Christian Forums

Clarity,

It seems to me that you are an anti-Catholic who came to this section solely to attack Catholics.

You started a thread entitled "Who can make Scripture" yet are unable to define the terms you use.

From the title this could have gone into a general forum discussion section but you chose to come here to attack Catholics.

You believe the Leaders of the Catholic Church are "blind guides"

You believe that the Catholic Church is an "apostate" church.

You believe the Catholic Church practices idolatry.

You do not back up these opinions with any facts.

Have you heard of the term "bearing false witness"?

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 08:36:54
Clarity,

It seems to me that you are an anti-Catholic who came to this section solely to attack Catholics.

You started a thread entitled "Who can make Scripture" yet are unable to define the terms you use.

From the title this could have gone into a general forum discussion section but you chose to come here to attack Catholics.

You believe the Leaders of the Catholic Church are "blind guides"

You believe that the Catholic Church is an "apostate" church.

You believe the Catholic Church practices idolatry.

You do not back up these opinions with any facts.

Have you heard of the term "bearing false witness"?

Theres nothing knew here winsome. All who come to this board who are not of the catholic church get this antiCatholic, no facts and false witness thing. Every time I see The Vatican and Cardinals with all their grand costume and grand reilgious parrade I have no reservation at all saying that this church is a false church that misleads its followers. Its more than costumes but all that is carnal. They say they are the vicars of christ but in all they do they are as god upon the earth. So what else is knew.

The president will attend an interfaith meeting today in Boston  that basicly says all religions are of God. Do not get me wrong my heart also goes out and i pray for them devestated at Boston. Will Jesus be there. I will wait for his name to be lifted up. What do you think of inter faith? what does the Vatican think of inter faith. The Catholic church will be represeted there also. Are there many ways to God? I think of all the martyres that gave their lives for His witness I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except by Me. I am that gate to the sheep fold and anyone who tries to come in by any other means is a theif  and a lier. strong words from our Savior to any who think God excepts all relgions. Will any truly stand for His witness today in this memorial.  will Jesus name be even mentioned and if He is what message will we here ?

Hi mclees, 
Are there many ways to God?

Yes, and No.

Yes, because God makes it possible for all people to seek and find him.

Paul says:
And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, (Acts 17:26-27)

And in Romans
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Rom 1:19-20).

Thus everyone has the possibility of finding God even if they never hear the gospel.

But No, because ultimately it is only through the grace won by Jesus that anyone can be saved.

However that's a bit off topic

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:32:39
You have been deceived into thinking your god is manifested though the infallibility of a sinful church, with decrees of sinful popes and sinful councils all being "extraordinary".

You have been deceived into thinking that a person's sin prevents infallibility.  All of the prophets, every single one, who wrote scripture sinned.  Moses committed a great sin of murder and another of disobeying God at the end of his life that prevented him from entering the promised land.  Paul was a murderer and fully acknowledged his sins.  The apostle John said that anyone who says that they are without sin is a liar.  These people all partook in infallible acts, that of the writing of scripture.

God promised to lead his Church into all truth.  God also called the Church the pillar and bulwark of truth.   Prophets always arose from within the people of God.  The question is, who are the people of God?

There may be prophets among the people who are baptized but not Catholic, who would still be among the people of God, but there is absolutely no true prophet who rejects the Catholic Church.  Anyone who speaks contrary to what is taught by or against what has been established in the visible body of Christ (as seen in the visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church) is false prophet.

To answer the question in the OP title, "I can."

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:55:14

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:35:55

I did not say that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Jesus said Peter was the Rock on which he would build his Church. I believe Jesus. Do you?

So you believe Jesus established his church upon an apostle? Then you proceeded to say Jesus is but the corner stone of this building/church and somewhere in the building is a stone called Peter? But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into?

We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

So what is the foundation of Christ (Rock), Peter (rock), Paul (rock) and all the Prophets and believers who constitute the Ecclesia (spiritual rocks)?

Show me from the Scripture.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the household of God.

The household of God having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Quote from: HRoberson on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 15:03:20
To answer the question in the OP title, "I can."

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:52:03
Rocks are not stones.

Quote from: Man_Of_Honor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 18:43:18

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:55:14

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:35:55

I did not say that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Jesus said Peter was the Rock on which he would build his Church. I believe Jesus. Do you?

So you believe Jesus established his church upon an apostle? Then you proceeded to say Jesus is but the corner stone of this building/church and somewhere in the building is a stone called Peter? But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into?

We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

So what is the foundation of Christ (Rock), Peter (rock), Paul (rock) and all the Prophets and believers who constitute the Ecclesia (spiritual rocks)?

Show me from the Scripture.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the household of God.

The household of God having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

This doesn't answer who and what is the foundation upon which the whole body is established?

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:52:03

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08
Usual catholic doctrine - rather boring and lifeless.

"The" is the definite article meaning only one Rock which can give the spiritual life giving waters...I am rather disturb that you would question this.

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

There was only one rock referred to in that passage. Therefore "the" refers to the rock previously referred to. It does not mean there is only one rock outside of that passage.

  Indeed if you follow that line of argument then the passage itself implies there are more.

"for they drank of a spiritual rock"
Do you believe there are other spiritual rocks.

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Do you believe Peter is able to give those life giving waters?

Didn't think so!

Jesus continues to give us "living water" – though his Church. So in a sense Peter still does since Jesus works though his Church..


Why do you ignore what I wrote about Peter?

Is it because you have no answer?

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Also, the fact you don't know there are many rocks also disturbs me.  If Christ is the corner stones surely other stones must a join him?

unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, (1Pe 2:4)

ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)

You still didn't answer me regarding the foundation of all these stones?

Rocks are not stones. Jesus is the Rock and he renamed Peter as Rock. You keep ignoring this.

So just to be clear you are teaching that Peter is "another" spiritual rock which grants eternal life to the church?

Maybe you might like to look up John 19:34 to see "the" rock - one and only!

Upon this was the Church established and not Peter - though he became a rock to his brethren and for good reason.

Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:35:25

Quote from: Man_Of_Honor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 18:43:18

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:55:14

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:35:55

I did not say that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Jesus said Peter was the Rock on which he would build his Church. I believe Jesus. Do you?

So you believe Jesus established his church upon an apostle? Then you proceeded to say Jesus is but the corner stone of this building/church and somewhere in the building is a stone called Peter? But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into?

We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

So what is the foundation of Christ (Rock), Peter (rock), Paul (rock) and all the Prophets and believers who constitute the Ecclesia (spiritual rocks)?

Show me from the Scripture.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the household of God.

The household of God having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

This doesn't answer who and what is the foundation upon which the whole body is established?

In terms of the "Rock", you answered that already. The body of Christ composed of a living Body of believers.

Still does not take away Christ being the foundation and cornerstone of the Church.

Quote from: Man_Of_Honor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:59:44

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:35:25

Quote from: Man_Of_Honor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 18:43:18

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:55:14

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:35:55

I did not say that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Jesus said Peter was the Rock on which he would build his Church. I believe Jesus. Do you?

So you believe Jesus established his church upon an apostle? Then you proceeded to say Jesus is but the corner stone of this building/church and somewhere in the building is a stone called Peter? But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into?

We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

So what is the foundation of Christ (Rock), Peter (rock), Paul (rock) and all the Prophets and believers who constitute the Ecclesia (spiritual rocks)?

Show me from the Scripture.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the household of God.

The household of God having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

This doesn't answer who and what is the foundation upon which the whole body is established?

In terms of the "Rock", you answered that already. The body of Christ composed of a living Body of believers.

Still does not take away Christ being the foundation and cornerstone of the Church.

Correct.

Winsome believes Christ established his body of living stones on Peter alone - he is trying to force his catholic doctrine upon the text and yet we are told within the context of these passages the precise nature of the Rock.

They on the rock are they (believers), which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luk 8:13)

Foundation Rock = Word of God

Lets look at Christs words to Peter.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (Mat 16:15)

Ok so Jesus possess the all important question to his disciples:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mat 16:16)

God revealed this truth (Word of God) to Peter (and later Paul) and it was upon this truth that the whole Body is established.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17)

It here = the Rock as Christ goes onto state.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18)

The Revelation from God - - - - > Peter was the message which is to become the foundation of the Body of Christ - including Christ himself - all of whom are Sons of God.

After this Christ states to Peter "this message"..."Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" if accepted and believed upon will become the foundation - the rock for all believers to be grounded and rooted in faith.

Now come over to Peters take on this.

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.  (1Pe 2:8)

Fact:

1. Stone and Rock are one and the same!
2. Stone and Rock are singular referencing Christ to which the Jew stumbled
3. They stumble at the Word of God - The very foundation of Christ and his ecclesia
4. The Jew stumbled at the Key or knowledge which unlock the Gospel of Salvation having lost this to the Gentiles

This Rock of offence and Stone of Stumbling is also developed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

Rock is singular referring to Christ - the Word of God made Flesh who alone gives living waters.   

Sadly for the RCC nowhere does Scripture provide for their apostolic succession.

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;(Eph 2:20)

The Mystery has been revealed with the original Apostles and the knowledge of Salvation "unlocked" to those who know its truth.  Nothing can be added to the Scripture which cannot be broken! No new revelation, nothing to provide hope and faith but that which is already made known in the first instance.

Peter was but one of the Apostles in this Work of spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom of God on earth.

Peter to the Jews ..... Paul to the Gentiles - Living Stones who did not stumble at the Rock of Offence but lay hold firmly to their chief corner stone as do all His children. 

Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:40:18

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:52:03

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08
Usual catholic doctrine - rather boring and lifeless.

"The" is the definite article meaning only one Rock which can give the spiritual life giving waters...I am rather disturb that you would question this.

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

There was only one rock referred to in that passage. Therefore "the" refers to the rock previously referred to. It does not mean there is only one rock outside of that passage.

  Indeed if you follow that line of argument then the passage itself implies there are more.

"for they drank of a spiritual rock"
Do you believe there are other spiritual rocks.

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Do you believe Peter is able to give those life giving waters?

Didn't think so!

Jesus continues to give us "living water" – though his Church. So in a sense Peter still does since Jesus works though his Church..


Why do you ignore what I wrote about Peter?

Is it because you have no answer?

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Also, the fact you don't know there are many rocks also disturbs me.  If Christ is the corner stones surely other stones must a join him?

unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, (1Pe 2:4)

ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)

You still didn't answer me regarding the foundation of all these stones?

Rocks are not stones. Jesus is the Rock and he renamed Peter as Rock. You keep ignoring this.

So just to be clear you are teaching that Peter is "another" spiritual rock which grants eternal life to the church?

Maybe you might like to look up John 19:34 to see "the" rock - one and only!

Upon this was the Church established and not Peter - though he became a rock to his brethren and for good reason.

Clarity

As usual you misconstrue what I said and try to claim I said something I didn't

Is that deliberate or cannot you read properly?

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 20:55:30

Quote from: Man_Of_Honor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:59:44

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:35:25

Quote from: Man_Of_Honor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 18:43:18

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:55:14

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 06:35:55

I did not say that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Jesus said Peter was the Rock on which he would build his Church. I believe Jesus. Do you?

So you believe Jesus established his church upon an apostle? Then you proceeded to say Jesus is but the corner stone of this building/church and somewhere in the building is a stone called Peter? But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into?

We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

So what is the foundation of Christ (Rock), Peter (rock), Paul (rock) and all the Prophets and believers who constitute the Ecclesia (spiritual rocks)?

Show me from the Scripture.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the household of God.

The household of God having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

This doesn't answer who and what is the foundation upon which the whole body is established?

In terms of the "Rock", you answered that already. The body of Christ composed of a living Body of believers.

Still does not take away Christ being the foundation and cornerstone of the Church.

Correct.

Winsome believes Christ established his body of living stones on Peter alone - he is trying to force his catholic doctrine upon the text and yet we are told within the context of these passages the precise nature of the Rock.

As usual you misconstrue what I said and try to claim I said something I didn't

Is that deliberate or cannot you read properly?

 Clarity,

Is it possible to get back to the OP, or have you diverted because you cannot answer simple questions like "can you define what you mean by 'who can make scripture'?"

Back in post #25 I offered you this definition of scripture
The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men.

"Who can make scripture" could refer to either:
a) the person, or persons, who wrote those books.
b) the person, or persons, who accepted them as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men

Which is it?

Actually both are relevant but unless we separate the two and are clear which we are addressing at any one time then I see no future in this thread other than yet another exercise in catholic bashing

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 19, 2013 - 04:52:31

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:40:18

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:52:03

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08
Usual catholic doctrine - rather boring and lifeless.

"The" is the definite article meaning only one Rock which can give the spiritual life giving waters...I am rather disturb that you would question this.

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

There was only one rock referred to in that passage. Therefore "the" refers to the rock previously referred to. It does not mean there is only one rock outside of that passage.

  Indeed if you follow that line of argument then the passage itself implies there are more.

"for they drank of a spiritual rock"
Do you believe there are other spiritual rocks.

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Do you believe Peter is able to give those life giving waters?

Didn't think so!

Jesus continues to give us "living water" – though his Church. So in a sense Peter still does since Jesus works though his Church..


Why do you ignore what I wrote about Peter?

Is it because you have no answer?

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Also, the fact you don't know there are many rocks also disturbs me.  If Christ is the corner stones surely other stones must a join him?

unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, (1Pe 2:4)

ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)

You still didn't answer me regarding the foundation of all these stones?

Rocks are not stones. Jesus is the Rock and he renamed Peter as Rock. You keep ignoring this.

So just to be clear you are teaching that Peter is "another" spiritual rock which grants eternal life to the church?

Maybe you might like to look up John 19:34 to see "the" rock - one and only!

Upon this was the Church established and not Peter - though he became a rock to his brethren and for good reason.

Clarity

As usual you misconstrue what I said and try to claim I said something I didn't

Is that deliberate or cannot you read properly?

Have you considered your inability to put forth a coherent teaching on these matters.  For instance you implied their was more than one rock which gives life giving waters. Now if you cannot recant such a comment it only shows you are proud and unteachable.

Does it not?

Quote from: Clarity on Fri Apr 19, 2013 - 19:36:34

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 19, 2013 - 04:52:31

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:40:18

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:52:03

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08
Usual catholic doctrine - rather boring and lifeless.

"The" is the definite article meaning only one Rock which can give the spiritual life giving waters...I am rather disturb that you would question this.

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

There was only one rock referred to in that passage. Therefore "the" refers to the rock previously referred to. It does not mean there is only one rock outside of that passage.

  Indeed if you follow that line of argument then the passage itself implies there are more.

"for they drank of a spiritual rock"
Do you believe there are other spiritual rocks.

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Do you believe Peter is able to give those life giving waters?

Didn't think so!

Jesus continues to give us "living water" – though his Church. So in a sense Peter still does since Jesus works though his Church..


Why do you ignore what I wrote about Peter?

Is it because you have no answer?

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Also, the fact you don't know there are many rocks also disturbs me.  If Christ is the corner stones surely other stones must a join him?

unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, (1Pe 2:4)

ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)

You still didn't answer me regarding the foundation of all these stones?

Rocks are not stones. Jesus is the Rock and he renamed Peter as Rock. You keep ignoring this.

So just to be clear you are teaching that Peter is "another" spiritual rock which grants eternal life to the church?

Maybe you might like to look up John 19:34 to see "the" rock - one and only!

Upon this was the Church established and not Peter - though he became a rock to his brethren and for good reason.

Clarity

As usual you misconstrue what I said and try to claim I said something I didn't

Is that deliberate or cannot you read properly?

Have you considered your inability to put forth a coherent teaching on these matters.  For instance you implied their was more than one rock which gives life giving waters. Now if you cannot recant such a comment it only shows you are proud and unteachable.

Does it not?

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 02:27:31

Quote from: Clarity on Fri Apr 19, 2013 - 19:36:34

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 19, 2013 - 04:52:31

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 19:40:18

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:52:03

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08
Usual catholic doctrine - rather boring and lifeless.

"The" is the definite article meaning only one Rock which can give the spiritual life giving waters...I am rather disturb that you would question this.

and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

There was only one rock referred to in that passage. Therefore "the" refers to the rock previously referred to. It does not mean there is only one rock outside of that passage.

  Indeed if you follow that line of argument then the passage itself implies there are more.

"for they drank of a spiritual rock"
Do you believe there are other spiritual rocks.

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Do you believe Peter is able to give those life giving waters?

Didn't think so!

Jesus continues to give us "living water" – though his Church. So in a sense Peter still does since Jesus works though his Church..


Why do you ignore what I wrote about Peter?

Is it because you have no answer?

Quote from: Clarity on Thu Apr 18, 2013 - 07:34:08

Also, the fact you don't know there are many rocks also disturbs me.  If Christ is the corner stones surely other stones must a join him?

unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, (1Pe 2:4)

ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)

You still didn't answer me regarding the foundation of all these stones?

Rocks are not stones. Jesus is the Rock and he renamed Peter as Rock. You keep ignoring this.

So just to be clear you are teaching that Peter is "another" spiritual rock which grants eternal life to the church?

Maybe you might like to look up John 19:34 to see "the" rock - one and only!

Upon this was the Church established and not Peter - though he became a rock to his brethren and for good reason.

Clarity

As usual you misconstrue what I said and try to claim I said something I didn't

Is that deliberate or cannot you read properly?

Have you considered your inability to put forth a coherent teaching on these matters.  For instance you implied their was more than one rock which gives life giving waters. Now if you cannot recant such a comment it only shows you are proud and unteachable.

Does it not?

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

We take this as admission to your gross mishandling of the Rock which living waters flow.  When you are willing to accept there is but one corner stone and not 2 or 3....when you accept that Christ has many living stones/rocks a joined to him none of them higher in ranking than the other.

You could address your own erroneous teachings "first" before questioning the contents of these studies.  If not, move on as you had previously done so and given your word, which at present counts for little in this discussion.

To be frank I am not that interested in speaking with one who wants to defend RCC dogma's - there are too many for you to defend and like a stack of cards your house is built on sand not a ROCK.

Our very brief discussion has proven this much to be true.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)

Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 02:27:31

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

We take this as admission to your gross mishandling of the Rock which living waters flow.  When you are willing to accept there is but one corner stone and not 2 or 3....

Once again you lie about what I said.

Please show me where I have said there is more than one corner stone.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

You could address your own erroneous teachings "first" before questioning the contents of these studies.  If not, move on as you had previously done so and given your word, which at present counts for little in this discussion.

To be frank I am not that interested in speaking with one who wants to defend RCC dogma's - there are too many for you to defend and like a stack of cards your house is built on sand not a ROCK.

Our very brief discussion has proven this much to be true.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)

Clarity

So in conclusion you would rather not discuss your OP and are unable to articulate what you mean by the title of the thread.

Pitiful.

In them [Paul's letters] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet 3:16)

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:06:54

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 02:27:31

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

We take this as admission to your gross mishandling of the Rock which living waters flow.  When you are willing to accept there is but one corner stone and not 2 or 3....

Once again you lie about what I said.

Please show me where I have said there is more than one corner stone.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

You could address your own erroneous teachings "first" before questioning the contents of these studies.  If not, move on as you had previously done so and given your word, which at present counts for little in this discussion.

To be frank I am not that interested in speaking with one who wants to defend RCC dogma's - there are too many for you to defend and like a stack of cards your house is built on sand not a ROCK.

Our very brief discussion has proven this much to be true.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)

Clarity

So in conclusion you would rather not discuss your OP and are unable to articulate what you mean by the title of the thread.

Pitiful.

In them [Paul's letters] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet 3:16)

Clarity wrote:

But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into? We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

Comment: Context is speaking to Christ being the one spiritual rock from which life giving waters flow.

Winsome wrote:

doesn't say there that Christ is the only Rock. Where is the word only in that?

Comment:

So what you are actually inferring is there is more than one life giving rock.

Is this your interpretation of Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 10?



Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:19:49

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:06:54

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 02:27:31

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

We take this as admission to your gross mishandling of the Rock which living waters flow.  When you are willing to accept there is but one corner stone and not 2 or 3....

Once again you lie about what I said.

Please show me where I have said there is more than one corner stone.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

You could address your own erroneous teachings "first" before questioning the contents of these studies.  If not, move on as you had previously done so and given your word, which at present counts for little in this discussion.

To be frank I am not that interested in speaking with one who wants to defend RCC dogma's - there are too many for you to defend and like a stack of cards your house is built on sand not a ROCK.

Our very brief discussion has proven this much to be true.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)

Clarity

So in conclusion you would rather not discuss your OP and are unable to articulate what you mean by the title of the thread.

Pitiful.

In them [Paul's letters] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet 3:16)

Clarity wrote:

But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into? We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

Comment: Context is speaking to Christ being the one spiritual rock from which life giving waters flow.

Winsome wrote:

doesn't say there that Christ is the only Rock. Where is the word only in that?

Comment:

So what you are actually inferring is there is more than one life giving rock.

Is this your interpretation of Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 10?



Clarity

I'm not interested in continually correcting your distortions and lies.

Do you want to discuss your OP or not?

As I said earlier:

Quote from: Is it possible to get back to the OP, or have you diverted because you cannot answer simple questions like "can you define what you mean by 'who can make scripture'?"

Back in post #25 I offered you this definition of scripture
The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men.

"Who can make scripture" could refer to either:
a) the person, or persons, who wrote those books.
b) the person, or persons, who accepted them as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men

Which is it?

Actually both are relevant but unless we separate the two and are clear which we are addressing at any one time then I see no future in this thread other than yet another exercise in catholic bashing.

It would appear that you not want to discuss the topic you raised but it is just a pretext for catholic bashing.

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:35:54

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:19:49

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:06:54

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 02:27:31

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

We take this as admission to your gross mishandling of the Rock which living waters flow.  When you are willing to accept there is but one corner stone and not 2 or 3....

Once again you lie about what I said.

Please show me where I have said there is more than one corner stone.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

You could address your own erroneous teachings "first" before questioning the contents of these studies.  If not, move on as you had previously done so and given your word, which at present counts for little in this discussion.

To be frank I am not that interested in speaking with one who wants to defend RCC dogma's - there are too many for you to defend and like a stack of cards your house is built on sand not a ROCK.

Our very brief discussion has proven this much to be true.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)

Clarity

So in conclusion you would rather not discuss your OP and are unable to articulate what you mean by the title of the thread.

Pitiful.

In them [Paul's letters] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet 3:16)

Clarity wrote:

But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into? We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

Comment: Context is speaking to Christ being the one spiritual rock from which life giving waters flow.

Winsome wrote:

doesn't say there that Christ is the only Rock. Where is the word only in that?

Comment:

So what you are actually inferring is there is more than one life giving rock.

Is this your interpretation of Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 10?



Clarity

I'm not interested in continually correcting your distortions and lies.

Do you want to discuss your OP or not?

As I said earlier:

Quote from: Is it possible to get back to the OP, or have you diverted because you cannot answer simple questions like "can you define what you mean by 'who can make scripture'?"

Back in post #25 I offered you this definition of scripture
The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men.

"Who can make scripture" could refer to either:
a) the person, or persons, who wrote those books.
b) the person, or persons, who accepted them as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men

Which is it?

Actually both are relevant but unless we separate the two and are clear which we are addressing at any one time then I see no future in this thread other than yet another exercise in catholic bashing.

It would appear that you not want to discuss the topic you raised but it is just a pretext for catholic bashing.

There it is.

The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility. Pro 15:33

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:39:04

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:35:54

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:19:49

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:06:54

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 02:27:31

Have you condered that your "arguments" are circular and incoherent?

Have you considered answering points made and not either ignoring them or distorting of them?

For example can I have an answer to my last post?

Thank you.

We take this as admission to your gross mishandling of the Rock which living waters flow.  When you are willing to accept there is but one corner stone and not 2 or 3....

Once again you lie about what I said.

Please show me where I have said there is more than one corner stone.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 04:51:58

You could address your own erroneous teachings "first" before questioning the contents of these studies.  If not, move on as you had previously done so and given your word, which at present counts for little in this discussion.

To be frank I am not that interested in speaking with one who wants to defend RCC dogma's - there are too many for you to defend and like a stack of cards your house is built on sand not a ROCK.

Our very brief discussion has proven this much to be true.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)

Clarity

So in conclusion you would rather not discuss your OP and are unable to articulate what you mean by the title of the thread.

Pitiful.

In them [Paul's letters] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2Pet 3:16)

Clarity wrote:

But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into? We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

Comment: Context is speaking to Christ being the one spiritual rock from which life giving waters flow.

Winsome wrote:

doesn't say there that Christ is the only Rock. Where is the word only in that?

Comment:

So what you are actually inferring is there is more than one life giving rock.

Is this your interpretation of Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 10?



Clarity

I'm not interested in continually correcting your distortions and lies.

Do you want to discuss your OP or not?

As I said earlier:

Quote from: Is it possible to get back to the OP, or have you diverted because you cannot answer simple questions like "can you define what you mean by 'who can make scripture'?"

Back in post #25 I offered you this definition of scripture
The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men.

"Who can make scripture" could refer to either:
a) the person, or persons, who wrote those books.
b) the person, or persons, who accepted them as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men

Which is it?

Actually both are relevant but unless we separate the two and are clear which we are addressing at any one time then I see no future in this thread other than yet another exercise in catholic bashing.

It would appear that you not want to discuss the topic you raised but it is just a pretext for catholic bashing.

There it is.

The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility. Pro 15:33

"I do not sit with deceivers, nor with hypocrites do I mingle." (Ps 26:4)

People reading this thread will not understand your motives winsome.  You asked me to provide the evidence and I did.  You failed to acknowledge. Now either you have wrong teaching or you made a mistake. Now, if it was a mistake simply say so and move on.  How can we discuss anything if you lack honesty especially after you requested it from me.

Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:19:49

Clarity wrote:

But both Christ and Peter are set on what? What is the foundation which both Christ and Peter are set into? We know from another Apostle (or Pillar as you put it) that the only Rock is Christ and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4)

Comment: Context is speaking to Christ being the one spiritual rock from which life giving waters flow.

Winsome wrote:

doesn't say there that Christ is the only Rock. Where is the word only in that?

Comment:

So what you are actually inferring is there is more than one life giving rock.

Is this your interpretation of Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 10?



Clarity

Here it is again.

Did you push this line because you needed to defend apostolic succession? Or, did not understand 1 Cor 10? Was it because you wrested Matt 16 and felt the need to push this error into Pauls & Peters teaching? 

What was it?

Can we have some honestly please.

Winsome leaves 

It reminds me when the Lord had finished extending his hand to Judas.

He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. (Joh 13:30)

When will Roman Catholics learn they can never grasp hold of truth while defending church dogma.  To do so is to remain in gentile darkness.

Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 05:48:00
People reading this thread will not understand your motives winsome.  You asked me to provide the evidence and I did.  You failed to acknowledge. Now either you have wrong teaching or you made a mistake. Now, if it was a mistake simply say so and move on.  How can we discuss anything if you lack honesty especially after you requested it from me.

Clarity

And people reading this thread will not understand why you cannot define the terms you are using and what the Title of this thread actually refers to.
Here again:

Quote from:
Back in post #25 I offered you this definition of scripture
The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men.

"Who can make scripture" could refer to either:
a) the person, or persons, who wrote those books.
b) the person, or persons, who accepted them as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men

Which is it?

Actually both are relevant but unless we separate the two and are clear which we are addressing at any one time then I see no future in this thread other than yet another exercise in catholic bashing. 

You continuallyrefuse to answer this but keep trying to divert onto other topics.

I will leave people to draw their own conclusion from that.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 06:10:53
Winsome leaves 

It reminds me when the Lord had finished extending his hand to Judas.

He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. (Joh 13:30)

When will Roman Catholics learn they can never grasp hold of truth while defending church dogma.  To do so is to remain in gentile darkness.

Clarity

You see, you have no interest in discussing the topic you raised but just want to get into catholic bashing.

Your attitude reminds me of Pilate who when confronted by the Truth asked "What is truth?"

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 06:14:38

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 06:10:53
Winsome leaves 

It reminds me when the Lord had finished extending his hand to Judas.

He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. (Joh 13:30)

When will Roman Catholics learn they can never grasp hold of truth while defending church dogma.  To do so is to remain in gentile darkness.

Clarity

You see, you have no interest in discussing the topic you raised but just want to get into catholic bashing.

Your attitude reminds me of Pilate who when confronted by the Truth asked "What is truth?"

There is a great irony in your words Winsome.

Pilate answered his own question "WHAT IS TRUTH?" with pointing "Here is the man!" (Joh 19:5).

You see Winsome Christ = truth (Joh 14:6)

He is "the" rock and the stone which at present you are stumbling over. 

Matt 16 - The Rock is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

1 Cor 10 - The Rock is "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"

1 Peter 2 - The Rock is what you are stumbling over right now - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,

You see how you are stumbling at the Word?

Clarity

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 06:27:59

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 06:14:38

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 06:10:53
Winsome leaves 

It reminds me when the Lord had finished extending his hand to Judas.

He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. (Joh 13:30)

When will Roman Catholics learn they can never grasp hold of truth while defending church dogma.  To do so is to remain in gentile darkness.

Clarity

You see, you have no interest in discussing the topic you raised but just want to get into catholic bashing.

Your attitude reminds me of Pilate who when confronted by the Truth asked "What is truth?"

There is a great irony in your words Winsome.

Pilate answered his own question "WHAT IS TRUTH?" with pointing "Here is the man!" (Joh 19:5).

Don't be silly that is an different context. It's no wonder you have such difficulty interpreting scripture correctly.


Now are you going to get back to the topic?

Back in post #25 I offered you this definition of scripture
The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men.

"Who can make scripture" could refer to either:
a) the person, or persons, who wrote those books.
b) the person, or persons, who accepted them as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men

Which is it?


What is your problem?

Can't answer?
Won't answer?
Can't even understand the difference?. 

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:33:12

Now are you going to get back to the topic?

After we hear your admission of truth:

Matt 16 - The Rock is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

1 Cor 10 - The Rock is "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"

1 Peter 2 - The Rock is what you are stumbling over right now - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,

Is the Rock of Matt 16, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Peter 2 all speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:40:34

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:33:12

Now are you going to get back to the topic?

After we hear your admission of truth:

Matt 16 - The Rock is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

1 Cor 10 - The Rock is "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"

1 Peter 2 - The Rock is what you are stumbling over right now - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,

Is the Rock of Matt 16, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Peter 2 all speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

The topic is "Who can make scripture". I'm not going to let you divert from it.

If you want to discuss something else then start a thread for it.

Why are you so deperate not to answer simple questions on the topic you started?

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:45:08

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:40:34

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:33:12

Now are you going to get back to the topic?

After we hear your admission of truth:

Matt 16 - The Rock is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

1 Cor 10 - The Rock is "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"

1 Peter 2 - The Rock is what you are stumbling over right now - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,

Is the Rock of Matt 16, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Peter 2 all speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

The topic is "Who can make scripture". I'm not going to let you divert from it.

If you want to discuss something else then start a thread for it.

Why are you so deperate not to answer simple questions on the topic you started?

Lets recap on your contribution thus far shall we.

1. You walked away from the discussion and implied you would not return.
2. You return and defend your doctrine of apostolic succession
3. You poorly forced RCC doctrine on a passage you knew nothing about
4. You requested I provide evidence to my interpretation of your belief of multiple Christ's.
5. I provided the evidence which now you wish to avoid.
5. Now you want to return to the OP 

You have gone back on your word twice so why would you think anyone would want to engage you in discussion?

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
(Mat 5:37)

I cannot make it any clearer Winsome.

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 08:00:35

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:45:08

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:40:34

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:33:12

Now are you going to get back to the topic?

After we hear your admission of truth:

Matt 16 - The Rock is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

1 Cor 10 - The Rock is "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"

1 Peter 2 - The Rock is what you are stumbling over right now - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,

Is the Rock of Matt 16, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Peter 2 all speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

The topic is "Who can make scripture". I'm not going to let you divert from it.

If you want to discuss something else then start a thread for it.

Why are you so deperate not to answer simple questions on the topic you started?

Lets recap on your contribution thus far shall we.

1. You walked away from the discussion and implied you would not return.
2. You return and defend your doctrine of apostolic succession
3. You poorly forced RCC doctrine on a passage you knew nothing about
4. You requested I provide evidence to my interpretation of your belief of multiple Christ's.
5. I provided the evidence which now you wish to avoid.
5. Now you want to return to the OP 

You have gone back on your word twice so why would you think anyone would want to engage you in discussion?

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
(Mat 5:37)

I cannot make it any clearer Winsome.

I'm sorry that you seem to be a compulsive liar. I will pray for you.

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 08:03:01

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 08:00:35

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:45:08

Quote from: Clarity on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:40:34

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 20, 2013 - 07:33:12

Now are you going to get back to the topic?

After we hear your admission of truth:

Matt 16 - The Rock is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

1 Cor 10 - The Rock is "for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"

1 Peter 2 - The Rock is what you are stumbling over right now - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word,

Is the Rock of Matt 16, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Peter 2 all speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

The topic is "Who can make scripture". I'm not going to let you divert from it.

If you want to discuss something else then start a thread for it.

Why are you so deperate not to answer simple questions on the topic you started?

Lets recap on your contribution thus far shall we.

1. You walked away from the discussion and implied you would not return.
2. You return and defend your doctrine of apostolic succession
3. You poorly forced RCC doctrine on a passage you knew nothing about
4. You requested I provide evidence to my interpretation of your belief of multiple Christ's.
5. I provided the evidence which now you wish to avoid.
5. Now you want to return to the OP 

You have gone back on your word twice so why would you think anyone would want to engage you in discussion?

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
(Mat 5:37)

I cannot make it any clearer Winsome.

I'm sorry that you seem to be a compulsive liar. I will pray for you.

seem to be