101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

[Natural Citizen]

Seems like you're kind of backing off a little bit on your conclusions, Paul. Well...as conclusions go, I suppose. Of course, I see a wall of words, too, so maybe I'm missing something there.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Seems like you're kind of backing off a little bit on your conclusions, Paul. Well...as conclusions go, I suppose. Of course, I see a wall of words, too, so maybe I'm missing something there.

I'm afraid I don't understand. What conclusions did I make and how am I backing off of them?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The simple fact is that we don't ask these questions about other historical texts. If we find an apparent contradiction in accounts of the civil war, we assume that there is some way to explain it unless there simply is no other explanation. Skeptics like to say this is "creative exegesis", but when it comes to any other historical text, any historian worth his salt would seek to understand why both statements were made instead of simply assuming that the author had some ulterior motive or was just incompetent and dismissing alternative explanations as "creative interpretation".

A Bible skeptic would make a terrible historian.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm afraid I don't understand. What conclusions did I make and how am I backing off of them?

Your frame. Seems like you've reframed your points a bit. Like I said, though, I'm looking at a wall of words here. I haven't read through each and every comment/thought. Seems like the discussion has gone in a bit of a different direction. Conclusion was likely the wrong word to use there.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Your frame. Seems like you've reframed your points a bit. Like I said, though, I'm looking at a wall of words here. I haven't read through each and every comment/thought. Seems like the discussion has gone in a bit of a different direction. Conclusion was likely the wrong word to use there.

Well, maybe you should read my comments and try to understand what I'm saying before telling me what I'm doing since you don't even seem to know what you're trying to say.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Meh. Nevermind, man. Forget I said anything. Carry on...

 

[Crashland]

I never claimed that authenticity equaled accuracy or truthfulness, but at the same time, its authenticity should not be ignored because it does give us some information on how much the document has changed over time, which is to say, very little. We can conclude from this that it has not been corrupted and that we can measure claims of contradictions according to how close it is to the original. This may even help the people claiming contradictions, since it gets us closer to the original document, which is the one they are trying to attack. However, as we've seen, almost all contradictions are either easily explained or probably attributable to a very small scribal error. We would give any less authentic historical writing the same benefit of the doubt because it makes less sense to say that the authors of the manuscript were either lying or stupid than it does to say that there is some way to reconcile the two claims. Thus, if the non-believer wants to prove that there are contradictions, he must provide airtight evidence that the document cannot be interpreted any other way. The burden of proof rests SOLELY on the skeptic's shoulders, just as it would for skeptics of written accounts from ancient Rome.

False. The burden of proof lies solely on the skeptic in this case. To compare this to God's existence is a category error because the burden of proof shifts based on what we expect. In the case of God's existence, we have no expectations so the burden of proof lies equally on both sides. However, when it comes to studying ancient documents, the expectation is that the authors of the texts were sincere and had no ulterior motives. We study every single ancient manuscript with the assumption that the authors of these historical accounts knew what they were talking about and were not attempting to deceive anyone. We do this even with far less authentic texts that have a higher risk of being corrupted. When we do find supposed contradictions, we don't simply assume that the apparently opposing claims have no explanation. The appearance of a contradiction can simply be due to a lack of information or, as is often the case with the Bible, a lack of context. It makes much more sense for historians to search for why both these apparently opposing statements were made rather than to simply assume that they indicate some sort of ulterior motives or incompetence of the authors. So, in light of all this, the burden of proof rests solely and heavily on the Bible skeptic to prove that apparent contradictions are 1) really contradictions and 2) cannot be explained.

You are severely under-representing how easy it is to explain some of these. There are libraries full of books and a vast field of apologetics of people going at great lengths attempting to reconcile apparent Biblical contradictions. To say that the authors were either stupid or lying with an ulterior motive is a false dichotomy. They could also simply be honestly mistaken through no glaring fault of their own. To have contradictory claims is not something that should be unexpected when you compile many different texts from many different authors into a single "authentic" narrative. If we are to find two documents from ancient Rome, and one of them says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Y, and the other one says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Z, then all we have to do is point to the texts themselves to demonstrate a contradiction. It does not make sense to "give them the benefit of the doubt". We are evaluating two different texts from two different authors. Perhaps both of them were simply writing based on the oral tradition in their particular geographic location. If the claim about the contradiction is reasonable from simply looking at the texts, it would then be up to somebody else to demonstrate why it is actually even more reasonable to believe that both of the texts are true.

You are mistaken. This "creative interpretation" is "allowed" WRT every historical text. In order to substantiate the claim that there IS a contradiction, you must first eliminate all possible alternative explanations. If ANY of those explanations is valid, then the authenticity of the text does not suffer a scratch because you don't know if your claim of a contradiction is any more realistic or better than one that doesn't require the assumption that the authors were either deceitful or incompetent. What you are calling "creative exegesis" is really just "exegesis." If it weren't a realistic explanation, then it wouldn't be an explanation at all and, once again, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that no possible explanation can be reasonably applied. You continually claim that all of these explanations are just creative ways of getting around problems, but that assumes there was a problem in the first place. What's more, you have yet to substantiate these claims that such explanations are "creative" or go beyond the boundaries of rational thinking before you can claim that such an explanation is insufficient in some way.

Your standard for establishing a contradiction is *way* too high. If we always had to eliminate all possible alternative explanations, then nothing in the world could ever be asserted as a contradiction. For any possible contradiction, there is an infinite number of possible explanations that can be invoked. Only a subset of those possible explanations are actually reasonable, and that is the part that matters. It all boils down to the question, is it more reasonable to believe that at least one of the statements is incorrect, or is it more reasonable to believe that both of the statements are correct? I would assume that we might differ greatly on whether a particular explanation is realistic. The problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there are no contradictions, and so the most reasonable explanation is considered to be realistic even though an equivalent explanation might not be considered realistic if applied to something other than the Bible.

What I find interesting is that you seem to think making the "positive claim" as you are doing in this case, is somehow EASIER than supporting the negative claim, even though skeptics of God's existence will often claim that they don't even need to support a negative claim but rather simply evaluate the positive. In this case, however, all of a sudden the positive claim is more believable to you even though the negative claim requires no burden of proof. That's where you expose your ignorance, in fact. You acknowledge the fact that we are making the negative claim and yet you will not grant us the lack of a burden of proof.

It is always easier to prove or demonstrate a positive claim than a negative. I am not among the skeptics who "often claim" that they don't need to support a negative claim. You absolutely do have to support a negative claim, but only if you actually make a negative claim. In my perspective, I feel no need to make a negative claim to assert a god's non-existence, so I don't assert that. The thing I do assert is that if there is a god, then its characteristics are probably not the characteristics of god as described in the Bible -- and on that point I do have a burden of proof, which is a whole separate topic.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You are severely under-representing how easy it is to explain some of these. There are libraries full of books and a vast field of apologetics of people going at great lengths attempting to reconcile apparent Biblical contradictions. To say that the authors were either stupid or lying with an ulterior motive is a false dichotomy. They could also simply be honestly mistaken through no glaring fault of their own. To have contradictory claims is not something that should be unexpected when you compile many different texts from many different authors into a single "authentic" narrative. If we are to find two documents from ancient Rome, and one of them says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Y, and the other one says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Z, then all we have to do is point to the texts themselves to demonstrate a contradiction. It does not make sense to "give them the benefit of the doubt". We are evaluating two different texts from two different authors. Perhaps both of them were simply writing based on the oral tradition in their particular geographic location. If the claim about the contradiction is reasonable from simply looking at the texts, it would then be up to somebody else to demonstrate why it is actually even more reasonable to believe that both of the texts are true.

There are books answering these contradictions because there are just as many Bible critics spending just as much time dreaming up creative ways to make the Bible contradict itself. Surely the existence of answers can't be construed as some sort of evidence that the answers are shaky or unreasonably "creative". And you're right, it's a false dichotomy, but the simple fact is that we don't assume two authors came to completely different conclusions about a fact that they were apparently both witnesses to. That would suggest there was something seriously wrong with one of their accounts, but if we're going to make that conclusion, the burden of proof is on the person who says there was something wrong with their accounts rather than the ones who say context is important and an apparent contradiction can probably be explained by something other than any mistake at all, never mind an "honest" one. You can't just pull two seemingly opposing statements out of a text and assume they're some sort of mistake. You first have to look at the context, and that's what all of these "libraries" of defenses against the supposed contradictions are doing. They're pointing out context that the many skeptics readily leave out because they have no interest in the context. They're just looking for mistakes and not being objective, so yeah, it takes a lot of work to respond to people who cause undue doubt about the congruence of the Biblical narrative by carelessly searching out anything that seems a little strange to them and automatically labeling it a "contradiction."

Your standard for establishing a contradiction is *way* too high. If we always had to eliminate all possible alternative explanations, then nothing in the world could ever be asserted as a contradiction. For any possible contradiction, there is an infinite number of possible explanations that can be invoked. Only a subset of those possible explanations are actually reasonable, and that is the part that matters. It all boils down to the question, is it more reasonable to believe that at least one of the statements is incorrect, or is it more reasonable to believe that both of the statements are correct? I would assume that we might differ greatly on whether a particular explanation is realistic. The problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there are no contradictions, and so the most reasonable explanation is considered to be realistic even though an equivalent explanation might not be considered realistic if applied to something other than the Bible.

You're attributing a standard to me that I never gave, which is a straw man argument. OF COURSE I am talking about reasonable explanations, not ridiculous ones. All we have to do is point out one possible explanation that fits all the facts and doesn't generate more questions than it answers. The burden of proof is on you that we can't do that. You have to prove, first, that there is no reasonable explanation for the facts in the narrative. For every "contradiction" offered, there are usually multiple REASONABLE theories that make the two statements compatible. You have to prove that all of those explanations fail in order to establish that an actual contradiction is the most reasonable explanation.

It is always easier to prove or demonstrate a positive claim than a negative. I am not among the skeptics who "often claim" that they don't need to support a negative claim. You absolutely do have to support a negative claim, but only if you actually make a negative claim. In my perspective, I feel no need to make a negative claim to assert a god's non-existence, so I don't assert that. The thing I do assert is that if there is a god, then its characteristics are probably not the characteristics of god as described in the Bible -- and on that point I do have a burden of proof, which is a whole separate topic.

Yes, it is, and I think you're wrong about that, too, but more to the point, the burden of proof lies solely on you, the skeptic, to prove that there's a contradiction. This is the way it's done in evaluating historical texts. You can't give equal weight to the "mistake" theory as you do to the "there must be an explanation" theory. Historians always look for an explanation before chalking it up to some kind of "mistake" because investigating why the two claims were made may open up opportunities for further discovery.

So before you tell Christians that they are just coming up with creative excuses to avoid a problem, you need to question whether there was actually a problem in the first place. As with all ancient texts, you need to prove that one of the accounts can't be trusted, and if you fail to prove it, then the accounts in the Bible come out just as unscathed as before you showed up.

 

[Crashland]

There are books answering these contradictions because there are just as many making the claims that they exist. Surely the existence of answers can't be construed as some sort of evidence that the answers are shaky or unreasonably "creative". And you're right, it's a false dichotomy, but the simple fact is that we don't assume two authors came to completely different conclusions about a fact that they were apparently both witnesses to. That would suggest there was something seriously wrong with one of their accounts, but if we're going to make that conclusion, the burden of proof is on the person who says there was something wrong with their accounts rather than the ones who say context is important and an apparent contradiction can probably be explained by something other than any mistake at all, never mind an "honest" one. You can't just pull two seemingly opposing statements out of a text and assume they're some sort of mistake. You first have to look at the context, and that's what all of these "libraries" of defenses against the supposed contradictions are doing. They're pointing out context that the many skeptics readily leave out because they have no interest in the context. They're just looking for mistakes and not being objective, so yeah, it takes a lot of work to respond to people who cause undue doubt about the congruence of the Biblical narrative by carelessly searching out anything that seems a little strange to them and automatically labeling it a "contradiction."



You're attributing a standard to me that I never gave, which is a straw man argument. OF COURSE I am talking about reasonable explanations, not ridiculous ones. All we have to do is point out one possible explanation that fits all the facts and doesn't generate more questions than it answers. The burden of proof is on you that we can't do that. You have to prove, first, that there is no reasonable explanation for the facts in the narrative. For every "contradiction" offered, there are usually multiple REASONABLE theories that make the two statements compatible. You have to prove that all of those explanations fail in order to establish that an actual contradiction is the most reasonable explanation.



Yes, it is, and I think you're wrong about that, too, but more to the point, the burden of proof lies solely on you, the skeptic, to prove that there's a contradiction. This is the way it's done in evaluating historical texts. You can't give equal weight to the "mistake" theory as you do to the "there must be an explanation" theory. Historians always look for an explanation before chalking it up to some kind of "mistake" because investigating why the two claims were made may open up opportunities for further discovery.

So before you tell Christians that they are just coming up with creative excuses to avoid a problem, you need to question whether there was actually a problem in the first place. As with all ancient texts, you need to prove that one of the accounts can't be trusted, and if you fail to prove it, then the accounts in the Bible come out just as unscathed as before you showed up.

I agree with, well, almost everything in the above post. I don't think we will get much further though if we are just looking at a high level with a laundry list of contradictions, because now we are just speaking in generalizations about the kinds of contradictions that tend to get claimed and the kinds of explanations that tend to get offered. But that's this thread for you.

Actually, personally I don't think that the Bible being errant or having contradictions is really much of an impediment to belief in the message of Christianity. Or in other words, I think Christians are making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves and for convincing nonbelievers by maintaining a standard of inerrancy. The things that bother me are logical or observational contradictions, not historical/factual ones.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I agree with, well, almost everything in the above post. I don't think we will get much further though if we are just looking at a high level with a laundry list of contradictions, because now we are just speaking in generalizations about the kinds of contradictions that tend to get claimed and the kinds of explanations that tend to get offered. But that's this thread for you.

Actually, personally I don't think that the Bible being errant or having contradictions is really much of an impediment to belief in the message of Christianity. Or in other words, I think Christians are making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves and for convincing nonbelievers by maintaining a standard of inerrancy. The things that bother me are logical or observational contradictions, not historical/factual ones.

Good assessment. Atheists can't just throw a bunch of crap against a wall and see what sticks. They actually have to take a concrete stance in order to make any sort of argument, but what seems to be the trend is that they just generate these contradictions in machine gun fashion and leave the Christians with the mess.

There are many Christians who don't believe Bible inerrancy is important, but I disagree on that point because I do think an inerrant God is capable of making a script that accurately reflects what He wants to convey to people. Notice, however, the important distinction between the original manuscript and the ones that came after it. The fact that copies may have small scribal errors says nothing about what God is able to convey, although He still could have allowed such mistakes to be made by humans for a particular purpose because He happens to want the message to be continued in a particular way. For instance, the existence of these small scribal errors, rather than being a bad thing, help verify that the text has never been completely under the control of any particular sect and subsequently corrupted.

Despite all of this, however, there is no evidence that any of this significantly changes the meaning of the original message and the authenticity of the text really does help to establish the uniqueness of Christianity apart from any other religion, since no other text even comes close to the Bible's standard for authenticity.

 

[Crashland]

Good assessment. Atheists can't just throw a bunch of crap against a wall and see what sticks. They actually have to take a concrete stance in order to make any sort of argument, but what seems to be the trend is that they just generate these contradictions in machine gun fashion and leave the Christians with the mess.

The crap against the wall helps reinforce a confirmation bias for non-Christians and also serves to motivate Christians to look at the Bible with a more critical eye, even if it just turns out to be consulting Christian apologetics. I suppose it has its purpose but I am not a fan and IMO it makes non-Christian arguments look weaker when bad arguments are all lumped in with good points in the machine gun ammo.

There are many Christians who don't believe Bible inerrancy is important, but I disagree on that point because I do think an inerrant God is capable of making a script that accurately reflects what He wants to convey to people. Notice, however, the important distinction between the original manuscript and the ones that came after it. The fact that copies may have small scribal errors says nothing about what God is able to convey, although He still could have allowed such mistakes to be made by humans for a particular purpose because He happens to want the message to be continued in a particular way. For instance, the existence of these small scribal errors, rather than being a bad thing, help verify that the text has never been completely under the control of any particular sect and subsequently corrupted.

Despite all of this, however, there is no evidence that any of this significantly changes the meaning of the original message and the authenticity of the text really does help to establish the uniqueness of Christianity apart from any other religion, since no other text even comes close to the Bible's standard for authenticity.

An inerrant God would be capable of that for sure, but what he wants to convey might not include the age of this or that person when they died or how many people showed up at this or that gathering. I don't really see an inherent problem with God using an errant script to convey an inerrant message. I mean, in the Bible God himself uses imperfect people to carry out his will all the time.

 

[TER]

The Holy Scriptures is inerrant in skopos, that is, in the general message and revelation of God that is being revealed, namely that God is the Creator and that He became Man in order to save humankind from death. That there seems to be contradictions or inconsistencies should not be a cause for alarm, for while the various texts were inspired by God, they were written and copied and translated by men, who are not infallible, for only God is infallible. In fact, if any version could even claim to be infallible, it would at least have to be the original writings, in the original language, and even then, human error could be a factor.

Thus, just as an icon or image of Christ which a prayerful man may draw using lines and colors may not resemble inerrantly the visage of Jesus Christ, likewise the icon or image of the Word of God in letters and words may contain inconsequential inconsistencies by appearance. These do not diminish the skopos or greater message being revealed.

Apparent inconsistencies are only a problem for those who have erroneously made the Bible into God Himself and thus cannot tolerate any deviation or inaccuracies, for God is perfect, and thus, if the Scriptures are idolized as God, then they too cannot have any inaccuracies. But this is an improper understanding of the Scriptures. The Logos (which is poorly translated as 'Word' in the English language) of God is not a book, but rather the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

We call the Scriptures 'the Word of God' because it is an icon or image in letters and words of God's revelation in written form, however, there is only One Living Word of God, and He is not a book or a drawing or anything thought up or designed by the mind or hand of man, but rather the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ Who has come from Heaven in order to reveal the Father and offer salvation for mankind.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The Holy Scriptures is inerrant in skopos, that is, in the general message and revelation of God that is being revealed, namely that God is the Creator and that He became Man in order to save humankind from death. That there seems to be contradictions or inconsistencies should not be a cause for alarm, for while the various texts were inspired by God, they were written and copied and translated by men, who are not infallible, for only God is infallible. In fact, if any version could even claim to be infallible, it would at least have to be the original writings, in the original language, and even then, human error could be a factor.

Thus, just as an icon or image of Christ which a prayerful man may draw using lines and colors may not resemble inerrantly the visage of Jesus Christ, likewise the icon or image of the Word of God in letters and words may contain inconsequential inconsistencies by appearance. These do not diminish the skopos or greater message being revealed.

Apparent inconsistencies are only a problem for those who have erroneously made the Bible into God Himself and thus cannot tolerate any deviation or inaccuracies, for God is perfect, and thus, if the Scriptures are idolized as God, then they too cannot have any inaccuracies. But this is an improper understanding of the Scriptures. The Logos (which is poorly translated as 'Word' in the English language) of God is not a book, but rather the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

We call the Scriptures 'the Word of God' because it is an icon or image in letters and words of God's revelation in written form, however, there is only One Living Word of God, and He is not a book or a drawing or anything thought up or designed by the mind or hand of man, but rather the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ Who has come from Heaven in order to reveal the Father and offer salvation for mankind.

Then why not just call it what it REALLY is? It currently gets pretty confusing for most folks involved.

Or would that do some great damage to the effectiveness of the ~1,500 year old marketing sales pitch?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Terry1]

The written Bible is basically a guide book and a tool that people use when they're curious as to whom God is and don't really know Him. It's a tangible, physical thing that curious minds can touch and connect with in order to learn more about God because that's all they can relate to at that point is something visible and tangible that they can see and touch.

It's not that the written word is inerrant all by itself--but something spiritual happens to some people who sincerely want to know who God is. God is able to connect with that soul because that soul is His creation in the first place and God is never apart from His own creation. He's aware of who is seeking Him out with a sincere heart and mind. It's those whom God will reveal via His Holy Spirit the revelations of truth that can't be seen with the naked eye in the written word.

So what's inerrant is not the tangible thing that can be felt, touched and read--what is inerrant is Gods truth and given to that person spiritually via the Holy Spirit that opens the door to a spiritual understanding and the meaning of what God is attempting to say to them. What we do as a result of our belief are physical actions because we live in physical bodies. This is also called an *act of faith* being that we act upon our belief by doing something in response to what we've been given spiritually. This is how God works through us as we're called to witness to others in order to win souls for Christ.

The Bible--or the written word is simply something God gave us that's tangible--something that draws us to Him out of curiosity since being made flesh and blood mankind needs the physical and requires it as much as he needs the spirit just the same. After all--the men who wrote it didn't have the written word to go by--only that which was given them via the Spirit of God to pass on to the rest of humanity.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The written Bible is basically a guide book and a tool that people use when they're curious as to whom God is and don't really know Him. It's a tangible, physical thing that curious minds can touch and connect with in order to learn more about God because that's all they can relate to at that point is something visible and tangible that they can see and touch.

It's not that the written word is inerrant all by itself--but something spiritual happens to some people who sincerely want to know who God is. God is able to connect with that soul because that soul is His creation in the first place and God is never apart from His own creation. He's aware of who is seeking Him out with a sincere heart and mind. It's those whom God will reveal via His Holy Spirit the revelations of truth that can't be seen with the naked eye in the written word.

So what's inerrant is not the tangible thing that can be felt, touched and read--what is inerrant is Gods truth and given to that person spiritually via the Holy Spirit that opens the door to a spiritual understanding and the meaning of what God is attempting to say to them. What we do as a result of our belief are physical actions because we live in physical bodies. This is also called an *act of faith* being that we act upon our belief by doing something in response to what we've been given spiritually. This is how God works through us as we're called to witness to others in order to win souls for Christ.

The Bible--or the written word is simply something God gave us that's tangible--something that draws us to Him out of curiosity since being made flesh and blood mankind needs the physical and requires it as much as he needs the spirit just the same. After all--the men who wrote it didn't have the written word to go by--only that which was given them via the Spirit of God to pass on to the rest of humanity.

STOP! You're beginning to sound like TER, and it's freaking me out. LOL!

 

[Terry1]

STOP! You're beginning to sound like TER, and it's freaking me out. LOL!

We do sort of *echo each other in our belief. I tend to agree with TER more than not.

 

[PierzStyx]

Even that needs to be questioned and examined because a lot of people want to call themselves "prophets" these days and are teaching false prophecies. Better to trust in the Lord via the Holy Spirit. That way you get it straight from the horse mouth. Bible says there will be tons of false prophets popping up in the last days.

It does, but why? If it was just a matter of all prophets in the last days being false, wouldn't the Lord just have warned against anyone claiming to be a prophet? But He doesn't, instead He warns us not against all prophets but against false prophets. To me He is warning us that there will be true prophets as well as false prophets, and by following His wisdom to look to their fruits we can know the false from the true.

That is the absolute key. You are absolutely correct that we need the Holy Spirit to be our guide. The testimony of the Spirit is, for me, the essential "fruit" to judge by, after all even good doctrines and righteous acts will be looked down upon by the wicked and be discounted by the deceived. Only the Holy Spirit can grant true discernment on spiritual things.

And that is why I believe in modern prophets. The Holy Spirit has testified to me, in my mind, heart, and spirit, that those I listen to are true prophets and of God, true modern apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and true messengers of Heavenly Father speaking His words and guiding His church.

 

[Ronin Truth]

It does, but why? If it was just a matter of all prophets in the last days being false, wouldn't the Lord just have warned against anyone claiming to be a prophet? But He doesn't, instead He warns us not against all prophets but against false prophets. To me He is warning us that there will be true prophets as well as false prophets, and by following His wisdom to look to their fruits we can know the false from the true.

That is the absolute key. You are absolutely correct that we need the Holy Spirit to be our guide. The testimony of the Spirit is, for me, the essential "fruit" to judge by, after all even good doctrines and righteous acts will be looked down upon by the wicked and be discounted by the deceived. Only the Holy Spirit can grant true discernment on spiritual things.

And that is why I believe in modern prophets. The Holy Spirit has testified to me, in my mind, heart, and spirit, that those I listen to are true prophets and of God, true modern apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and true messengers of Heavenly Father speaking His words and guiding His church.

Just out of curiosity, are you getting any Holy Spirit vibes about Paul? And if so, what?

Thanks!

 

[S.Shorland]

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b) No(John 1:19-21)

Elijah is likely the first of the coming 'special' people: 1 Elijah 2. Israeli King (false 'jewish' 'messiah') 3. muslim mahdi 4. muslim (false 'jesus') Isa 5.Return of Our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Ronin Truth]

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b) No(John 1:19-21)

Elijah is likely the first of the coming 'special' people: 1 Elijah 2. Israeli King (false 'jewish' 'messiah') 3. muslim mahdi 4. muslim (false 'jesus') Isa 5.Return of Our Lord Jesus Christ

John 1:19-21?