Replies

That is similarly fuzzy in that the standards of that test are unknown except those in judgement reckoned the apostle to be in conformity to The Old Testament. The New Testament had yet to establish it's bona fides at the time.

Of course, but the principle of testing against scripture is laid down.

I am unaware of any contention that only an "apostle can interpret scripture or test an apostle against scripture" but similarly there is no Holy Writ saying just anyone can interpret Scripture or test apostles.

I think it's considered to be a spiritual gift granted to some by the Holy Spirit.

Again, the Old Testament had been long established and needed no validation. The same can not be said for any letter floating around claiming to be from an apostle of the Lord.

Wait. Are you saying that the New Testament isn't scripture and the Tanakh is? I thought that we agreed that the New Testament was scripture with the same authority as the Old.

Of course, but the principle of testing against scripture is laid down.

That's a pretty broad statement. I would agree qualifying an apostle against the OT was practiced. Further than that I'm not willing to go.

I think it's considered to be a spiritual gift granted to some by the Holy Spirit.

Validated by whom?

Wait. Are you saying that the New Testament isn't scripture and the Tanakh is? I thought that we agreed that the New Testament was scripture with the same authority as the Old.,p>We agree that it is "now."

We know from Scripture that there were forgeries of apostlic letters floating about, and cautioned about them by St. Paul. St. Peter also cautioned us against those that twist the writings of St. Paul.

There is no reason to warn against deception if there were no chance of deception.