Who can make Scripture?

[Clarity]

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.

If you mean what you say, which I suppose you do, then not only do you appear "frustrated" but also "impatient".

Not having any history to call upon it appears these qualities of yours are not in the spirit of 1 Tim 3:2 & 1 Tim 2:24, however they can be learned at the Masters feet.

You see your inability to enter the Word of God is evident; if the truth was known even your counterparts would see this as being true.  I appreciate you wish to sway the study toward ungodly teaching, but for now as you can see from other posts we are elucidating divine principles from the prophet Moses and the inspiration which was demonstrated through him toward Israel. 

I have asked you for your teachings but in this reply you once again could not take me to the Bible; not even your own Bible!   

Feel free to read along but for now I will assume you have departed in vexation of spirit.   

Clarity

[Clarity]

To date we have established the following points are truth:

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

We noted that the question was asked of David as he was a King however in Acts 2:30 which I doubt any would question was written by the Apostle Luke under inspiration confirms David was in fact a Prophet though being a King.

David...Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

David was under divine inspiration as he spoke of the purposes God proposed for his
scheme of redemption. David declared:

"The spirit of Yahweh spake by me, and His word was in my tongue" (2 Sam. 23:2, cp. Psa. 45:1).

Numerous times we have seen defined for us, as is the case here with Luke, David, also, Moses & Paul all agree as to the mode of operation in which the Spirit rests and works through various prophets.

1. Spake by me
2. Words were in his tongue

Therefore the words of Psa.16, which Peter had cited to the Jews in Jerusalem, were prophetic utterances.

Rather beautiful wouldnt you agree?

[Clarity]

Sorry I really ought to place those two references for all to read as they are essential in making the point valid.

The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. (2 Sa 23:2)

Cmp.

To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, for the sons of Korah, Maschil, A Song of loves. My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. (Psa 45:1)

"my tongue is the pen of a ready writer"

Sublime.

[Catholica]

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.

Yes, prophets are appointed by God, but just because a man is appointed by God as a prophet doesn't entitle him to make scripture.  Read that carefully.  I'm not saying that man or Church appoint prophets.  But the Church IS the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and so it is the Church who can tell you which books by prophets are scripture.  And the Church has spoken.

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).

Yes I do see Moses as the prophet in mention, the "thee" in "like unto thee".  However if you read the verse carefully, God says "I will raise them up a Prophet, not several prophets.  Deuteronomy 18:15,18 says nothing about the several prophets whose work was in fact added to the Old Testament after the Torah was written but before Jesus came.  You said that Deuteronomy had it's own exception, but the "exception" you noted only mentions *ONE* prophet.  Therefore, following your logic, the only addition to the Torah we should have is what Jesus wrote himself, and that was blown from the sand thousands of years ago.

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.

Do you see anything lacking from my analysis here?  Deuteronomy only gives exception for "one Prophet".  Yet it is several prophets who added to the Torah.  Therefore this part of your argument does not follow.

[Clarity]

Not only have we seen that only a authentic prophet was able to speak and orignate Scripture but we see the Apostles and Disciples understood this to be true, in fact it was the foundation of their faith:

"Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. (Act 1:16)

The Apostles had evidently searched the scriptures to ascertain what should be done in the unusual circumstances that now faced them. The RV has "It was needful..." Thus, it was not merely a matter of convenience, but to fulfil the prophetic Word (See. Jn 10:35; Lk. 24:25-27, 44-46).

The Scripture cannot be broken! John 10:35

The utterances of David became the voice of the Spirit (See Heb. 3:17). Whilst previously ignorant of these things, the apostles could now correctly interpret prophecies such as Jer. 19:4, and see its appropriateness to the action of Judas Iscariot.

"by the mouth of David" — Citing his words, as those of infallible inspiration. David's own experiences at the hands of betrayers was typical of the circumstances that would affect his greater Son.

"spake before concerning Judas"  The betrayal of his close disciple to the Master was the subject of prophecy, such as Psa. 41:9, cited in Jn. 13:18, and now correctly understood by the apostles.

Who can argue against such a testimony of divine truth?

[winsome]

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.

If you mean what you say, which I suppose you do, then not only do you appear "frustrated" but also "impatient".

Not having any history to call upon it appears these qualities of yours are not in the spirit of 1 Tim 3:2 & 1 Tim 2:24, however they can be learned at the Masters feet.

You consider yourself the "Master" that I should learn from? Hardly!

You see your inability to enter the Word of God is evident; if the truth was known even your counterparts would see this as being true.  I appreciate you wish to sway the study toward ungodly teaching, but for now as you can see from other posts we are elucidating divine principles from the prophet Moses and the inspiration which was demonstrated through him toward Israel.

Please leave off the ad-hominem attacks.

Feel free to read along but for now I will assume you have departed in vexation of spirit.   

Clarity

I have not departed in a "vexation of spirit" but because of your inability to define the terms you are using thus making discussion fruitless.

[Clarity]

Yes, prophets are appointed by God, but just because a man is appointed by God as a prophet doesn't entitle him to make scripture. 

You will find I have not said "every prophet writes Scripture" however, I have said that only prophets & apostles write Scripture.

Read that carefully.  I'm not saying that man or Church appoint prophets. 

This is good.

But the Church IS the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and so it is the Church who can tell you which books by prophets are scripture. 

Can you provide a Scripture to support this authority?  We have seen the Church in the wilderness was given authority to obey the Scriptures only and to apply its judgements, but nowhere in Israel's history are we shown the Nation was able to choose which parts of Scripture it could follow or discard?

And the Church has spoken.

Yes and how many volumes of catechisms has she uttered   

Yes I do see Moses as the prophet in mention, the "thee" in "like unto thee". 

Good - so you do see more than "one" prophet.

However if you read the verse carefully, God says "I will raise them up a Prophet, not several prophets. 

That's because the passage is messianic, I thought we had established this?

Deuteronomy 18:15,18 says nothing about the several prophets whose work was in fact added to the Old Testament after the Torah was written but before Jesus came. 

You just contradicted yourself!

Moses is the second prophet being referenced as "the Prophets!"  That's the whole point of the passage – Moses - - > the Greater Prophet Jesus Christ saw many prophets raise up but none of them greater than Moses.

You said that Deuteronomy had it's own exception, but the "exception" you noted only mentions *ONE* prophet.

You did it again – Moses is the second prophet in this section of Scripture:  Actually God goes on to clarify further his command.

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' (Deu 18:20)

So not only does the record state Moses as a Prophet and Jesus Christ but also the many false prophets who would eventually led Israel astray.

Therefore, following your logic, the only addition to the Torah we should have is what Jesus wrote himself, and that was blown from the sand thousands of years ago.

This makes no sense when you have read "And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,  (Deu 34:10)

Are you to suggest no prophet arose from the time of Moses to Jesus Christ?

Surely this is not your logic?

Do you see anything lacking from my analysis here?  Deuteronomy only gives exception for "one Prophet". 

Lets put this very clear shall we?

Here is a list of Prophets which Deut 18 is covering beginning with Moses the 1st prophet in mention leading to a second prophet - The Lord Jesus Christ

•   Moses
•   Joshua
•   Balaam
•   Zechariah
•   Eli
•   Samuel
•   Nathan
•   Micaiah
•   Ahijah
•   Jehu
•   Elijah
•   Elisha
•   Job
•   Joel
•   Jonah
•   Amos
•   Hosea/Hoshea
•   Isaiah
•   Micah
•   Nahum
•   Zephaniah
•   Jeremiah
•   Habakkuk
•   Obadiah
•   Daniel
•   Ezekiel
•   Haggai
•   Malachi
•   Lord Jesus Christ

Now the prophets in-between are they prophets from Moses' brethren? Are they prophets greater than Moses?  Are they represented in Moses styled "the Law and the Prophets" Rom 3:21?

I think you will see reason by stating Moses and the Lord Jesus Christ are the two prophets in mention, however all those inbetween are likewise captured as being inferior to Moses who they did not see "face to face"

Yet it is several prophets who added to the Torah.  Therefore this part of your argument does not follow.

Correct one of which was Moses himself.

Clarity

[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.

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic. of course we will never agree to what is correct interpritation. You want it to justify what it does not which is the papacy. Your churhes claim  to it is a matter of convenience. You want it clasify the RCC Nothing that you want it to justify existed in 110 AD. Lets establish who truly is a catholic.Llets establish who is a believer and follower of Christ as disciples. Who truly represents Christ and is counted as His true bride. Catholic is just a term Ignatius chose to use that caught on. It is not a leagal or true term. It states one universal faith in Christ which spoke to all who claim and believe Jesus is Lord of their life. Ignatius did not look to anything like what you identify as the catholic church. This does not justify the RCC but speaks to all who love Him.

[Clarity]

You may recall we opened this OP with an explicit text, which applied to Israel then as it does to believers today.

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 we confirmed the Church had no authority to write Scripture,  change, add or take from it by any means. This strict charge revealed how serious His commands were that no one was to add to what had been written.

We also get a similar command coming from the greater prophet than Moses in Rev 22

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,  (Rev 22:18)

The Lord Jesus Christ charged the Pharisees with "making the Word of God of none effect through their traditions" (Mark 7:13). His reference was to the Law.

Could the same be said today regarding the Gospel where some have written their own books. In a flagrant manner, religions such as the Mormons, have not hesitated to add to, and diminish from the clear teaching of the Word of God by claiming new revelations or perverting the obvious teaching of the Word.

The warning in both Deuteronomy, and The revelation relates to the adding to, or diminishing from, the power and significance of the words recorded. It is the responsibility of those who would worship God in truth, that they seek out the literal meaning of His words and instructions, and apply them fully in their lives.

Isn't it significant and appropriate that both Moses and the Lord Jesus Christ issued such warnings during the last messages they respectively delivered to the Israelites during their two ministries? 

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".

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

[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.

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it. Remember there was no papal rome at that time. Just an assumption and a couple of very shaky letters but no smoking gun. I have read them. who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

[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.

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it. Remember there was no papal rome at that time. Just an assumption and a couple of very shaky letters but no smoking gun. I have read them. who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Hi Mclees, would you kindly take this to another thread as we are considering the theme of the Prophets and their role in making Scripture.
Thanks Clarity

[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.

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it. Remember there was no papal rome at that time. Just an assumption and a couple of very shaky letters but no smoking gun. I have read them. who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Hi Mclees, would you kindly take this to another thread as we are considering the theme of the Prophets and their role in making Scripture.
Thanks Clarity

Who then is a prophet?   Is it not one who hears the word of God?

[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.

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it. Remember there was no papal rome at that time. Just an assumption and a couple of very shaky letters but no smoking gun. I have read them. who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Hi Mclees, would you kindly take this to another thread as we are considering the theme of the Prophets and their role in making Scripture.
Thanks Clarity

Who then is a prophet?   Is it not one who hears the word of God?

Yes, and Moses desired that all could be Prophets even though only a handful were chosen to write Scripture.

Clarity

[Clarity]

We have seen how the King, Priest and Judge were under the Law. They had no authority to originate or put forth fresh statutes; only to apply to all the cases that which Moses and the Prophets had committed into their hands.

And this was the position for all the scribes, Pharisees, priests, and teachers of the Law is abundantly clear from the New Testament and from Jewish literature.  When we consider how absurd the Talmudical applications of the Old Testament may be, it is clear that they are applications of Scripture, from the constant appeal of Scripture and citation of Scripture is the ground of which is laid down and written.

That men such as Shammai the binder and Hillel the Looser and the rest had no authority to legislate in any other sense than the sense of that which was already written, is clear from those passages in the Gospel where the Lord so sternly rebukes them for evacuating the Scripture for the sake of their own tradition. 

To this truth they had not one word to reply to the Master. They could not dispute this fact as will be the case upon his return to the Earth "to those who disobey NOT the Gospel".

What's interesting is the legality of his contention with them was not questioned for one moment!

The authority of the written word through the prophets was the supreme authority; this appeal was never contested in Israel, either by the bitterest opponents of the Gospel in the New Testament, or the most disobedient idolaters in the Old.   The law was Law whether obeyed or not. 

So we have found the prophets were the authors and not the church, or the king, or the priest in their several offices.  Further to this not one person within the Church of Israel could deliver anything as being divine, not statute, creed or tradition; any Word with Power could only be given by the Prophet of the Lord.  And those prophets came from the most unlikely of places!

Clarity

[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.

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?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it. Remember there was no papal rome at that time. Just an assumption and a couple of very shaky letters but no smoking gun. I have read them. who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Hi Mclees, would you kindly take this to another thread as we are considering the theme of the Prophets and their role in making Scripture.
Thanks Clarity

Who then is a prophet?   Is it not one who hears the word of God?

Yes, and Moses desired that all could be Prophets even though only a handful were chosen to write Scripture.

Clarity

Yes and who determans the ones who do and the ones who don't.  What is your point in all this.? 

[Clarity]

Yes and who determans the ones who do and the ones who don't.

God determines who are authentic prophets. 

What is your point in all this.?

So far there have been many points established by the Word and no doubt as we continue many more will come to light.  Another point which is coming shortly is seen in the Ecclesia in Israel having no authority to change or add to the Law of God. We will find however they did have the authority to test the Prophets.  Obeying and testing was the Churchs only function, anything more than this was of man and not God.

As you read through these posts we will see we are staying to a course of what is true and identifying what is false. 

Hope you stick around.

Clarity

[mclees8]

Yes and who determans the ones who do and the ones who don't.

God determines who are authentic prophets. 

What is your point in all this.?

So far there have been many points established by the Word and no doubt as we continue many more will come to light.  Another point which is coming shortly is seen in the Ecclesia in Israel having no authority to change or add to the Law of God. We will find however they did have the authority to test the Prophets.  Obeying and testing was the Churchs only function, anything more than this was of man and not God.

As you read through these posts we will see we are staying to a course of what is true and identifying what is false. 

Hope you stick around.

Clarity

I believe you said that some prophets wright scripture and some don't. I asked then who determines the ones who do and the ones who don't. Yes God determines but I was not asking who was true or a false prophet.

It is true that we sholuld test them as it says in REV.2:  2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

You point out that Israel did not have the right to alter the law and i would agree just as we would not have the right to alter or change scripture. Where are we going on this.

[Clarity]

Yes and who determans the ones who do and the ones who don't.

God determines who are authentic prophets. 

What is your point in all this.?

So far there have been many points established by the Word and no doubt as we continue many more will come to light.  Another point which is coming shortly is seen in the Ecclesia in Israel having no authority to change or add to the Law of God. We will find however they did have the authority to test the Prophets.  Obeying and testing was the Churchs only function, anything more than this was of man and not God.

As you read through these posts we will see we are staying to a course of what is true and identifying what is false. 

Hope you stick around.

Clarity

I believe you said that some prophets wright scripture and some don't. I asked then who determines the ones who do and the ones who don't. Yes God determines but I was not asking who was true or a false prophet.

It is true that we sholuld test them as it says in REV.2:  2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

You point out that Israel did not have the right to alter the law and i would agree just as we would not have the right to alter or change scripture. Where are we going on this.

Many claims have been made concerning "authority" and with these claims some have used the Scriptures unwisely to their own harm.

Take this verse for instance.  It's often used by the church to suggests its position of authority. That she can write many enforceable creeds.

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

And

"Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." Romans 13:1-2

"Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you." Romans 13:17

Now those belonging to the church have submitted to the "Authority of the Church" as they are commanded to do. However apostate churches demand the same from their members.

How can we test the Church to see if its authority is authentic and not found to be like 1st century Judaism? Which looked like the church, acted like the church and made many traditions like the Church?

The Prophets of Old look nothing at all like the Hierarchical system we see today, quite the opposite.

Also what has come out of this study loud and clear is the teaching of "Scripture alone", which at present is uncontested in OT times.

So what changed?

Interested in your thoughts.

Clarity

[Clarity]

Lets put it another way shall we.

We see from God calling various prophets from all over the place, some Jew and some gentile, but never from within an organised religious body alone. The Apostles also were called from varying backgrounds all of whom had no formal religious training.

So how is that God has changed?

Sacred Magisterium is entrusted to one man? Within an inflexible hierarchical structural?

[winsome]

Clarity I posted this earlier:

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.

In subsequent discussion (posts #34, #40) you were unwilling or unable to address these fundamental issues.

Indeed you seem to be more interested in giving your opinions than in engaging in debate.

I was wondering at the start why you had posted this thread in the Catholic Forum.

Now I see you just want to attack the Catholic Church.

[Clarity]

Clarity I posted this earlier:

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.

In subsequent discussion (posts #34, #40) you were unwilling or unable to address these fundamental issues.

Indeed you seem to be more interested in giving your opinions than in engaging in debate.

I was wondering at the start why you had posted this thread in the Catholic Forum.

Now I see you just want to attack the Catholic Church.

I believe a number of people learned a few lessons about His Word from this short study which they did not previously.  Maybe it got them thinking of "how God operates outside the religious framework of Israel at that time?" Indeed the Roman Catholic Church! Maybe they might have seen in all the warnings of the Prophets and their treatment of them, how God would judge Israel with mighty judgements as He will do so with your Church. 

We both know God was not found in organised religion of Jesus Day and with the last and greatest of the prophets John had completed his work, He left the temple and its many man made traditions.

Do you know when God departed from the RCC?

[winsome]

Clarity I posted this earlier:

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.

In subsequent discussion (posts #34, #40) you were unwilling or unable to address these fundamental issues.

Indeed you seem to be more interested in giving your opinions than in engaging in debate.

I was wondering at the start why you had posted this thread in the Catholic Forum.

Now I see you just want to attack the Catholic Church.

I believe a number of people learned a few lessons about His Word from this short study which they did not previously.  Maybe it got them thinking of "how God operates outside the religious framework of Israel at that time?" Indeed the Roman Catholic Church! Maybe they might have seen in all the warnings of the Prophets and their treatment of them, how God would judge Israel with mighty judgements as He will do so with your Church. 

We both know God was not found in organised religion of Jesus Day and with the last and greatest of the prophets John had completed his work, He left the temple and its many man made traditions.

I doubt anyone learnt much from your opinions. but if you feel better from believing that so be it.

Do you know when God departed from the RCC?

Jesus promised he would never leave his Church and therefore is still with the Catholic Church - Mt 16:18, Jn 14:18, Mt 28:20. Yes Jesus is still with us as he keeps his promises.

But no doubt you have some contrary opinion on the matter.

[Clarity]

And while you are thinking about that all important question.

Can you provide us Old Testament examples of the following occurrences in Israel?

1. infallible sacred tradition
2. infallible sacred magisterium

Please demonstrate where the priesthood was given the authority to make tradition or its own teachings.   Also show us where the High Priest Elect could make extraordinary declarations likened to the pope speaking ex cathedra today, and their many ecumenical councils?

These studies have proven conclusively that only a Prophet could make Scripture and that Scripture could not be changed, which was also confirmed by "the" prophet & King Jesus Christ.

I will be interested in your Old Testament findings.

Clarity.

[Clarity]

Clarity I posted this earlier:

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.

In subsequent discussion (posts #34, #40) you were unwilling or unable to address these fundamental issues.

Indeed you seem to be more interested in giving your opinions than in engaging in debate.

I was wondering at the start why you had posted this thread in the Catholic Forum.

Now I see you just want to attack the Catholic Church.

I believe a number of people learned a few lessons about His Word from this short study which they did not previously.  Maybe it got them thinking of "how God operates outside the religious framework of Israel at that time?" Indeed the Roman Catholic Church! Maybe they might have seen in all the warnings of the Prophets and their treatment of them, how God would judge Israel with mighty judgements as He will do so with your Church. 

We both know God was not found in organised religion of Jesus Day and with the last and greatest of the prophets John had completed his work, He left the temple and its many man made traditions.

I doubt anyone learnt much from your opinions. but if you feel better from believing that so be it.

Do you know when God departed from the RCC?

Jesus promised he would never leave his Church and therefore is still with the Catholic Church - Mt 16:18, Jn 14:18, Mt 28:20. Yes Jesus is still with us as he keeps his promises.

But no doubt you have some contrary opinion on the matter.

You assume to belong to the church to which the promise relates, only to proceed to quote a Scriptural reference which you make (and boast in might I add) Peter the foundation of your Church and NOT the one giving the promise?

John 14:18 is Christ speaking to his children who thou be like orphans in there poor down trodden state are his treasured children. You don't actually believe he is speaking to the Roman Catholic Church do you?

This is how he spoke to the RCC of his day.

Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. (Mat 23:16)

Why do you think Jesus will refer to the RCC as blind guides upon his return?

Any thoughts.

[Clarity]

Winsome

The difference between you and I is rather simple to define - so lets cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter shall we?

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".

Whereas, I will let you in on a little secret as to what is truly extraordinary.

God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers by the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
(Heb 1:1-2)

God spoke through Prophets and His Son who was the greatest of all the Prophets.

I will raise them up a prophet (Jesus) from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses); and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (Deu 18:18)

Now that's extraordinary!

[winsome]

 

Clarity I posted this earlier:

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.

In subsequent discussion (posts #34, #40) you were unwilling or unable to address these fundamental issues.

Indeed you seem to be more interested in giving your opinions than in engaging in debate.

I was wondering at the start why you had posted this thread in the Catholic Forum.

Now I see you just want to attack the Catholic Church.

I believe a number of people learned a few lessons about His Word from this short study which they did not previously.  Maybe it got them thinking of "how God operates outside the religious framework of Israel at that time?" Indeed the Roman Catholic Church! Maybe they might have seen in all the warnings of the Prophets and their treatment of them, how God would judge Israel with mighty judgements as He will do so with your Church. 

We both know God was not found in organised religion of Jesus Day and with the last and greatest of the prophets John had completed his work, He left the temple and its many man made traditions.

I doubt anyone learnt much from your opinions. but if you feel better from believing that so be it.

Do you know when God departed from the RCC?

Jesus promised he would never leave his Church and therefore is still with the Catholic Church - Mt 16:18, Jn 14:18, Mt 28:20. Yes Jesus is still with us as he keeps his promises.

But no doubt you have some contrary opinion on the matter.

You assume to belong to the church to which the promise relates, only to proceed to quote a Scriptural reference which you make (and boast in might I add) Peter the foundation of your Church and NOT the one giving the promise?

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?

Paul says the apostles (and prophets) are the foundation of the Church, with Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). I believe what Paul says. Do you?

John 14:18 is Christ speaking to his children who thou be like orphans in there poor down trodden state are his treasured children. You don't actually believe he is speaking to the Roman Catholic Church do you?

Jesus was speaking to his apostles in Jn 14:18 and Mt 28:20, the ones who are the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:20). This is the Church that is described as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

This is how he spoke to the RCC of his day.

Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. (Mat 23:16)

Why do you think Jesus will refer to the RCC as blind guides upon his return?

Any thoughts.

Yes,

In Mt 23:16 Jesus was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees.

Jesus will not refer to the Catholic Church as blind guides when he returns because they are not blind guides. He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13). Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

[winsome]

And while you are thinking about that all important question.

Can you provide us Old Testament examples of the following occurrences in Israel?

1. infallible sacred tradition
2. infallible sacred magisterium

Please demonstrate where the priesthood was given the authority to make tradition or its own teachings.   Also show us where the High Priest Elect could make extraordinary declarations likened to the pope speaking ex cathedra today, and their many ecumenical councils?

You are diverting onto other topics.

These studies have proven conclusively that only a Prophet could make Scripture and that Scripture could not be changed, which was also confirmed by "the" prophet & King Jesus Christ.

Your "studies" have shown no such thing.

You cannot even define the basic terminology you are using.

[winsome]

Winsome

The difference between you and I is rather simple to define - so lets cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter shall we?

You have been deceived

I have not been deceived

into thinking your god

Are you suggesting we believe in different gods?

Are you not a Christian then?
Or are you suggesting that I am not a Christian?

is manifested though the infallibility of a sinful church,

The Church is not sinful even though it consists of sinful people.

with decrees of sinful popes

Sinful people can tell the truth.

and sinful councils all being "extraordinary".

I don't understand what you mean by this

Whereas, I will let you in on a little secret as to what is truly extraordinary.

God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers by the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
(Heb 1:1-2)

That's not a secret, that is in my Bible.

God spoke through Prophets and His Son who was the greatest of all the Prophets.

I will raise them up a prophet (Jesus) from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses); and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (Deu 18:18)

Now that's extraordinary!

That is in my Bible too.

But who speaks for God now? The answer is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

[Clarity]

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.

[Clarity]

And while you are thinking about that all important question.

Can you provide us Old Testament examples of the following occurrences in Israel?

1. infallible sacred tradition
2. infallible sacred magisterium

Please demonstrate where the priesthood was given the authority to make tradition or its own teachings.   Also show us where the High Priest Elect could make extraordinary declarations likened to the pope speaking ex cathedra today, and their many ecumenical councils?

You are diverting onto other topics.

These studies have proven conclusively that only a Prophet could make Scripture and that Scripture could not be changed, which was also confirmed by "the" prophet & King Jesus Christ.

Your "studies" have shown no such thing.

You cannot even define the basic terminology you are using.

Early on I sensed you wanted to divert the studies away from the Scriptures which is common practice when speaking with RCC's.  Holding you to the inspired account was difficult, in fact you would not enter it as you once again prove to us above.

Rather than accepting the Word of God as your source of truth you turn to fables for guidance.

Anyone reading this will know you cannot show us from the OT your religious model because it doesn't exist - its never existed, only in idolatry has such rituals and customs been so widely practiced and received.

The point has been made.

I am comfortable for those reading to see your religion for what it is and to remain untouched by its ability to blind those from truth.

Clarity

[winsome]

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?

That is what scriptures says (Mt 16:18)

Then you proceeded to say Jesus is but the corner stone of this building/church

That is what scripture says (Eph 2:20)

and somewhere in the building is a stone called Peter?

Peter is the Rock on which Jesus said he would build his Church (Mt 16:18)

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)

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

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.

Where did I say that Paul was a rock?

Where did I say the Ecclesia were spiritual rocks?

You keep making stuff up.

Now I'll explain something remarkable.

Jesus is referred to as a Rock in 1Cor 10:4 & God as a Rock in Dt 32.

Then in Jn 1:42 Jesus says to Simon (Peter) "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)

Renaming someone is always significant in the Bible. Kephas (Greek Cephas) is Aramaic for Rock (a big one). So Jesus himself renames Simon as Rock.

By giving Peter the name Rock, a name that represents himself, he was indicating that Peter was to be his representative before men.

[Clarity]

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)

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

Didn't think so!

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?

[winsome]

And while you are thinking about that all important question.

Can you provide us Old Testament examples of the following occurrences in Israel?

1. infallible sacred tradition
2. infallible sacred magisterium

Please demonstrate where the priesthood was given the authority to make tradition or its own teachings.   Also show us where the High Priest Elect could make extraordinary declarations likened to the pope speaking ex cathedra today, and their many ecumenical councils?

You are diverting onto other topics.

These studies have proven conclusively that only a Prophet could make Scripture and that Scripture could not be changed, which was also confirmed by "the" prophet & King Jesus Christ.

Your "studies" have shown no such thing.

You cannot even define the basic terminology you are using.

Early on I sensed you wanted to divert the studies away from the Scriptures which is common practice when speaking with RCC's.  Holding you to the inspired account was difficult, in fact you would not enter it as you once again prove to us above.

Rather than accepting the Word of God as your source of truth you turn to fables for guidance.

Anyone reading this will know you cannot show us from the OT your religious model because it doesn't exist - its never existed, only in idolatry has such rituals and customs been so widely practiced and received.

The point has been made.

I am comfortable for those reading to see your religion for what it is and to remain untouched by its ability to blind those from truth.

Clarity

Early on you showed that you couldn't even define the terms you were using. Without that there could be no clarity of thought. And you amply demonstrated it.

You cannot (or will not) even define what you mean by "make scripture"

As I said:
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.

Moreover you avoid answering questions (very typical of some Protestants) and get into circular arguments.

Also, and again very typical of some Protestants, you make vague accusations that you cannot back up

[winsome]

 

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.

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?

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.