.

The entire Bible is the Word of God and is needed.

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

All Scripture includes the whole of the New Testament. Jesus inspired the prophets and the apostles who wrote the Bible, including the New Testament. Therefore the words of Jesus are the whole of the Bible, not merely the words that John recorded in His Gospel. Jesus' words are also found in Genesis and Revelation, and in the book of Acts.

It's a mistake to think or tell people that all we need are the words that Christ spoke while on earth. We need the whole Bible-- as well as all the messages that God inspired Ellen G. White to write-- in order to help us prepare for the second coming of Christ.

[Lysimachus]

When you (whoever you are) try to tell me that I need Paul or EGW or ANYONE to explain what Jesus said it makes me furious.

What tempts me to become even more furious, Musicman, is that you, somehow, deceive yourself to think that Jesus revealed everything when He was physically on this earth. Jesus only laid "foundations" while He was on earth, He did not construct the Temple (the Church) while on earth. The foundation (the 12 apostles) was LAID while Jesus was on earth, and the Temple (the Church) was constructed on that foundation AFTER He went to heaven!

Thus, Jesus, CONTINUED to speak to us, THROUGH the WORDS of His Apostles, INCLUDING the Apostle Paul. Jesus spoke PERSONALLY to Paul on the road to Damascus, and Paul received many visions and was even carried away to Paradise. It blows my mind how you can DARE have the NERVE and the AUDACITY to reject the writings of Paul as 100% inspired in light of these facts.

To reject the Lord's prophets is to REJECT the Son of God whom He sent to bear HIS words.

Jesus did not put EVERYTHING on a silver platter while He was on this earth. He laid the GROUNDWORK so that His servants would be able to built UPON that groundwork, and reveal what the Son of God would speak to them through His Spirit. The Apostle Paul was such a man for the hour. Peter Himself endorsed the writings of Paul!!!! Hello!! Paul even had to REBUKE Peter!!

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

When you (whoever you are) try to tell me that I need Paul or EGW or ANYONE to explain what Jesus said it makes me furious.

What tempts me to become even more furious, Musicman, is that you, somehow, deceive yourself to think that Jesus revealed everything when He was physically on this earth. Jesus only laid "foundations" while He was on earth, He did not construct the Temple (the Church) while on earth. The foundation (the 12 apostles) was LAID while Jesus was on earth, and the Temple (the Church) was constructed on that foundation AFTER He went to heaven!

Thus, Jesus, CONTINUED to speak to us, THROUGH the WORDS of His Apostles, INCLUDING the Apostle Paul. Jesus spoke PERSONALLY to Paul on the road to Damascus, and Paul received many visions and was even carried away to Paradise. It blows my mind how you can DARE have the NERVE and the AUDACITY to reject the writings of Paul as 100% inspired in light of these facts.

To reject the Lord's prophets is to REJECT the Son of God whom He sent to bear HIS words.

Jesus did not put EVERYTHING on a silver platter while He was on this earth. He laid the GROUNDWORK so that His servants would be able to built UPON that groundwork, and reveal what the Son of God would speak to them through His Spirit. The Apostle Paul was such a man for the hour. Peter Himself endorsed the writings of Paul!!!! Hello!! Paul even had to REBUKE Peter!!

EXACTLY! Jesus DID reveal EVERYTHING that He needed to in order for His bondservants to know what they needed to accomplish before His return. That is exactly correct. What part about 'It is Finished' don't you understand? You and John and others believe that the Bible is the very words of God, and this includes Paul. Well if this is the case and God gave Paul information that He didn't give Jesus then Paul is equal or greater than Jesus in the eyes of God. And if God did reveal everything to Paul that He didn't reveal to Jesus then why do we need EGW to reveal even more things that God did not give to Jesus? How far down the road are you going kick this can?

It is an outright LIE that Peter endorsed Paul. Where do you get that tripe? You get it from the books of Peter, especially 2nd Peter which Peter himself could not have written because at the time this book was written Peter was already dead. It is only in the writings of Paul in which you find Peter saying that Paul is hard to understand because evil men twist his words. This is something Paul wrote to make it seem as if he and Peter were best buddies, but they were not.

You and John also say that the Bible is God's Holy Word, especially the NT, yet you NEVER provide proof from the words of Jesus to support this. Why is this? That is because you cannot prove that God authorized the writings called the Bible in any form. In this you are whipping a dead horse; it won't go any faster because you whip it harder.

I believe that the Bible does contain the words of God in the OT, and the words of God through His Son in the NT. That does not mean that I believe that every word in the Bible is 'God breathed by the Holy Spirit' because it isn't and you cannot prove it. The first step on the road to the truth is recognizing this FACT.

[Lysimachus]

EXACTLY! Jesus DID reveal EVERYTHING that He needed to in order for His bondservants to know what they needed to accomplish before His return. That is exactly correct. What part about 'It is Finished' don't you understand?

[Musicman1228]

Lysimachus said, "You don't make any sense. With your line of reasoning, how on earth can you even trust the words of Jesus, because all the words of Jesus were RECORDED down by the Apostles! How do we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter all didn't make up the words of Jesus? What if Jesus was a fake?? How can you trust these "words of Jesus", if Jesus Himself didn't even write them?"

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. John 14:26.

Jesus said to His own disciples that THEY would remember what He said to them through the power of the Holy Spirit. How can someone remember something that they never heard from Jesus because they were not there with Him while He was here on earth? This excludes everyone that was not an actual eyewitness of the life and events of the life of Jesus Christ; including but not limited to Luke, Paul and EGW. In doing this Jesus preserved in tact everything He said to His own disciples, so we would have a reliable testimony upon which we can base our salvation. Jesus did not say that He would be giving any information to anyone other than His own at some later date because He did not completely finish His testimony to His own disciples. He could have easily done this, but He did not. Therefore, He must have been sure that what He told His disciples would be enough, and they would need nothing more in order to understand the truth other than His own words that they heard directly from Him.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17:20-21.

And in this Jesus says the because of the testimony of His own disciples (their words) about what He (Jesus) said and did others would be brought to the truth and would believe in what He said. It is through HIS words that comes unity. Whenever the words of someone that is NOT one of His original disciples is put into the mix there comes confusion, which is not what Jesus wanted.

All this shows that when you say that Jesus NEEDED Paul or NEEDED EGW to make clear what HE said, or to explain something HE said, you are speaking a lie, because that is NOT what Jesus said. We need neither Paul, nor EGW, nor anyone other than the words of Jesus as recorded faithfully by His disciples and protected down through the ages by the Holy Spirit, so we can trust that which is recorded in the eyewitness testimony is faithful and true, and is all we need for our salvation.

You can believe otherwise, but then believing a lie is always easier than believing the truth.

[John317]

What part about 'It is Finished' don't you understand?

Can you show from the Bible that when Christ said, "It is finished," He signified that He had said everything that would ever need to be said to humanity?

The NT shows that those words actually had reference to the fact that His sacrifice was complete and final and would never need to be repeated. His shed blood at the cross ratified the new covenant. Satan was already a defeated foe from that point on, and the salvation of those who put their faith in Him was guaranteed. Nothing more would need to be added to that sacrifice.

This is not to say that the atonement was finished. Nor that the whole plan of redemption was complete. But the sacrifice of atonement certainly was.

[John317]

I would think that as a writer who is concerned with telling the truth to his readers, you would want to take about 3 minutes to look up Acts 2: 3 to see if what you wrote in your book is true.

You base an important belief on your understanding of Acts 2: 3. You said that it shows it wasn't the Holy Spirit but the devil who inspired Peter on the day of Pentecost.

Do you have a Greek Bible, or a Greek-English Interlinear?

Have you checked out the online Greek text of Acts 2: 3 yet?

[John317]

EXACTLY! Jesus DID reveal EVERYTHING that He needed to in order for His bondservants to know what they needed to accomplish before His return.

How can you say this, when it isn't even what Lysimachus wrote in his post?

"Exactly" indicates that you are agreeing with what he said. Actually, however, Lysimachus was saying just the opposite: he is saying Christ did not say everything He would need to say to humanity before His return. Christ merely established the foundation of the gospel, but He didn't reveal everything that needed to be revealed.

That is clear. Otherwise, there would have been no need to inspire John the Beloved with the Apocalypse. And that book shows us that there would be more prophecy given to the church before the second coming.

Therefore you are not even accepting the evidence that Christ Himself gave in the book of Revelation that His people could expect more from Him.

This fact is also made plain in Acts, and in the books of Ephesians, 1 Cor., and 1 Thess.

[Lysimachus]

Musicman,

You seem to be forgetting some simple, basic facts:

1. Both Paul and Luke had DIRECT communication with Christ's Disciples. Therefore, they WERE witnesses indeed, because they got it from the direct sources who walked with Christ.

2. Jesus DID directly communicate to Paul on the road to Damascus, and in vision. Although Jesus was not on earth to communicate with Paul, Jesus can be everywhere through His Spirit, and communicated directly to Paul.

Jesus is not limited to communicate His message to messengers who were only physically in His presence. To think such is to limit God, and is a deception.

And by the way, Peter did endorse Paul's writings:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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 wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Musicman1228]

Musicman,

You seem to be forgetting some simple, basic facts:

1. Both Paul and Luke had DIRECT communication with Christ's Disciples. Therefore, they WERE witnesses indeed, because they got it from the direct sources who walked with Christ.

2. Jesus DID directly communicate to Paul on the road to Damascus, and in vision. Although Jesus was not on earth to communicate with Paul, Jesus can be everywhere through His Spirit, and communicated directly to Paul.

Jesus is not limited to communicate His message to messengers who were only physically in His presence. To think such is to limit God, and is a deception.

And by the way, Peter did endorse Paul's writings:

Originally Posted By: 2 Peter 3:15,16

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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 wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

What part of this don't you understand?

Please do your homework before you make statements that have no meaning. It would have been impossible for the actual apostle Peter to have written what you say he did in 2 Peter because at the time this book was written the apostle Peter WAS DEAD. Check it out for yourself before you assume something that is not true.

Peter NEVER endorsed either Paul or what Paul wrote, either in his letters of in the gospel of Luke, and there is no proof to this effect.

We have only Paul's own words that he was 'accosted' and physically damaged by Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul has 3 different versions of this encounter in his letters, so which one is the truth. One of the most significant elements that tells me that it was not the real Jesus that threw Paul off his horse is that this 'being' said that he 'becomes strong when others become weak'. The true God of Heaven does not need to feed off of the power of mere humans to gain more power for himself. This is what Satan does, not the God of Creation.

You have described perfectly what second hand information looks like when you say that both Luke and Paul had to ask the original disciples what actually occurred during the life of Jesus. You have just admitted that both Paul and Luke were NOT eyewitnesses, which is what I have been saying all along. It seems we are actually in agreement on this point. Good for you.

[Lysimachus]

Please do your homework before you make statements that have no meaning. It would have been impossible for the actual apostle Peter to have written what you say he did in 2 Peter because at the time this book was written the apostle Peter WAS DEAD. Check it out for yourself before you assume something that is not true.

Peter NEVER endorsed either Paul or what Paul wrote, either in his letters of in the gospel of Luke, and there is no proof to this effect.

We have only Paul's own words that he was 'accosted' and physically damaged by Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul has 3 different versions of this encounter in his letters, so which one is the truth. One of the most significant elements that tells me that it was not the real Jesus that threw Paul off his horse is that this 'being' said that he 'becomes strong when others become weak'. The true God of Heaven does not need to feed off of the power of mere humans to gain more power for himself. This is what Satan does, not the God of Creation.

You have described perfectly what second hand information looks like when you say that both Luke and Paul had to ask the original disciples what actually occurred during the life of Jesus. You have just admitted that both Paul and Luke were NOT eyewitnesses, which is what I have been saying all along. It seems we are actually in agreement on this point. Good for you.

I cannot believe I am even wasting my time arguing with you on this. This is such madness, and I mean such MADNESS, that I do not even know where to begin.

WHO says Peter was dead before that letter was written? WHO SAID?

Can you prove this with 100% certainty? Or are you relying on some flawed dating methods? Or perhaps some unreliable, suspicious accounts?

So now you seem to be saying that not just Paul's writings can't be trusted, but neither can PETER'S! Wow. Okay, I see how this goes. I'm convinced you've really gone off the deep end Musicman.

[Lysimachus]

My point is that one does not need to be a PHYSICAL eye-witness in order to be a witness for Christ. In order to be inspired. There were THOUSANDS of prophets that walked the earth before Jesus ever came on this earth, yet they were inspired!

The same effect can be after Christ too.

[John317]

Please do your homework before you make statements that have no meaning. It would have been impossible for the actual apostle Peter to have written what you say he did in 2 Peter because at the time this book was written the apostle Peter WAS DEAD. Check it out for yourself before you assume something that is not true.

What you are repeating here are the views of liberal scholars, and there is no certainty that Peter was dead at the time that 2 Peter was written. That is a theory, and it is based on assumptions that may not be true. One such assumption that cannot be proven is that 2 Peter copied Jude. We don't know this, since it's just as likely that Jude copied 2 Peter or that both Jude and 2 Peter copied from a separate source.

But even if 2 Peter was circulated after the death of Peter, it wouldn't necessarily mean that Peter didn't write the original letter. It's entirely possible that Peter wrote or dictated the original in Aramaic and it was later edited and translated into Greek by Peter's associates.

In any case, we know for sure that the early church soundly rejected the practice of writing under an apostolic pseudonym, regarding it as outright forgery.

[John317]

Peter NEVER endorsed either Paul or what Paul wrote, either in his letters of in the gospel of Luke, and there is no proof to this effect.

This is merely your claim, and it contradicts the NT evidence.

Why would we do that when you have already proved that you say things without knowing what you're talking about?

For instance, there's your wild claim that Acts 2: 3 uses the singular noun glossa when in fact it uses the plural noun glwssai? What's truly amazing is that you use this mistaken idea to conclude that the devil inspired Peter on the day of Pentecost.

I noticed the other day, too, that you mistook a Hebrew verb for an adjective, yet you obviously had no idea that you were doing this.

On the basis of these things, do you really expect us to reject the Bible and accept your claims?

[John317]

We have only Paul's own words that he was 'accosted' and physically damaged by Jesus on the road to Damascus.

This is absolutely false.

We have the witness of Ananias, to whom the Lord gave a vision about Paul and his experience on the road to Damascus. Ananias was a well-known and highly respected follower of Christ in the early church. I will take his word for it over yours.

There's also the witness of thousands of early Christians who saw Paul and knew Him to be a genuine apostle.

It's simply incredible that you would accuse Paul of being a false apostle after he wrote the Epistles and after raising up so many churches and being persecuted and suffering as Paul did for His faith in Jesus Christ.

[Lysimachus]

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid." (1SM, 207)

When she said this, she meant it.

And Musicman thinks she was joking. No, for your information Musicman, EGW wasn't joking. She knew what she was talking about. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. You could never utter these words with such authority as she could speak with.

[John317]

Paul has 3 different versions of this encounter in his letters, so which one is the truth.

We've been over this before, MM, and all it shows [again] is that you misunderstand what the NT is saying.

Please tell us how the versions differ or contradict each other.

It is strange how you repeat the same false claims over and over again, even though you've been proven repeatedly to be in error on this very point as well as on many others.

[Musicman1228]

My point is that one does not need to be a PHYSICAL eye-witness in order to be a witness for Christ. In order to be inspired. There were THOUSANDS of prophets that walked the earth before Jesus ever came on this earth, yet they were inspired!

The same effect can be after Christ too.

You asked me to prove that Peter was dead when 2 Peter was written. I'll tell you what. I will do that IF you will prove to me that there were thousands of prophets that walked the earth before Jesus came to earth. Documentation for Peter is EASY, if you have any ability as scholarship rather than faith. Is what you have asserted provable? If it is, show me.

[John317]

One of the most significant elements that tells me that it was not the real Jesus that threw Paul off his horse is that this 'being' said that he 'becomes strong when others become weak'. The true God of Heaven does not need to feed off of the power of mere humans to gain more power for himself. This is what Satan does, not the God of Creation.

That is more foolishness, MM.

You obviously don't even understand the significance of 2 Cor. 12: 9.

You're repeating here the same untrue, groundless claims that are found in your book.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

You have described perfectly what second hand information looks like when you say that both Luke and Paul had to ask the original disciples what actually occurred during the life of Jesus. You have just admitted that both Paul and Luke were NOT eyewitnesses, which is what I have been saying all along.

It's a well established fact that Paul and Luke were not among the original disciples of Christ. Everyone knows this.

Luke says at the beginning of his books that he got his information from the actual eyewitnesses to the events he describes. Luke was a very careful reearcher and historian of Christ's life and of the early church.

Paul did not know Christ before His ascension, but Christ did reveal Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus and at different times after that. See Gal. 1 and 2 and 2 Cor. 12: 2, 4.

The proof that Paul was telling the truth is in the books he wrote and in the book of Acts. I know that his writings are of God because of what they have accomplished in my life and in the lives of tens of millions of followers of Jesus Christ.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

We have only Paul's own words that he was 'accosted' and physically damaged by Jesus on the road to Damascus.

This is absolutely false.

We have the witness of Ananias, to whom the Lord gave a vision about Paul and his experience on the road to Damascus. Ananias was a well-known and highly respected follower of Christ in the early church. I will take his word for it over yours.

There's also the witness of thousands of early Christians who saw Paul and knew Him to be a genuine apostle.

It's simply incredible that you would accuse Paul of being a false apostle after he wrote the Epistles and after raising up so many churches and being persecuted and suffering as Paul did for His faith in Jesus Christ.

OK John, show me who Ananias was, and who authorized him to act as a prophet. And just as Lysimachus you say there are "thousands" of early Christians who believed Paul was a 'genuine Apostle'. You make this statement as if everyone should believe it just because you said it.

To use your own words "It's simply incredible" that you should believe that Paul is a 'genuine apostle' of God WITHOUT a single corroborating bit of evidence that comes from an eyewitness OTHER than Paul himself. NO ONE saw what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus INCLUDING PAUL HIMSELF, because he had been blinded so he could not see a thing. He never saw the being that called himself 'Jesus'. No one who was with him saw a thing, and no one who was there heard the words that Paul heard. We only have Paul own testimony that what he heard was the truth. What happened to the idea that two witnesses were needed to prove guilt or innocence? When Paul speaks about himself there is only ONE witness, which to me immediately calls into question anything he says.

I must admit, John, your faith is much greater than mine. It must be for you to be able to believe what you believe about Paul.