Maybe another example: Let's say that in 100 years our Dale Ratzlaff IV, Ratzlaff's great grandson, has given up his belief in Paul, attacks the church for believing in Paul, and takes his great-granddad's writings, and reads me writings here and my references to Jim Fleming's "Acts, New Discoveries from the Early Church" and similar studies, and accuses his great-grandpa, me and Dr. Fleming of conspiring together in secret meetings to make a cover up of Paul.

No, no, no. Ratzlaff has his views of Paul, and I have my views (based on Fleming and others) Ratslaff and I have never met. He could very well have not heard of Fleming nor the new studies of Paul. Even if he has he clearly prefers the tradition to the facts. Ratzlaff, Flemming and I are not in some conspiricy for his Grandchildren to think that we are going to try to think that Paul fit's the fundamentalist standard and cover up the facts that he doesn't so that his great-grandson can say that we deceived him. (Isn't that correct Dale and Jim? and if I can improve this post we can discuss it in our next secret meeting)

Again, I say no need to struggle with whether or not God gave His messengers the words. Just read what Jesus said, for He is God.

Hey, Doug! I think I found some more of those secret meeting dudes!

Hey, Doug! I think I found some more of those secret meeting dudes! [/quote]These "secret meeting dudes" sound positively dangerous. Im going to see my Jesuit Counsellor