The context is that of how the inspired prophecy about Christ was written, (2Pt. 1:16)
Oh, yes, especially the part of "nor by fables " but by "eyewitness" account, in a book written a hundred years after Christ that even hard-line Christian apologetics had a hard time incorporating into the canon.
That is, those who wrote the prophecies were mystified as to what it all meant, rather than being something contrived by their minds
What prophesies? All these "prophesies" are either twisted into being prophesies or written after the fact, such as in the book of Daniel, the last book of the OT to be written (2nd century BC), which pretends to be written 400 or so years earlier.
The objection by Rome to souls interpreting Scripture in order to ascertain truth is that human reasoning is fallible and only her assuredly infallible magisterium is protected from that defect, when it defines something that fulfills her criteria for infallibility
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
Paul, on the other hand, is inconsistent, as usual. On the one hand, he teaches that Bereans could somehow "verify" his preaching the risen Christ (the only one he supposedly witnessed) through the Old testament, and on the other hand he writes that God appointed (ordained) some people for specific roles in the Church , and that no all can be apostles, prophets, teachers and interpreters, etc. (1 Cor. 12:28)
As is usual, people end up believing just whatever they decide to, sometimes without any outside evidence. I choose to believe what the Bible says, because I am convinced that because God is the author, he is the one who sees to it that his words are preserved from destruction and from error in such a way as to allow us confidence in the doctrines of truth they proclaim. An excellent source I just found concerning the date of Luke's writings is www.harvardhouse.com, It contains biblical as well as non-biblical sources for this information.
What prophesies? All these "prophesies" are either twisted into being prophesies or written after the fact, such as in the book of Daniel, the last book of the OT to be written (2nd century BC), which pretends to be written 400 or so years earlier.
The issue was your statement that the scriptures also say it is wrong (2 Peter 1:20) in response to my statement, And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11) And which i showed you that you were in error, but rather than admit that or attempt to argue it, seeing something that upholds the integrity of the Scripture you simply go into your default “attack the Scriptures mode,” in which you refuse correction, as previously demonstrated. Among others fallacies promoted by you, no doubt you still would yet assert that the Bible does not condemn father-daughter incest!
Here you evidently reject out of the evidence that Daniel was not a late addition. But as you seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations of both which you show yourself unreasonably committed to why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
And just where is this clear? When he often reproved “experts” by the Scriptures, and choose unlettered fishermen-types over professors, and referred them to the written Scriptures, affirming the writing of revelation as a pattern? (Mat. 12:3,5,17; 19:4; 21:13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54; Lk. 24:27,44)
Paul, on the other hand, is inconsistent, as usual. On the one hand, he teaches that Bereans could somehow "verify" his preaching the risen Christ (the only one he supposedly witnessed) through the Old testament, and on the other hand he writes that God appointed (ordained) some people for specific roles in the Church , and that no all can be apostles, prophets, teachers and interpreters, etc. (1 Cor. 12:28)
Not so, as not only was it Luke who wrote Acts 17:11, and Paul reasoned with Jews out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and never said that you needed to be an apostle, prophet, or teacher to study the Scriptures, and commended Timothy having known as a child the holy scriptures “which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2Tim. 3:15)
And Rome changed its position as regards the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue being indiscriminately allowed.