Who can make Scripture?

[Clarity]

Good morning one and all.

The truth concerning the above question has long been debated by theologians over the centuries, but particularly by the reforming churches over the past 200 years or so.

The book of Deuteronomy is explicit on this subject as we find through the work done in Moses.  We find precisely how Moses left his succeeding generations a clear and concise understanding of the Scriptures and the limits of it's authority and theirs.

The first teaching we will see is how the Church (or ecclesia) in the wilderness could not make Scripture, but the prophets can.

Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you. Deut 4:2

From this it is clear that the church addressed by Moses had no power whatsoever either to add to the Scripture or take from it.

But that the prophets might receive power to make Scripture appears plainly from the following words:

Deut 18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you – from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him. 18:16 This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the assembly. You asked the Lord your God: "Please do not make us hear the voice of the Lord our  God any more or see this great fire any more lest we die." 18:17 The Lord then said to me, "What they have said is good. 18:18 I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command. 18:19 I will personally hold responsible anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet speaks in my name.  18:20 "But if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die.

This passage stood as a Law which governed Israel from its Priests to its Judges, right down until the very last great prophet.  Even a King could not write Scripture as he himself was subject to its commands all his days.

The sentence "I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command" manifestly gives the prophet a power which is denied the Church as a whole, of uttering words which should have the authority of divine law, and if written, would become Scripture when delivered to Israel as the Law of the Lord.

By these very clear passages we see how the body could not make Scripture.

Next we shall see how the King could not make Scripture.

[Catholica]

I don't think that this question has been debated except by those outside the Catholic Church.  You might want to get to your point quickly.  Scripture says that Jesus makes some prophets (Ephesians 4:11).  I suppose, using the bounds of your argument, that you can assume that all the Biblical authors are prophets, because by the authority the Catholic Church received from Christ, what is holy scripture and what is not has been determined long, long ago.  That would include the authors of the deuterocanon, which those children of the reformation have received from others who rejected them without any authority to do so.

[Clarity]

I don't think that this question has been debated except by those outside the Catholic Church.  You might want to get to your point quickly.

As we look into the inspired Word the points do come and rather beautifully I might add.

Scripture says that Jesus makes some prophets (Ephesians 4:11).

Yes.

I suppose, using the bounds of your argument, that you can assume that all the Biblical authors are prophets, because by the authority the Catholic Church received from Christ, what is holy scripture and what is not has been determined long, long ago.

No assumption is required.  The Scriptures are correct in stating only Prophets and Apostles can write / make Scripture.

That would include the authors of the deuterocanon, which those children of the reformation have received from others who rejected them without any authority to do so.

Having studied these books over many years I can see how the early Christians believed they "lacked" the divine authority revealed in the other books.  Although, I respect you would feel strongly about their inclusion into the Cannon of Scripture.

Thank you for your comment.

Clarity.

[Clarity]

So we have discovered the authority for making Scripture was never granted to the Church collectively, to the King, the Judge or the Priest.

The Kings relation to Scripture is expressly defined in Deut 17:18-20

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.  (Deu 17:18-20)

The King was not above the people in relation to the Written Word, this much is made very clear.   What is also of interest is the prophet's within his Kingdom were still his subjects. The basest of people within his Kingdom were often called to be Prophets; Amos comes to mind and many others.  In relation to the written Word of God, even the very King himself was subject to the voice of God given through these humble Prophets.

Clarity

[Clarity]

Now concerning the Priests.  In the constitution of Israel the Priests were associated with the Judge.  But the Priests take precedence in the custody and interpretation of the written Law. Their function is describe in Deut 17:8-13

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.   (Deu 17:8-13)

Now this passage is most important and bares heavily upon this matter of who can make Scripture.  The Written Law was binding upon men's conscience and upon the actual law of the Land.  When courts were puzzled as to the administration of justice through a difficult case (as above) whether criminal, civil, ceremonial etc. and no satisfactory decision could be obtained in the province "being matters of controversy within thy gates;" (compare Deut 16:18) "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. (Deu 16:18)

Then the matter needed to go the supreme court at the central seat of worship ie "the place which the Lord thy God shall choose"....  "And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:"(Deu 17:9)

The Priest was above the Judge according to the rule of precedence laid down for Moses immediate successors, Eleazar and Joshua in Numbers 27:21

And he (Joshua) shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD: at his (Eleazar or the Priest) word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he (Joshua or the judge), and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation. (Num 27:21)

So the authority here assigned to the priests and "Judge that shall be in those days" is very different from that which is conceded to the prophet.  The Priest and Judge could add nothing to the Law or take from it only could they "show the sentence of judgment" which the Law has provided in the matter of the dispute.  It must be the "sentence of the written Law". This was delivered to the Priests for purposes of instruction (Deut 30:9-13) and to the Levites for custody of the book itself.

The reason why the Priest was set above the Judge is because to him was given the responsibility to ask council of God (Num 27:21).

So as Priest, Judge and King they all being found to be under the Written Law.  They had no authority to originate or put forth fresh statutes; only to apply to all cases that which Moses and the Prophets had committed to thier hands.

•      The Priest showed the sentence of the Law i.e Written Law
•      This was delivered to the priests for instruction Deut 30:9-13
•      Priest was above judge as he was given the authority to ask council of God
•      Priest, Levite and Judge were all under the Law – could not make Scripture!
•      The Prophet were the authors and proclaimers and not the people.

Clarity

[winsome]

No assumption is required.  The Scriptures are correct in stating only Prophets and Apostles can write / make Scripture.

God makes scripture because scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is the Holy Spirit who chooses whom to inspire.

The role of the Church is to discern which writings God has inspired and then to canonise those writings.

Moreover we do not know who were the human authors were of most of the books of the Bible so we cannot say they were written only by Apostles and prophets.

Logically you cannot lay down criteria from the Bible until you have discerned which writings the Bible consists of.

Having studied these books over many years I can see how the early Christians believed they "lacked" the divine authority revealed in the other books.  Although, I respect you would feel strongly about their inclusion into the Cannon of Scripture.

With respect, your studies and opinions about the early Christians are irrelevant to the determination of the canon of scripture. It is the Church which has the authority to discern what is scripture and what is not. Moreover the early christians did not consider the deuterocanonicals lacked  the divine authority of the other books. The Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonicals was accepted at the beginning.

[winsome]

Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you. Deut 4:

From this it is clear that the church addressed by Moses had no power whatsoever either to add to the Scripture or take from it.

Moses is referring to the LAW, the commands of God, not to scripture. Your whole thesis is fundamentally flawed.

[Clarity]

Winsome

When you were reading through these passages in Deuteronomy did you refute them as being false, and if so, did you also feel compelled to put forth your own words to uphold a greater truth than was revealed to you in Deuteronomy?

As Catholica stated "you can assume that all the Biblical authors are prophets", and if this is correct as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, why would you resist such truth?

Keep in mind also we are looking at the subject "Who can make Scripture" and thus far we have established only God through chosen men who are given the title "Prophets and Apostles" have this authority.

I thought this would be well accepted teaching would it not?

Clarity

[winsome]

Winsome

When you were reading through these passages in Deuteronomy did you refute them as being false, and if so, did you also feel compelled to put forth your own words to uphold a greater truth than was revealed to you in Deuteronomy?

I pointed out that your interpretation was incorrect. Note the parts I embolden:
"And now, O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the ordinances which I teach you, and do them; that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, gives you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Dut 4:1-2)

Moses is referring to the Law, and instructing them not to add or take anything away from the Law – the statutes and ordinances it refers to in verse 1.

The Law is only part of scripture. Therefore your attempt to extend this to the whole of scripture is in error.

The next quote you give is Deut 18:15-19 and refers to Jesus, not all prophets. Verse 20 goes on to warn about false prophets.

None of this passage says anything about what is scripture and what is not or who can make it. For example the recording of history is neither law no prophecy, nor is wisdom writing such as the Psalms.

You go on to say that Kings cannot make scripture but David was a king and wrote the Psalms. Are the Psalms nor scripture according to you?

Also you have ignored my previous post

God makes scripture because scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is the Holy Spirit who chooses whom to inspire.

The role of the Church is to discern which writings God has inspired and then to canonise those writings.

Moreover we do not know who were the human authors were of most of the books of the Bible so we cannot say they were written only by Apostles and prophets.

Logically you cannot lay down criteria from the Bible until you have discerned which writings the Bible consists of.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

As Catholica stated "you can assume that all the Biblical authors are prophets", and if this is correct as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, why would you resist such truth?

Just as you misuse scripture by taking it out of context and then misinterpreting it, so you have done the same with what Catholica said.

He said "I suppose, using the bounds of your argument, that you can assume that all the Biblical authors are prophets....." Note the part I have emphasised.

Keep in mind also we are looking at the subject "Who can make Scripture" and thus far we have established only God through chosen men who are given the title "Prophets and Apostles" have this authority.

I thought this would be well accepted teaching would it not?

Clarity

You have established no such thing.

[Clarity]

I pointed out that your interpretation was incorrect.

Do you believe that under the Law a King, Priest or Judge could add or take away from the Law without God's inspired direction?

What of the common Israelite, could they write Scripture, at will?

The next quote you give is Deut 18:15-19 and refers to Jesus, not all prophets. Verse 20 goes on to warn about false prophets.

Just so I am not misinterpreting you, do you believe Deut 18:15-19 only refers to Jesus Christ and had no relation to the prophets in their midst or to Israel in their day?

None of this passage says anything about what is scripture and what is not or who can make it. For example the recording of history is neither law no prophecy, nor is wisdom writing such as the Psalms.

What did David write if it were not Scripture?

You go on to say that Kings cannot make scripture but David was a king and wrote the Psalms. Are the Psalms nor scripture according to you?

Would that not make David a prophet also, if indeed you beleive he wrote Scripture?

Also you have ignored my previous post

You were implying Gods Law and His commands are not in the Scriptures...how is one to deal with such an assumption?

I think it best you remain within the Holy Writings and deal with them as presented otherwise you may be reading into these posts things that are not being put forth.

For instance:

When I stated a King of his own authority cannot make Scripture this is true and correct however should God make him a Prophet and he pens God's Words then he is authorized to do so but his Kingship alone does not entitled him to such privilege. And for clarification this would also apply to the Priest and Judge.

Clarity

[Clarity]

The next quote you give is Deut 18:15-19 and refers to Jesus, not all prophets. Verse 20 goes on to warn about false prophets.

I was glad to see you referred to Jesus as being the ultimate fulfilment of this prophecy.

"Yahweh thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren"

Of course every man who God (Yahweh) speaks through is a prophet, as proven by your own reference to the greatest prophet to ever manifest the Words of God.

It's also interesting to see that this Prophet is included in the phrase "thy God" which is also connects with the phrase "thy brethren"

Therefore Jesus would have a God and also be consider as one of his brethren.

Clarity

[Clarity]

So we are not confused about the meaning of a Prophet as one who is given the authority to speak or write on behalf of God Himself, here is a good definition of the Hebrew word "A prophet" — The Hebrew word narbhi denotes "one who speaks from God".

It is derived from a verb naba signifying "to boil or bubble over". The idea behind the word is taken from the metaphor of a fountain, bursting forth from the heart of a man, into which God hath poured His spirit.

A prophet also denotes an interpreter of what God has divinely revealed (see Exod. 7:1; 4:16). The English word "prophet" expresses both these principles. It is formed by two syllables: pro —meaning "for"; phet — signifying "a word". A prophet, therefore, was one who speaks for God.

As winsome stated during the course of Israel s history, the true prophets of Yahweh were constantly plagued by false prophets: those who spoke contrary to the will of God (see 1 Kings 22:6,8,20-23; Jer. 6:13; 28:1-17).

The important principle here is only a Prophet or an Apostle can make Scripture.

Do we all agree?

[Catholica]

So we are not confused about the meaning of a Prophet as one who is given the authority to speak or write on behalf of God Himself, here is a good definition of the Hebrew word "A prophet" — The Hebrew word narbhi denotes "one who speaks from God".

It is derived from a verb naba signifying "to boil or bubble over". The idea behind the word is taken from the metaphor of a fountain, bursting forth from the heart of a man, into which God hath poured His spirit.

A prophet also denotes an interpreter of what God has divinely revealed (see Exod. 7:1; 4:16). The English word "prophet" expresses both these principles. It is formed by two syllables: pro —meaning "for"; phet — signifying "a word". A prophet, therefore, was one who speaks for God.

As winsome stated during the course of Israel s history, the true prophets of Yahweh were constantly plagued by false prophets: those who spoke contrary to the will of God (see 1 Kings 22:6,8,20-23; Jer. 6:13; 28:1-17).

The important principle here is only a Prophet or an Apostle can make Scripture.

Do we all agree?

A prophet is someone who proclaims the truth.  We need a foundation of what truth is in order to discern whether they are a true or false prophet.  For example, Joseph Smith was a false prophet because he proclaimed Mormonism.  Ellen G. White was a false prophet.

Now there are many prophets today which proclaim the truth, but that doesn't make them worthy of writing scripture.  As a principle that has been held in the Catholic Church, all public revelation (that which is universally binding on the believer) ended with the death of the last apostle, John.  Therefore we can test all prophets based on their conformity with the deposit of faith, but today no one can add to the deposit of faith required for belief.  Others have been visited by God, and what has been revealed to them is often tested by the Church against divine revelation.  If it is in contradiction, it is condemned, if it is in conformity, it is approved for devotions, but it is not binding and is not on the same level as holy scripture or holy tradition.

Therefore, the ones who are "capable" of writing scripture have already been revealed, their books added to the Bible, and the case is closed.  There is no more debate.

Furthermore, it never was a debate on whose writings could be added to scripture, but whether the writings themselves were inspired.  For example, no one really knows who wrote the book of Hebrews.  It's not about who the human person was that wrote the book, but whether the work was deemed to be inspired by the Catholic Church.

[winsome]

 

I pointed out that your interpretation was incorrect.

Do you believe that under the Law a King, Priest or Judge could add or take away from the Law without God's inspired direction?

You seem to be trying to say that Scripture=Law and Law=Scripture and it does not.

Therefore your question is irrelevant

What of the common Israelite, could they write Scripture, at will?

Since all scripture is inspired by God then, by definition, no-one can write scripture unless inspired by God whether they be King, Priest, Prophet or anyone.

You need to get your logic sorted out.

Tell me who wrote the book of Ruth?
Was it a prophet?
If not was it not inspired?
Is it scripture?

The next quote you give is Deut 18:15-19 and refers to Jesus, not all prophets. Verse 20 goes on to warn about false prophets.

Just so I am not misinterpreting you, do you believe Deut 18:15-19 only refers to Jesus Christ and had no relation to the prophets in their midst or to Israel in their day?

Since the text is in the singular any application outside of Jesus is moot.

However let us suppose that it applies to OT prophets that God may raise up. What does it say?
"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. " (vs 18-19)

That says that they must listen to whatever words God puts in the prophets mouth. What about the rest of the scriptural text?

How much of 1Kings and 2 Kings (for example) are actual words of God spoken through a prophet?

Is the rest not scripture?

None of this passage says anything about what is scripture and what is not or who can make it. For example the recording of history is neither law no prophecy, nor is wisdom writing such as the Psalms.

What did David write if it were not Scripture?

That is what I am asking you.

You go on to say that Kings cannot make scripture but David was a king and wrote the Psalms. Are the Psalms nor scripture according to you?

Would that not make David a prophet also, if indeed you beleive he wrote Scripture?

Then you are into a circular argument. If anyone who writes scripture is a prophet then, by definition,  only prophets write scripture.

Also you have ignored my previous post

You were implying Gods Law and His commands are not in the Scriptures...how is one to deal with such an assumption?

I think it best you remain within the Holy Writings and deal with them as presented otherwise you may be reading into these posts things that are not being put forth.

For instance:

When I stated a King of his own authority cannot make Scripture this is true and correct however should God make him a Prophet and he pens God's Words then he is authorized to do so but his Kingship alone does not entitled him to such privilege. And for clarification this would also apply to the Priest and Judge.

Clarity

I was implying no such thing.

Let me try this simple bit of logic again.

Logically you cannot lay down criteria from the Bible until you have discerned which writings the Bible consists of.

Or let me out it another way. You cannot quote from scripture until you have determined what is scripture.

The next quote you give is Deut 18:15-19 and refers to Jesus, not all prophets. Verse 20 goes on to warn about false prophets.

I was glad to see you referred to Jesus as being the ultimate fulfilment of this prophecy.

"Yahweh thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren"

Of course every man who God (Yahweh) speaks through is a prophet, as proven by your own reference to the greatest prophet to ever manifest the Words of God.

It's also interesting to see that this Prophet is included in the phrase "thy God" which is also connects with the phrase "thy brethren"

Therefore Jesus would have a God and also be consider as one of his brethren.

Clarity

Quote frankly you need to understand logic.

That I refer to Jesus  as the person referred to in Isaiah 19:15-19 does not in any way prove that every man whom God speaks through is a prophet.

If you are defining a prophet as someone that God speaks through then every man that God speaks though is a prophet by your definition not by anything I say.

[winsome]

So we are not confused about the meaning of a Prophet as one who is given the authority to speak or write on behalf of God Himself, here is a good definition of the Hebrew word "A prophet" — The Hebrew word narbhi denotes "one who speaks from God".

It is derived from a verb naba signifying "to boil or bubble over". The idea behind the word is taken from the metaphor of a fountain, bursting forth from the heart of a man, into which God hath poured His spirit.

A prophet also denotes an interpreter of what God has divinely revealed (see Exod. 7:1; 4:16). The English word "prophet" expresses both these principles. It is formed by two syllables: pro —meaning "for"; phet — signifying "a word". A prophet, therefore, was one who speaks for God.

As winsome stated during the course of Israel s history, the true prophets of Yahweh were constantly plagued by false prophets: those who spoke contrary to the will of God (see 1 Kings 22:6,8,20-23; Jer. 6:13; 28:1-17).

The important principle here is only a Prophet or an Apostle can make Scripture.

Do we all agree?

NO.

You are falling into serious category errors.

"All scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Of course Paul was referring to the OT it is applicable to the NT as well. However let keep to the OT and prophets

What you are saying that only a prophet can write scripture.
Then you also say everyone that writes scripture is a prophet.
It boils down to scripture is written by someone who writes scripture.
Not a very useful statement.

You then, separately, try to define a prophet differently as "one who is given the authority to speak or write on behalf of God Himself".

You cannot then conflate your two different definitions as though you are referring to the same class of persons.

Moreover the writing of scripture ceased with the death of the last apostle.
But God can still speak through people today.
So not everything that a prophet speaks for God is scripture.

When we are referring to speaking on behalf of God, or speaking from God, people generally mean the "Thus says the Lord...." type of speaking.

Most of scripture is not like that. Going back to the book of Ruth, there is not a single instruction from God in the book but it is universally acknowledged as scripture.

[Catholica]

Most of scripture is not like that. Going back to the book of Ruth, there is not a single instruction from God in the book but it is universally acknowledged as scripture.

That is an interesting fact.  It is also an interesting fact that the book of Esther as present in Protestant Bibles (without the deuterocanonical portions) doesn't even mention God.  Yet the parts of Esther that the Protestants accept are all universally accepted as scripture.

[LightHammer]

The early Church didn't reject the deuterocanonicals? No one rejecting them until the reformers.

[Clarity]

A prophet is someone who proclaims the truth. 

I agree and it appears you are the only one in this forum thus far to state such truth. 

Not only do you agree with Deuteronomy but also with the Apostle who wrote the book of Hebrews.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (Heb 1:1)

Both the forefathers (OT) and the prophets (OT) are all captured in this opening statement which agrees that neither King or Priest or Judge were given under their administration the authority to make Scripture.  Yes, we have seen how David was both a King and Prophet, however it was not his Kingship that entitled him to make Scripture, but rather God's appointment of him as prophet.

We need a foundation of what truth is in order to discern whether they are a true or false prophet. 

I find it puzzling that out of those here contribuiting only you have spoken to Deuteronomy and followed the inspired account.  This is to be commended as Winsome and Lighthammer have struggled to "enter the Word of God".  This entering is not altogether easy especially if we have a defensive mindset.

Very difficult indeed.

For example, Joseph Smith was a false prophet because he proclaimed Mormonism.  Ellen G. White was a false prophet.

Agreed.

These men's works have been thoroughly tested not only by the Catholic Church but many denominations and they have been found to be in error. 

So once again we have followed the instruction of both OT and NT by trying the spirits.

Now there are many prophets today which proclaim the truth, but that doesn't make them worthy of writing scripture. 

Correct.

As a principle that has been held in the Catholic Church, all public revelation (that which is universally binding on the believer) ended with the death of the last apostle, John. 

You say as a "principle" this has been held in the Catholic Church?  Do you suggest the Church unlike the Israel of God who were not given the authority to make Scripture, or add or subtract from it, how so?

I detect a element of doubt in your above remark.

Therefore we can test all prophets based on their conformity with the deposit of faith, but today no one can add to the deposit of faith required for belief.  Others have been visited by God, and what has been revealed to them is often tested by the Church against divine revelation.  If it is in contradiction, it is condemned, if it is in conformity, it is approved for devotions, but it is not binding and is not on the same level as Holy Scripture or holy tradition.

Therefore, the ones who are "capable" of writing scripture have already been revealed, their books added to the Bible, and the case is closed.  There is no more debate.

Am I to believe from the above "all capable of writing Scripture have been revealed" that no further Scrpiture "can" be written?

Furthermore, it never was a debate on whose writings could be added to scripture, but whether the writings themselves were inspired.  For example, no one really knows who wrote the book of Hebrews.  It's not about who the human person was that wrote the book, but whether the work was deemed to be inspired by the Catholic Church.

I find your last comment of interest "deemed to be inspired by the Catholic Church".  The OT was deemed Inspired by many, including the House of Israel (and later Judah) and those strangers who walked amongst them.  The Pharisees, Saducees and the Hellenists and many others claimed the OT inspired, but you say "only" the Catholic Church can make such a claim?

What has changed?

[Clarity]

NO.

You are falling into serious category errors.

"All scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Of course Paul was referring to the OT it is applicable to the NT as well. However let keep to the OT and prophets

What you are saying that only a prophet can write scripture.

Yes, and later in your post you suggest this is so, do you not?

Then you also say everyone that writes scripture is a prophet.

It boils down to scripture is written by someone who writes scripture.

Not a very useful statement.

Not very useful you say?

Moreover the writing of scripture ceased with the death of the last apostle.

I assume you mean John at Patmos?

But God can still speak through people today.
So not everything that a prophet speaks for God is scripture.

This is true.  Not everything which prophets spoke has been penned and made Scripture.

And you said this study is not very useful?

If this is correct then the Scripture we have has been inspired / selected for what purpose?

When we are referring to speaking on behalf of God, or speaking from God, people generally mean the "Thus says the Lord...." type of speaking.

Most of scripture is not like that. Going back to the book of Ruth, there is not a single instruction from God in the book but it is universally acknowledged as scripture.

I agree.

So have we arrived at the conclusion that King, Priest and Judge under their own appointments were not able to write Scripture and that this responsibility was seen only in the prophet of God's choosing.

In relation to your comment further back regarding Law and Statures we find the King was made to write out a copy of the Law and Statutes i.e Scripture.

Deu 17:18  And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

Deu 17:19  And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

So we see the Holy Scriptures contained the Law & Statutes.

Clarity

[Clarity]

Lighthammer,

I noted earlier reading a post of yours, did you remove it?

Clarity

[Clarity]

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Num 11:29)

Moses understood that God only spoke through prophets and shows the importance of the gift of prophecy which was also testified by Paul when he used similar words to those of Moses:

"I would that ye all..prophesied", for "he that prophesieth edifieth the Ecclesia" (1Cor 14:4-5).

Again, Paul understood the Church was not given any authority to make Scripture and was provided Apostles from various backgrounds to guide the body of Christ. 

You see Joshua took exception to these two officers prophesying in the absence of Moses, as he felt that this lessened the status of his beloved leader. He felt they either should have stood by him, and so manifested their subordinate position, or remained silent. Joshua's loyalty for Moses exhibited itself in jealousy lest his leader's authority and glory be dimmed. In this he was like John who called upon the Lord to forbid the use of his name to those who followed not with the Apostle. 

Did you notice in Num 11:29 Moses' reaction to the loyal and warm jealousy of Joshua?  This revealed the outstanding greatness of his character. He loved his people more than he loved himself. Even his mistakes stemmed from this great love. When a man is really great and good he longs that all should be as he is, and even better. Moses was such a man as that.

It's important any Bible based community understand God is not confined to religious protocols and hieratical systems, but choose's whom He wills.   

Clarity

[Clarity]

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. (Num 12:6)

The Hebrew has "your prophet". Any claiming to be a prophet, or any whom the people may consider or appoint as such, must be able to justify his position or appointment by divinely given visions or dreams. Whether these visions or dreams could be established as coming from Yahweh could be determined by submitting the so-called prophet to the appointed "test". See Deut 18:20-21.

That was the test imposed by Jeremiah upon the false prophet Hananiah (Jeremiah 28).

By now we are seeing a consistant message concerning those who can make Scripture and provide the interpratation of dreams.  Jeremiah was appointed from birth to be a Prophet, while others were called only for a short time; some held high positions while others were extremely poor with no religious formal training.  The contrast of personalities and backgrounds is something to ponder.

Clarity

[winsome]

 

NO.

You are falling into serious category errors.

"All scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Of course Paul was referring to the OT it is applicable to the NT as well. However let keep to the OT and prophets

What you are saying that only a prophet can write scripture.

Yes, and later in your post you suggest this is so, do you not?

No I didn't. You continually claim I have said things which I have not said.

It is you who have said that only a prophet can write scripture because that is one way you define a prophet.

You have set up a circular argument.

Then you also say everyone that writes scripture is a prophet.

It boils down to e.

Not a very useful statement.

Not very useful you say?

If it is useful please explain how saying that 'scripture is written by someone who writes scripture' is a useful statement.

Moreover the writing of scripture ceased with the death of the last apostle.

I assume you mean John at Patmos?

I'm  not assuming who diesd last.

But God can still speak through people today.
So not everything that a prophet speaks for God is scripture.

This is true.  Not everything which prophets spoke has been penned and made Scripture.

And you said this study is not very useful?

Again you claim I said something that I did not.
Do you deliberately doing this or are you just very careless?

I said that saying 'scripture is written by someone who writes scripture' is not a useful statement.

So far your study has been completely misguided.

If this is correct then the Scripture we have has been inspired / selected for what purpose?

And that is one of the questions you should have started with

When we are referring to speaking on behalf of God, or speaking from God, people generally mean the "Thus says the Lord...." type of speaking.

Most of scripture is not like that. Going back to the book of Ruth, there is not a single instruction from God in the book but it is universally acknowledged as scripture.

I agree.

You agree that most scripture is not of the Thus says the Lord...." type of speaking .
Excellent

So have we arrived at the conclusion that King, Priest and Judge under their own appointments were not able to write Scripture and that this responsibility was seen only in the prophet of God's choosing.

NO, we have not arrived at that conclusion. I have not agreed that at all.

You took that as your starting point for the discussion but you have not proved it.

I gave the example of the book of Ruth and asked:
Tell me who wrote the book of Ruth?
Was it a prophet?
If not was it not inspired?
Is it scripture?

To which you have given no reply.

In relation to your comment further back regarding Law and Statures we find the King was made to write out a copy of the Law and Statutes i.e Scripture.

Deu 17:18  And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

Deu 17:19  And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

So we see the Holy Scriptures contained the Law & Statutes.

Clarity

Yes the Scriptures contains the Law but Scripture is not only the Law. Apoint you seem to be avoiding

As I said before "You seem to be trying to say that Scripture=Law and Law=Scripture and it does not."

Moreover you still have not responded to my point about what constitutes scripture. Please can you reply to this:
"Logically you cannot lay down criteria from the Bible until you have discerned which writings the Bible consists of."

Before we can logically discuss who can or cannot write scripture we need to agree what scripture consists of and the process for discerning which writings constitute scripture.

You consistently fail to respond to the points put before you but dodge round them, falsely claiming things were said or agreed that were not.

[winsome]

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Num 11:29)

Moses understood that God only spoke through prophets and shows the importance of the gift of prophecy which was also testified by Paul when he used similar words to those of Moses:

"I would that ye all..prophesied", for "he that prophesieth edifieth the Ecclesia" (1Cor 14:4-5).

Again, Paul understood the Church was not given any authority to make Scripture and was provided Apostles from various backgrounds to guide the body of Christ. 

You see Joshua took exception to these two officers prophesying in the absence of Moses, as he felt that this lessened the status of his beloved leader. He felt they either should have stood by him, and so manifested their subordinate position, or remained silent. Joshua's loyalty for Moses exhibited itself in jealousy lest his leader's authority and glory be dimmed. In this he was like John who called upon the Lord to forbid the use of his name to those who followed not with the Apostle. 

Did you notice in Num 11:29 Moses' reaction to the loyal and warm jealousy of Joshua?  This revealed the outstanding greatness of his character. He loved his people more than he loved himself. Even his mistakes stemmed from this great love. When a man is really great and good he longs that all should be as he is, and even better. Moses was such a man as that.

It's important any Bible based community understand God is not confined to religious protocols and hieratical systems, but choose's whom He wills.   

Clarity

Encouraging prophecy is good but has no bearing on what constitutes scripture and the process and authority to discern which writings constitute scripture.

You are not tackling the fundamental issues.

[Clarity]

No I didn't. You continually claim I have said things which I have not said.

You said it was a circular argument and stated within that argument those who wrote Scripture (who are prophets) are those who write Scripture.

In reply to my statement that only Prophets can write Scripture you said "not a very useful statement"

Needless to say unlike Catholica you have skirted around the truth and conclusion already accepted within this study that Moses & Paul thus far agree with each other "Who can make Scripture?" well in OT terms we see it's the Prophet and as my point was made not the Priest, Judge or King.

It is you who have said that only a prophet can write scripture because that is one way you define a prophet.

You have set up a circular argument.

You say "one" but have you provided another? 

The Holy Word has not only provided you the definition, but also the context in which each passage is presented.  I find it peculiar your arguments lack the same representation of divine inspiration. 

If it is useful please explain how saying that 'scripture is written by someone who writes scripture' is a useful statement.

It's useful for a number of reasons.

1.   A King had no authority to write Scripture
2.   A Priest had no authority to write Scripture
3.   A Judge had no authority to write Scripture
4.   The Church in the wilderness had no authority to write Scripture

But let's leave the evidence of Deut and the writings of such men as Moses and Paul, what of Samuel?

And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD. (1Sa 3:20)

Did Samuel write Scripture? And was he a Prophet? Which books did he write?

You see Winsome, I have the answer for the first two questions but the third I know not.  He could have written many more book than presently seen in the Holy Scriptures.  However does the truth that only Prophets write Scripture fall down, certainly not.  The Scriptural support is overwhelming and you refuting it is still yet to see a verse.

Again you claim I said something that I did not.
Do you deliberately doing this or are you just very careless?

I think you will find your frustrated tone, which appears to be your style of communication, and your lack of making  points coherent enough to establish facts has left me to interpret what you actually believe.   Go back over your comments and see if they accurately reflect what you believe?  I think you will find even those reading these posts will only be guessing at best.  Whereas my beliefs and support of those beliefs are made extremely clear.

If your understanding is to say a Priest, Judge or King did have the authority to write Scripture under their administerial duties then please provide the verses to support, "show us".  If you cannot, I suggest you accept the truth as being revealed and allow this study to move forward. 

So far your study has been completely misguided.

A point in mention winsome.  Accusation followed by what?

And that is one of the questions you should have started with

Yes, and followed by what?

You agree that most scripture is not of the Thus says the Lord...." type of speaking .

Excellent

Yes some passage like Judges 9 are almost silent in this regard.

NO, we have not arrived at that conclusion. I have not agreed that at all.

Well if you don't agree what is the basis of your opposing thought? 

You took that as your starting point for the discussion but you have not proved it.

It's well and truly been proved by all the Scripture posted thus far and a lot more to come. 

I gave the example of the book of Ruth and asked:

Tell me who wrote the book of Ruth?

Was it a prophet?

The Word has told you a Prophet writes Scripture

If not was it not inspired?

If you believe the book of Ruth is not inspired please provide your reasons why.

I can show forth the entire Gospel from the study of Ruth; the Lord Jesus Christ is herein represented, the Law and the hope of Israel.

But if you have evidence to refute this also by all means put it up.

Is it scripture?

Yes.

To which you have given no reply.

Well here is your reply...hope it was useful ;)

Yes the Scriptures contains the Law but Scripture is not only the Law. Apoint you seem to be avoiding

It's a rather obvious point wouldn't you say Winsome?

I mean the Scriptures contain, Songs, Prayers, Exhortations, The Gospel, History and so forth.

And all of it recorded by Prophets and Apostles.

Moreover you still have not responded to my point about what constitutes scripture. Please can you reply to this:

At this stage the OP is who can make Scripture and not your question "what constitutes Scripture"

"Logically you cannot lay down criteria from the Bible until you have discerned which writings the Bible consists of."

Logically one must look into the Scripture to see what the criteria for writing Scrpiture before considering what books are inspired.

So far we have determined only prophets and Apostles can write Scripture, a good starting point one would think.

Before we can logically discuss who can or cannot write scripture we need to agree what scripture consists of and the process for
discerning which writings constitute scripture.

No as stated above and clarified again, we must first understand who was given the authority to write Scripture and thus far it's comforting to know a certain authority was required before Scripture could be penned.

You consistently fail to respond to the points put before you but dodge round them, falsely claiming things were said or agreed that
were not.

No dodging is going on here.  We are establishing at present from the OT books what gave a person the authority to make Scripture.
Moses gave us an insight into that authority:

"And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would
put his spirit upon them!"

An authentic prophet required the Spirit or Power of God to be place upon them.  Of course certain tests applied if that prophet was false (Jer 28)

Maybe your next post will contain a verse or two in support of your arguments.

After all....

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

[winsome]

 Clarity,

I've said this before but there are some fundamental issues here that need to be sorted out

The title of this thread is "Who can make Scripture?" We are therefore dealing the very basics of scripture and several issues need to be discussed and agreed before proceeding.

1. The first issue is to define what is meant by "scripture" – what scripture actually is.
Here is a definiton from CatholicRefence.net (actually a definition of Bible but I think it is the same for the purposes of this discussion):
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.

2. The second issue is to agree who determines what is scripture and what is not.

3. The third issue is what criteria should be used in that determination.

4. The fourth issue is what you mean by "make" scripture because it would seem from our discussion so far that we have a different understanding of this.

Until these are addressed I see no basis for continuing because you are making unproven assumption and circular arguments. The whole exercise becomes pointless.

[mclees8]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

[Clarity]

Clarity,

I've said this before but there are some fundamental issues here that need to be sorted out

The title of this thread is "Who can make Scripture?" We are therefore dealing the very basics of scripture and several issues need to be discussed and agreed before proceeding.

1. The first issue is to define what is meant by "scripture" – what scripture actually is.
Here is a definition from CatholicRefence.net (actually a definition of Bible but I think it is the same for the purposes of this discussion):
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.

Interesting your definition allows for Churches plural.

2. The second issue is to agree who determines what is scripture and what is not.

I believe the KJV and the collection of books therein are the Scriptures as defined in 2 Tim 3:16.  I believe within these books as we have seen to date were all written by prophets and apostles. 

3. The third issue is what criteria should be used in that determination.

As we have seen no authority has been given to the Church to add to or take from the Holy Scriptures. 

4. The fourth issue is what you mean by "make" scripture because it would seem from our discussion so far that we have a different understanding of this.

The understanding is not mine but from the prophets themselves.  If you have claim to another divine understanding which is not found within the Holy Scripture and you declare yourself to be a "prophet" or "something else", please demonstrate this for us.

Until these are addressed I see no basis for continuing because you are making unproven assumption and circular arguments. The whole exercise becomes pointless.

These points do nothing at all to address the facts that only Prophets were given the vision, inspiration to make Scripture.

Clarity

[Clarity]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Interesting you should state "universal" as to mean worldwide to all the saints.

But one must define this Holy Faith as written by Paul.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Rom 5:1)

Of course one would need to correctly identify with how we are justified; who is God and who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Clarity

[Catholica]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

If you read it in a way that differs from what the Church intended, then it is no longer the "Apostle's Creed".  In this case it is the "mclees8 creed".

[Catholica]

A prophet is someone who proclaims the truth. 

I agree and it appears you are the only one in this forum thus far to state such truth. 

Not only do you agree with Deuteronomy but also with the Apostle who wrote the book of Hebrews.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (Heb 1:1)

Both the forefathers (OT) and the prophets (OT) are all captured in this opening statement which agrees that neither King or Priest or Judge were given under their administration the authority to make Scripture.  Yes, we have seen how David was both a King and Prophet, however it was not his Kingship that entitled him to make Scripture, but rather God's appointment of him as prophet.

It is not God's appointment as prophet that entitles him to make scripture either.    And note also there is a whole in your theory about Deuteronomy 18: Deuteronomy says "a prophet" not "prophets".  If your argument about Deuteronomy is true, then only Jesus could write scripture.  But we know that Jesus wrote no scripture.  In addition, you would have to negate all books but the Pentateuch, aka the Torah, because they were written by prophets who were not Christ.

We need a foundation of what truth is in order to discern whether they are a true or false prophet. 

I find it puzzling that out of those here contribuiting only you have spoken to Deuteronomy and followed the inspired account.  This is to be commended as Winsome and Lighthammer have struggled to "enter the Word of God".  This entering is not altogether easy especially if we have a defensive mindset.

Very difficult indeed.

Thanks for your kind words, but I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation, I am just entering into your argument to work with you to find truth.  I certainly have no problems with how winsome and Lighthammer are addressing this.

As a principle that has been held in the Catholic Church, all public revelation (that which is universally binding on the believer) ended with the death of the last apostle, John. 

You say as a "principle" this has been held in the Catholic Church?  Do you suggest the Church unlike the Israel of God who were not given the authority to make Scripture, or add or subtract from it, how so?

I detect a element of doubt in your above remark.

I used the word principle to avoid getting into an argument about dogma.  That the "canon of scripture is closed" is a dogma of the Catholic Church, which is both a principle and stronger than a principle.  Not only am I bound to believe it, but I full-heartedly and joyfully believe it.

Therefore we can test all prophets based on their conformity with the deposit of faith, but today no one can add to the deposit of faith required for belief.  Others have been visited by God, and what has been revealed to them is often tested by the Church against divine revelation.  If it is in contradiction, it is condemned, if it is in conformity, it is approved for devotions, but it is not binding and is not on the same level as Holy Scripture or holy tradition.

Therefore, the ones who are "capable" of writing scripture have already been revealed, their books added to the Bible, and the case is closed.  There is no more debate.

Am I to believe from the above "all capable of writing Scripture have been revealed" that no further Scrpiture "can" be written?

If I was to correctly restate what you just said in my terms, I would say that "all works comprising holy scripture have been placed in the canon" and "all persons who will ever write scripture have died". 

Now, people may write down truth that is wholly in line with scripture and may even expound upon the scriptures correctly, but what they write is not on the same level as Holy Scripture.  Holy Scripture is a class of writings that contains the revelation of God that must be held by all believers.  God completed his revelation to the apostles.  Therefore no prophet's writings can give new revelation from God which are binding for belief by all believers.  New revelation may occur, and may validly be from God, but such revelation is not binding for belief on the faithful.  In the Catholic Church we call this "private revelation", whereas Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition we call "public revelation".  In a nutshell, "public revelation" has ended with the death of the last apostle, John.

Furthermore, it never was a debate on whose writings could be added to scripture, but whether the writings themselves were inspired.  For example, no one really knows who wrote the book of Hebrews.  It's not about who the human person was that wrote the book, but whether the work was deemed to be inspired by the Catholic Church.

I find your last comment of interest "deemed to be inspired by the Catholic Church".  The OT was deemed Inspired by many, including the House of Israel (and later Judah) and those strangers who walked amongst them.  The Pharisees, Saducees and the Hellenists and many others claimed the OT inspired, but you say "only" the Catholic Church can make such a claim?

What has changed?

God has passed his authority from the Jewish nation to the Church he founded which is the Catholic Church.  Therefore when the Jews rejected the books they thought were "only" written in Greek and not in Hebrew of the Septuagint (which was not actually true for all of them) and ALSO rejected the entirety of NT writings, they had no authority to do so.  That authority had been passed to Peter with the giving of the keys, which was a biblical symbol of authority in ancient Judaism.

Therefore when the Mormons said that the Bible was not inerrant, and that there other books were equal to scriptures, they had no authority to do so.  And when the Protestant so-called "reformers" effectively rejected the deuterocanon, they had no authority to do so.  But when the Catholic Church formed the canon of scripture, and used the Septuagint as well as the 27 books of the NT and did not include other very orthodox writings that were actually part of the mass for the first two centuries, they had the authority to do so because Jesus gave his authority to the apostles, and like all authority, which is required for the ordered handling of any community, that authority doesn't end but instead gets passed as an office, just as Matthias took Judas' office.

[mclees8]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

If you read it in a way that differs from what the Church intended, then it is no longer the "Apostle's Creed".  In this case it is the "mclees8 creed".

No its not the mclees creed but it is stated correctly and in agreement  with the true word definition of  Catholic and with scripture that clearly declares all believers are saints. it is still the apostles creed.  Nothing is incorrect here. The deception surrounding this word is with the church of Rome. This exsposes that deception.

[Catholica]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

If you read it in a way that differs from what the Church intended, then it is no longer the "Apostle's Creed".  In this case it is the "mclees8 creed".

No its not the mclees creed but it is stated correctly and in agreement  with the true word definition of  Catholic and with scripture that clearly declares all believers are saints. it is still the apostles creed.  Nothing is incorrect here.

You never responded to when I asked you to correctly interpret St. Ignatius of Antioch's writing when he referred to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps you didn't see my post?  I added a link so that you can read which post I meant.

What would St. Ignatius have thought of when he would have said "I believe in the Catholic Church"?  Bishops and authority and the Eucharist, perhaps?  Or would his "holy universal faith in Christ" also have included the "faith" of the so-called "heretics" which he spoke against, who had a different "faith" in Christ, one that apparently denied the authority of said bishops?

[Clarity]

It is not God's appointment as prophet that entitles him to make scripture either.

If God speaks through a man it is by its very nature defined as God appointed.   Man or Church never appointed prophets, but again if you can show a Scripture to suggest man controlled whom God spoke through by all means show us.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (Heb 1:1)

I could expand further on the significance of this verse in relation to the majestic manner in which God spoke through his Son but for now it is sufficient to know all men including the Son are God appointed.

And note also there is a whole in your theory about Deuteronomy 18: Deuteronomy says "a prophet" not "prophets".  If your argument about Deuteronomy is true, then only Jesus could write scripture.  But we know that Jesus wrote no scripture.  In addition, you would have to negate all books but the Pentateuch, aka the Torah, because they were written by prophets who were not Christ.

No Catholica, it's that you haven't enquired of the Word sufficiently to see its truth.  So few today read the Bible with care, for you will go so far but what stops us from entering? Is it mens teachings that have clouded your vision to see clearly?

God said "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,

Don't you see Moses as the prophet in mention "like unto thee".  There were many prophets like Moses, though he was the very greatest of all those prophets, as quoted at the end of his life "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses" —  All the Prophets (Heb 1:1) carried the promise of a greater prophet than Moses to come. Now the promise of Deut. 18:15,18 was not fulfilled in Joshua: faithful Israelites had to wait for his coming (see John 1:21; Acts 3:22-23; Heb. 3:5-6).  "Whom Yahweh knew face to face" — There was a unique intimacy between Yahweh as manifested through the Angel of His presence (Isa. 63:9-13) and Israel's great leader (see Exod. 33:11; Num. 12:8) that was shared by nobody else to such a degree (see Jud. 6:22) apart from Yahweh's "only begotten son", the "beloved in whom He was well pleased". Moses knew Yahweh face to face, but Christ could say of himself: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).

Catholica, I will leave this to rest on you in the hope you will see its truth and submit accordingly as I have.

Clarity

p.s I will wait for your acknowledgment before addressing your remaining points.

[winsome]

Clarity,

I've said this before but there are some fundamental issues here that need to be sorted out

The title of this thread is "Who can make Scripture?" We are therefore dealing the very basics of scripture and several issues need to be discussed and agreed before proceeding.

1. The first issue is to define what is meant by "scripture" – what scripture actually is.
Here is a definition from CatholicRefence.net (actually a definition of Bible but I think it is the same for the purposes of this discussion):
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.

Interesting your definition allows for Churches plural.

If you do not like that definition then what is your definition?

What is the definition that you are using in your title for this thread?

It seems that you do not know what you mean by the term.

2. The second issue is to agree who determines what is scripture and what is not.

I believe the KJV and the collection of books therein are the Scriptures as defined in 2 Tim 3:16.  I believe within these books as we have seen to date were all written by prophets and apostles. 

2Tim 3:16 is not a definition of who determines scripture. It does not address the issue.

It would appear from your reply that you believe that the authors of the KJV are the ones who determine what is scripture and what isn't That's a very strange belief. What did Christians do for the first 1500 years after Christ?

3. The third issue is what criteria should be used in that determination.

As we have seen no authority has been given to the Church to add to or take from the Holy Scriptures. 

That is no answer at all..

4. The fourth issue is what you mean by "make" scripture because it would seem from our discussion so far that we have a different understanding of this.

The understanding is not mine but from the prophets themselves.  If you have claim to another divine understanding which is not found within the Holy Scripture and you declare yourself to be a "prophet" or "something else", please demonstrate this for us.

The term "make" is yours in the title of this thread.

It would seem you do not even understand your own terminology

Since you cannot even define the two key terms in your title for this thread then literally you do not know what you are talking about.

I can see no useful purpose in discussing this any further with you.