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.
Here you evidently reject out of the evidence that Daniel was not a late addition.
The "evidence" is something to your liking. It doesn't mean it's true.
But as you seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations..why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?
Strike one. This is a predictable evolution of all your attemeptsto debate with me. Two more and this sidiscusison is over.
And just where is this clear?
By the fatc that he never told them to write anything but to spread the "good news" by word of mouth (preaching). He didn't tell them to argue theology but to reveal the promise of salvation.
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)
That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Chrst never said what Paul said.