Leodicean wrote, "For there to be false prophets, there have to be true prophets that will arise. But all must be tested against what has gone before. If the writings do not agree with previous testimony, then they are false."
Your first sentence is what is known as a logical fallacy; that is, a statement you believe to be true just because you stated it. You have shown no proof for the validity of this statement yet you expect me to accept it on the strength of your word and your word alone. I'm sorry, this is something I am not prepared to do.
Soon, here is the definition of logical fallacy: "An element of an argument that is flawed, essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire argument, invalid."
Here are a couple of examples of a logical fallacy:
Fallacy 1.
"Your first sentence is what is known as a logical fallacy; that is, a statement you believe to be true just because you stated it."
The fallacy of that argument of yours is that you believe and are promoting the belief that I've made a statement that I believe to be true
just because I stated it. If anything, you'd do better to call my statement circular reasoning, not a fallacy. But it is not even circular reasoning.
Fallacy 2.
"You have shown no proof for the validity of this statement yet you expect me to accept it on the strength of your word and your word alone."
I expect nothing of you, Soon, so to suggest that I expect you to accept my statements on the strength of my word and my word alone, is a fallacy.
Please try not to put words in my mouth. It would be better to ask than to assume.
Now as to the truth of the statement "For there to be false prophets, there have to be true prophets," this is a truism, not a fallacy. A truism is a self-evident truth. For anything to be considered
false, there has to be a
true in existence. Do you need Jesus to say this specific truism before you will use the reasoning power that God gave you to come to the same conclusion?
What you are saying is that Jesus means one thing when He says another.
I am saying no such thing. Maybe, through your filter, it gets interpreted that way, but believe me, that is not what I am saying.
We have eyewitness evidence that Jesus said that there would be false prophets AND false apostles (Matt. 24:4-5, Rev.2:2, Rev. 2:19-23). Nowhere did Jesus actually say there would be true prophets or apostles.
Then that should rule out John as a prophet, for he received his visions AFTER Christ left this earth. And if you are using the definition of "apostle" to mean one of the twelve disciples, then I can see why you have closed that box. But "apostle" also means messenger or ambassador.
I think you have closed your world down into a tiny little box that permits no reasoning. There are a lot of things that Jesus did not say. He did not say that we should get daily physical exercise, yet we try to do so because
"our bodies are the temple of God" and we try to keep it healthy. God expects us to use the reasoning ability that He has given us.
So in your mind the absence of a definitive statement to the contrary confirms the initial statement. In other words; Jesus said one thing but actually meant another. What this says to me is that you consider it a legitimate practice to add to what Jesus said to prove a point you wish to make on your own. I do not find that this practice will lead to the truth. The minute an individual starts changing the content of what Jesus said for their own purposes makes finding truth impossible.
please note that you have added a lot of
your own opinion here as to what Jesus really meant when He said that there would be false christs and false prophets. You have added your belief that it means that there will be never any true prophets ever again, and that would include John the Revelator, whose visions came after Christ went back to heaven.
Leodicean said, "Since Jesus is the anchor for what is truth, then all writings that occur after His time must agree with what He says, and must agree with the Old Testament scriptures which Jesus validated by quoting from them."
In this I agree with you 100%. But I take this to it's logical conclusion by not only taking Jesus a what He says but also taking Paul or anyone else at exactly what they say. Anyone can create agreement when they change opposing ideas to fit their own personal needs.
what are my own personal needs in this matter? You seem to know a lot more about me than I do.
Actually, I think the problem here is you have read some books that oppose Paul and you have allowed those humans, those false "prophets" to confuse your thinking. Their writings have become more persuasive to you than Scripture is. You are following fallible men down a wrong path and are being deceived.
But when you accept that both Paul and Jesus meant exactly what they said and don't change anything you will find an abundance of conflicting information and theology that can only be reconciled by believing one and rejecting the other. Personally, I don't want to be on the receiving end of the judgement that falls to the one that chooses the words of anyone over the words of Jesus Christ. I am not willing to take that risk. You are, of course, able to do what you want, even choose the writing of a fallible human being over the infallible words and teachings of the Son of God. If you do that then you are a LOT braver than I am.
Remember the writings of the fallible human beings that you have read that have convinced you that Paul is not an apostle? You have made them to be more inspired than the Holy Spirit. And I am not about to believe
your fallible writings based on
their fallible opinions of Scripture.
I'm with BFA on this, it is past time to move on from this subject. How about it? Shall we?
