Watchman's Teaching Letter #94 February 2006

This is my ninety-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. With this WTL, we’ll continue our defense of the apostle Paul. At this point, we’ll again turn the narration over to William Finck, and he’ll continue where he left off in lesson #93:

Here we shall continue to address Clayton R. Douglas’ article “The Seduction: Judeo-Christian OR Pauline Christianity?” from the December 2003 issue of his Free American Newsmagazine. I hope to have already pointed out that, while rejecting Paul, in reality Douglas has also rejected much of the rest of the Bible, although he pretends to acknowledge those parts of it which evidently suit his own distorted views. While pretending to be a Christian, most of Douglas’ claims concerning the Bible may get a warm reception from readers of The Trumpet or The Jerusalem Post. Yet because much of Douglas’ audience is Christian, and many of them Israel Identity, his oblique misinterpretations must be addressed.

<Reference #5> Clay Douglas states: “Did you know that Paul/Saul of Tarsus wrote almost two-thirds of the New Testament? I’ll bet you didn’t.”

William Finck answers <#5>: Well, Clayton, you are right, I didn’t know that! Having read the Bible for so many years, I never even imagined it! So we’d better see just how accurate this statement is. The NA27 contains only Greek text, and the Greek footnotes which display textual variations among mss., without wasting any space explaining anything. Its methods are well defined and the scholar’s task is to use them properly, so its text is pretty much evenly distributed across 680 pages. Of the 680 pages of Greek text, 87 of them are the gospel of Matthew, or 12.79%. 62 are Mark’s, or 9.11%. Works attributed to John, his gospel, epistles, and the Revelation, consume 136 pages, or 20%. Already that adds up to 41.90%, so already Douglas’ statement is in error. No wonder I didn’t know that! The epistles of James, Peter and Jude together occupy 30 pages, or 4.41%. The parts written by Luke, both his gospel and Acts, occupy 186 pages, or 27.35%. Paul’s epistles, and there is no doubt in my mind that Hebrews was written by Paul, occupy 179 pages, or 26.32% of the NA27 version of the New Testament. A far cry from “two-thirds”! Even lumping Paul and Luke together, as H. Graber would, we aren’t anywhere near “two-thirds”! How many other times would Douglas state a blatant lie, and looking at you in the eye say “Did you know that ...? I’ll bet you didn’t!”

<Reference #6> Clay Douglas states: “Paul/Saul never met Jesus in the flesh; he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to then pagenize [sic] the teachings of Jesus, until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then [sic] perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever. Why? More on this topic later.”

William Finck answers <#6>: While it is no new revelation that “Paul ... never met Jesus in the flesh”, Paul certainly did not “pagenize [sic] the teachings of” Yahshua Christ! A detailed examination of Paul’s writing would reveal that none of it would be found contrary to either the Old Testament or the recorded words of Yahshua Christ. Yet since Douglas makes only blanket allegations, and offers no specific examples with which to support his blasphemy, I can only respond with general statements. Why doesn’t Douglas offer specifics? Probably because he hasn’t researched anything for himself, but like the hare-brained remark that “Paul ... wrote almost two-thirds of the New Testament”, he is only parroting some dissembler, or more likely, some jew.

Of course, we do not have any writing from Yahshua. Even in the Old Testament, Moses wrote the laws, and prophets wrote down the designs of our Father and Creator. So also in the New Testament era did He select men to record what He wanted us to know. Yet that “there are no known writings from ... the actual Apostles” is another odd statement from someone who would claim to be a Christian! What of not only James, but of Simon Peter? What of Jude, “the servant of Yahshua Christ, and brother of James”? What of Matthew, and especially John? Which, Mr. Clayton R. Douglas, of these ten gospels and epistles were NOT written by the original Apostles? Douglas condemns not only Paul, but the entire New Testament, just like the pagans and the jews! The mark of a prophet, or anyone who claims to be writing in the name of Yahweh (and so Yahshua Christ), is spelled out in Isaiah chapter 41, vv. 21-29. All of the New Testament writers have in some way met this criteria: and especially Paul, yet no jew could possibly understand that! If the prophecy stands the test of time and is revealed (i.e. Romans 16:20, or Luke 21:20-24), then its writer is true, and if the writer is true, woe to the man who would not heed that writer! Remember what happened to those in the days of Hezekiah, who respected not the words of Jeremiah. Now it can be demonstrated that a great deal of the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, which John recorded, has already happened: 2000 years of history written in advance. If Douglas had studied the writings of John in unison with history, he may have arrived at a similar conclusion. Rather, Douglas studies the writings of jews, magicians and charlatans, and so is only able to make idiotic hare-brained remarks! Will all of the scoffers of today go unpunished?

<Reference #7> Clay Douglas states: “Of personal knowledge of Jesus, Paul had none! The philosophies and theologies that he created were of his own conception, and those colored by his education as a Pharisee in a Hellenistic world, and the pagan religions which surrounded him. His own writings evidence these influences.”

William Finck answers <#7>: Here again Douglas spews truths mixed with half-truths and makes blanket allegations while offering no specific instances of error or wrongdoing. Paul, educated in both Judaism (which he later realized was but a corrupted form of the Hebrew religion of his fathers) and in Classical Greek learning, was in a unique position to fulfill the task which Yahweh required: to bring the gospel to the “lost” Israelites of Europe. Only a man who could speak both to Judaeans from a Judaean perspective, and to Greeks from a Greek perspective, had the capability to perform such a task!

Paul was the first teacher of what we today call Israel Identity. I must profess that unless one studies the classics, one is not properly qualified to teach Israel Identity today! This I realized seven years ago, and today I am quite happy that I did, and thankful to Yahweh for it! Without a knowledge of the Greek and Roman myths, one can not convince either Greeks or Romans that they are “lost” Israelites, among those nations descended from Abraham (Genesis 15:5-6; 17:4-6; 35:10-11), as Paul certainly did! Paul must have told the Romans that they were part of “lost” Israel, evidence of which is at Rom. 1:23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32; 9:25-33; 11:13-33; and 16:20, though it is not always easily seen in the blind, judaized, modern translations. Paul explains to the Dorian Greek Corinthians that they descended from the Israelites, i.e. 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and references this often with Old Testament quotes such as that at 2 Cor. 6:16-17. Who was Jeremiah talking about at 31:31-33, or Isaiah at 52:11, but Israel? No one but Israel! And Paul certainly knew it! Likewise Paul tells the Ephesians, descendants of the Israelites, that they “... had at that time been apart from Christ, having been alienated from the civic life of Israel ...” (Eph. 2:12), and the Colossians, also descendants of the Israelites, that “... you at one time being alienated and odious in thought by wicked deeds, yet now He has reconciled ...” (Col. 1:21-22). These translations are my own because the judaized published translations distort Paul’s words terribly, not having any such understanding as Paul did! Therefore, all those taking part in discrediting Paul are doing Yahweh and His Kingdom a very horrible disservice. How could one be alienated from something, unless he had a part in it in the first place? How could one be reconciled to something he knew not beforetime? Both the Colossians and the Ephesians were Israelites, and Paul knew it, and both the Old Testament and the Greek classics reveal it to be so. No classical education? No means by which to prove Israel’s migrations! And Paul certainly would not have pursued non-Israelites, except with one exception which he explains: his visit to the Japhethite Ionians of Athens. It should be becoming clear that it would have been quite difficult for the other eleven apostles to fill Paul’s shoes.

How could Paul tell the Galatians, who were Hellenized Kelts with Greeks and Romans among them, that while the covenants of Yahweh could not be amended, they were included in it because they, not the Edomite-Jews or the Ishmaelite-Arabs, were offspring of Abraham and Jacob (Gal. 3:15-18)? That they were children of Isaac (Gal. 4:28) and of the promise! Only because Paul learned from the classical historians such as Herodotus, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus that the Kelts were indeed the Israelites of the Assyrian deportations, as were the Scythians which Paul mentioned! No classical education? No connection of history to Biblical prophecy, and so none of the revelations of Israel Identity, the very “mystery” which Paul mentions at Ephesians 3:1-9, which I have translated:

“¹ For this cause I, Paul, captive of Christ Yahshua on behalf of you of the Nations, ² if indeed you have heard of the management of the family of the favor of Yahweh which has been given to me in regard to you, ³ seeing that by a revelation the mystery was made known to me (just as I had briefly written before, ⁴ besides which reading you are able to perceive my understanding in the mystery of the Anointed,) ⁵ which in other generations had not been made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed in His holy ambassadors and prophets by the Spirit, ⁶ those Nations which are joint heirs and a joint body and partners of the promise in Christ Yahshua, through the good message ⁷ of which I have become a servant in accordance with the gift of the favor of Yahweh which has been given to me, in accordance with the operation of His power. ⁸ To me, the least of all saints, has been given this favor, to announce the good message to the Nations - the unsearchable riches of the Anointed, ⁹ and to enlighten all concerning the management of the household of the mystery which was concealed from the ages by Yahweh, by whom all things are being established.”

The Prophecy? That Israelites were to become many nations. The mystery? Where they were! To them, and to them only, did Paul deliver the gospel! Without a classical education, Paul never could have accomplished such a task. No wonder that today the jews and their proselytes despise classical education, and have succeeded in removing it from our educational system. Even most Humanities departments in today’s universities are but a parody of those of ages past. Friedrich Nietzsche, much to his discredit, was a professor of the classics at Basel, Switzerland, yet realizing none of this he chose instead to despise Paul and belittle Christianity! Clayton Douglas is his disciple.

<Reference #8> Clay Douglas states: “Paul’s writings clearly contradict Jesus’ teachings. Over and over again. The above reference (l) is just one ofnumerous examples. Jesus was an often-violent reactionary revolutionary. Jesus/lmmanuel NEVER TAUGHT SUBMISSION TO^, ANYONE EXCEPT TO God. So, why is Paul teaching Christians that governmental authority is ‘divinely constituted?’

“Again, Jesus could be quite angry and violent when ‘fighting the good fight’. Let us remember his anger when he chased the merchants from the temple, or when he openly condemned the religious leaders of the time, the Pharisees and the scribes. Here’s the advice He gave before being arrested; ‘...and he who has no sword, sell your coat and buy one ... they said; Lord, look, here are two swords. He said to them: it is enough.’ (Luke 22, 36 to 38).

“Jesus was - therefore - not against changes, but he had chosen to bring these in as non-violent a way as possible, through the persuasion of individuals and action of the masses. But, Jesus did not rule against violence either. When he removed the moneychangers from the religious place, it was with extreme violence. So, why did Paul advocate unquestioning obedience to authority, submission and non-violence? Paul cunningly taught early Christians to ‘wait for the new Messiah’ rather than to fight back against governmental authority even though that same authority sought to enslave them. Paul’s very same message of docility in the face of grave danger cripples Christians today.”

William Finck answers <#8>: Paul’s writings do not contradict the teachings of Yahshua Christ at all! They may contradict Clayton Douglas’ perception of Yahshua’s teaching, and at times the poor translations found in all published editions of the Bible make it seem as though there are contradictions, as this happens even in the gospels, such as at Luke 16:9, an often mistranslated, poorly understood verse. But Paul certainly does not contradict Yahshua, or the Old Testament, once the Greek is studied by someone who has a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament prophecy, of ancient history, and so of Israel Identity, which these other things lead to as Truth. Now Douglas cites Romans 13:1 as an example of Paul’s contradiction. Is Paul truly contradicting Yahshua here? This we shall see!

Romans 13:1-8, as I have translated it, reads: “¹ Every soul must be subject to more powerful authorities. Since there is no authority except from Yahweh, then those who are, by Yahweh are they appointed. ² Consequently, one opposing the authority has opposed the ordinance of Yahweh, and they who are in opposition will themselves receive judgment. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil. Now do you desire to not be fearful of the authority? Practice good, and you will have approval from it; ⁴ A servant of Yahweh is to you for good. But if you practice evil, be fearful; for not without purpose will he bear the sword, indeed a servant of Yahweh is an avenger with wrath to he who has practiced evil. ⁵ On which account to be subordinate is a necessity, not only because of indignation, but also because of conscience. ⁶ For this reason also you pay tribute; they are ministers of Yahweh, obstinately persisting in this same thing. ⁷ Therefore render to all debts: to whom tribute, tribute; to whom taxes, taxes; to whom reverence, reverence; to whom dignity, dignity. ⁸ You owe to no one anything, except to love one another: for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.”

Not only Douglas, but many other well-intended people claiming to be Christians – yet not knowing scripture – despise these words of Paul’s. Here we shall see that they are just! First, no one denies that Yahshua Christ said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). He also said, speaking of temporal government: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto Yahweh the things that are Yahweh’s” (Matt. 22:21). Therefore, since it is Christ’s clearly stated intention that the prophets, as well as the law, should be fulfilled, it certainly would be appropriate here to examine just what the prophets say concerning temporal governments.

In Leviticus chapter 26 the children of Israel were told what to expect if they were obedient to Yahweh and His covenants, and what to expect if they were disobedient, which we know that they were. One of the consequences of disobedience was “seven times” of punishment. A prophetic “time”, as can be demonstrated and as we have often done elsewhere, is 360 years. Seven times is therefore 2520 years. By most of the better students of Biblical prophecy, it has been stated that this 2520 years of punishment began as the Israelites, along with most of Judah too, were taken into captivity by the Assyrians. Adam Rutherford, Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet, Clifton Emahiser and surely many others have all elucidated as much.

In 1 Samuel chapter 8, it is recorded that the children of Israel rejected Yahweh as their King, and demanded a temporal king, which Yahweh thus permitted. Now if Clayton Douglas is upset with temporal governments, here it should be obvious: he has none but his own grandfathers to blame for the situation! And so this is the predicament we are all in.

Some time after the children of Israel were taken away by the Assyrians, Daniel the prophet was given to recording several visions for us. One tells us, as we have interpreted it, that the Babylonian system will be with us for seven times, or 2520 years, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar. This is found in Daniel chapter 4 and was discussed at length by Clifton Emahiser in his WTL #61 and elsewhere. It is beyond the scope of my purpose here to explain all of the details at length, which surely would take some time. In Daniel chapter 2 the prophet is given a vision of four great empires which would succeed one another, and then a fifth which would break in pieces all of the first four, and itself would last forever.

Daniel chapter 7 is a vision much like that in Daniel chapter 2, although it goes further forward in time. A study of Daniel 7, along with Revelation chapter 13, reveals when compared to history that men would be subject to two different periods of subjection, each lasting 3½ times, or 1260 years, for a total of 2520 years. It is evident that the first period was the same as that covered by Daniel’s four empires, and the second was the temporal power of the papacy. This is discussed at length in Bertrand L. Comparet’s 14 Lessons On The Book of Revelation which Clifton Emahiser publishes, and in my own notes there, things which are simply too involved to reproduce here but which have also been elucidated to some degree by many other Israel Identity writers, such as Howard Rand and Wesley Swift.

It may be evident that the original seven times of punishment began several centuries earlier than the seven times of the Babylonian order, the “mystery Babylon” of Revelation, forewarned in Daniel 4. And so for several centuries in this modern age the children of Israel have been allowed to experiment in this liberal age of “self- government”, the so-called “Western Democracies”, yet in truth mystery Babylon and the “princes of this world” are still actually in control. I, a simple and humble man, not wanting to sound like so many fools have, dare venture to say that the fall of mystery Babylon and the culmination of this age must be awfully close.

So it is evident from the prophets: temporal governments were indeed decreed by Yahweh, the children of Israel brought such upon themselves, and Paul of Tarsus certainly knew it, and so expressed as much in Romans chapter 13! To Clayton Douglas I can only offer the advice of the wise – but often maligned, and for no good reason – Gamaliel, who said: “But if it be of Yahweh, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against Yahweh.” (Acts 5:39). Not even the Edomite jews present disputed such advice (Acts 5:40)! Not at the immediate time anyway.

Yahshua Christ did not resist Roman authority, as Douglas so foolishly claims here. If Yahshua had, He surely would have been found resisting His Own plan as outlined in the ancient prophets, and which we are reassured of in His Revelation as given to John. And so Paul’s advice to Christians in Romans 13 is certainly sound, and Douglas should heed it. Also, the Caesars of Rome were of the Julian family and descended from Judah-Zerah through royal princes, therefore they held the sceptre of Judah themselves, which Yahweh decreed, a story too long to include here, and again from the classics.

It is not docility that has hurt Christians. For Christians have fought against and defeated the “armies of aliens” (Heb. 11:34) at the prescribed times again and again. It is not the act of “rendering to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” that hurts Christians, though our fathers were warned by Samuel of how much a temporal king would take from us. What hurts Christians today most is that they take the things that belong to Yahweh, and instead of rendering them to Yahweh they render them to Babylon! All those who spend their money on organized sports, which makes “heroes” out of all sorts of beasts and which makes them millionaires to boot, renders to Babylon the things which are Yahweh’s. All those who spend their money on the jew-produced propaganda which streams forth from Hollywood, New York and yes, Nashville too, renders to Babylon the things which are Yahweh’s. All those who claim to love their brother, but purchase goods manufactured by aliens in foreign lands truly hate their brother! All those who would hire an alien, or who would shop at a store owned or operated by aliens hate their brother! All of these things and more hurt Christians. Paul told Christians to “Love without acting; abhorring wickedness, cleaving to goodness: brotherly love affectioned towards one another; in honor preferring one another with diligence, not hesitating” (Rom. 12:10-11). How could Christians claim to love one another, yet spend all their money on cheap made-in-China products at Wal-Mart? How does that brother whom you claim to love feed his family, because you “saved” a dollar? All of these things and more hurt Christians.

Douglas scoffs at Paul because “Paul cunningly taught early Christians to ‘wait for the new Messiah’.” But was Paul alone teaching thusly? What of Matthew 24:36-44, where Christ is said to be discussing His return, the “coming of the Son of man”, at some unrevealed future date? This same discourse is related by Mark (13:32-37) and by Luke (21:25-28). What of John 21:23 and Christ’s promise to return there? What of Revelation 22, verses 6 to 20, written over 30 years after Paul was killed and 60 years after the crucifixion, which foretell the return of Christ? Why doesn’t Douglas scoff at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? They taught the same things which Paul did! Yet Douglas quotes Matthew and Luke in his article as authorities! Here we have the same situation which Yahshua Christ encountered among the Pharisees, who claiming to know the scriptures were time and again reproved by scripture! Clayton Douglas: follower of jews and Pharisees! Clayton Douglas: Hypocrite big time!

<Reference #9> Clay Douglas states: “Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark): ‘Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul - a vast difference!’ Thomas Jefferson: ‘Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.’ Thomas Hardy: ‘The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad’.”

William Finck answers <#9>: Douglas goes on to cite three apparent critics of Paul. John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, is of the same city from whence the jew rabbi Joachim Prince hails. You will remember Prince from WTLs 89 through 92, where the Paul-bashing H. Graber was addressed, for Graber cited Prince often. No doubt both Spong and Prince attended the same ecumenical councils, sleeping together metaphorically if not otherwise! Spong’s words lead me to wonder just which part of Paul’s writings Spong disagrees with. The Episcopal church has recently garnered much media attention when one of its dioceses elevated an openly homosexual minister to the position of bishop. But that isn’t so great of a sin compared to this: that the organization had a homosexual minister, which it must have long known about since he was “openly” homosexual, in the first place! And for Spong to be a bishop in an organization that admits homosexuals as ministers makes him a willing accomplice and an approver of such behavior!

Now Paul wrote of homosexuality that “they practicing such things are worthy of death, not only they who cause them, but also they approving of those committing them” (Rom. 1:32). Paul also wrote: “Do not be led astray: neither fornicators (race mixers) ... nor adulterers ... nor homosexuals ... shall inherit the Kingdom of Yahweh” (1 Cor. 6:9-11), where the Greek word is ἀρσενοκοίτης (733) and means nothing but “homosexual” in all secular Greek writing! Paul used the word again at 1 Tim. 1:9-10: “Knowing this, that the/p law is not laid down for righteous, but for lawless ... fornicating, homosexual ... men.” Surely in the case of homosexuals Paul had Leviticus 20:13 in mind, which states: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Yet Spong must approve of such behavior if only by simply maintaining his position rather than separating his flock from such sinners!

And about Spong’s flock! Newark N.J. is about three miles from where I grew up in Jersey City. The two are separated by a few miles of highway and a bridge over Newark Bay. This entire region is densely populated, being in the shadow of New York City, and is the epitome of ethnic diversity in the entire country. But Newark itself is not very ethnically diverse, because except for the Ironbound section of the city, which in the 1970’s was becoming more and more Portuguese and less and less white and Italian, Newark and its western suburbs of Hillside, Irvington and East Orange are virtually all black! Newark, site of large and violent black riots in 1968, where the National Guard was called in to restore order, was in the 1970s and 1980s well over 60% black, maybe 70%, and nearly all of the non-blacks were Catholic Italians and Portuguese! I can honestly state that in the 1980s one may have had a very difficult time finding a real white family in Newark. Spong’s flock may have consisted of many goats and wolves, but I can’t imagine where he’d find any sheep with which to fill his pews! With all of this I can only wonder: what sort of man could Spong be?

Now Thomas Jefferson is a man to be admired for many things, and especially for his opposition to the central bank crowd. Yet I do not admire his Bible scholarship. While a pious man, Jefferson saw no use in most of the Bible, and so attempted to create his own version. Doing so he discarded the books of Moses, the books of the prophets and the historical books. In fact, he also discarded much of the gospel accounts and other New Testament scriptures, not only Paul.

With the Jefferson Bible, we would have no law, no Leviticus 20:13 by which to know the truth concerning homosexuals, no Daniel 2 or 7 and no 1 Samuel 8 by which to learn about the reason why we have temporal government, no Messianic prophecies, no Isaiah or Jeremiah, no history, no way to discover the truths of our own Identity or the rest of the Adamic race, no background by which to understand the life of Christ, no context! Because the Jefferson Bible contains little but words of Christ separated from the gospels, and the Psalms, we wouldn’t know much from it at all! While of course the words of Christ are important, their context both historical and immediate is just as important! Neither would we be able to understand Christ’s references to “the law and the prophets”, because we wouldn’t have them. We surely would be lost then! Since Jefferson had no use for the law and the prophets, surely not understanding much of them, it does not surprise me that he disregarded or criticized Paul, for surely he also misunderstood Paul. Yet it is obvious that he is no authority on the subject, and neither is Clayton Douglas!

Thomas Hardy was a novelist, and probably not a very good mathematician. As Douglas attempted to credit Paul with “almost two-thirds of the New Testament”, Hardy attempts likewise. As I said, Thomas Hardy was a novelist. That should be sufficient a reply.

0It is no great thing, that in today’s “information age” where we have managed to preserve the writings or opinions of thousands and thousands of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, one is able to find a few who are critical of someone such as Paul of Tarsus. One may find many more recognizable names who would criticize Thomas Jefferson! Yet that alone wouldn’t give them credibility in any given topic, because their names are recognizable and because they were opinionated. Paul himself told us to “prove all things.” Using scripture as our ruler, concerning Romans 13 Paul of Tarsus is shown to be true, whereas Clayton Douglas has failed. Would Douglas admit his error? [End of this segment of William Finck’s critique on Clayton R. Douglas’ criticism of the apostle Paul in his Free American Newsmagazine, which much like the trash H. Graber had produced, was written to attack and discredit Paul of Tarsus. Again, these articles by Douglas were published in his Dec. 2003 and Jan. 2004 issues.]

For anyone who may be confusing the German name Finck with the “Jewish” borrowed counterfeit name “Fink” (generally spelled without the letter “c”), please be advised that William is from genuine German lineage. William R. Finck’s genealogical ancestry can be found on the Internet at ANCESTRY. COM for anyone to see, so let all the potential talebearers who delight in spreading all kinds of untrue rumors take heed and pay strict attention! Check all the facts before voicing such an inaccurate opinion. Also be advised that this is not the end of our battle to defend Paul of Tarsus, and clear all charges against him! More on the defense of Paul in the next lesson. [Note: Today (12-18-05) I received a call from Finck, and he has found the lowdown on Spong which will be addressed in future lessons.]