Can you please provide me a verse that explicitly states the Law is the ONLY means of defining who can and cannot speak for God?
You have. You have not done so explicitly but the implication of most of your posts is that your reading of the portion of the Bible is correct and it is the standard everyone should follow. That implicitly means you claim to speak for God. I suspect that is not your intent. If it is true the intent is to avoid any and all implication you do speak for God then I respectfully suggest you consider what I and others here are bringing to bear on this op. Not because we speak for God, but because so of the means used to parse scripture and the conclusions reached by that unique method are misguided. Simply put, faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions and faulty conclusions lead to faulty conduct.
.Sure:
Yes, I can.
The problem starts with the notion the OT is the only place in scripture that defines who does/can/may speak for God. The solution, therefore, entails searching the whole of scripture to see all that scripture states on the matter as well as the precedents it sets by example. Why the precedents? Because the scriptures do not always label its contents and sometimes when it does do so it labels paradoxically (like the donkey I previously mentioned).
. A more troublesome example would be that of David. Nowhere in the Law does the Law state a king could also be a prophet. The Judge Samuel is recorded in the Tanakh to report God never wanted Israel to have an earthly king like all the other nations (see 1 Samuel 8). The record of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings is that David was frequently in conflict with the prophets of God. How then, can someone holding a position God considered a rejection of Him also be someone who speaks for God? David does not meet the standards of the Deuteronomy texts you have cited. The only place we find David explicitly described as a prophet is in Acts and you do not consider Luke able to speak for God! Logically speaking, that means you will have to remove most of the Psalms from your Bible because David does not meet the Deuteronomy criteria and Jesus never actually stated David was a prophet 
.
.Isn't that standard fare when you do your homework and come up with the answers you believe to be right, so you present them with confidence.
Unfortunately you can implicitly suggest anything that bounces around in your brain. However, if I were speaking for God, there would be no chance I am wrong and this is not the case. Why do I keep asking for people to validate Paul and others as speaking the word of God? Because they might have found something I need to look at. I haven't seen anything yet, but I don't think there is any evidence supporting it, but heh, surprise me, right?
I do and thanks for the suggestion. But what has been presented thus far are the words of Paul validating him as being able to speak for God and a few unrelated other verses. Present the verse and explain why I am in error. I'm all ears. When people are motivated to find results that support their point of view, things get skewed.
Your comment indicates that you are a scripture expert.
I don't do hypotheticals. If you want to do a case study, I'm all for it, because the word of God is consistent and we should find that.
Deuteronomy is very specific about predicting the Messiah. A prophet who prophesied the Messiah will speak for God. David fulfills this. Whether he is described as a prophet by others is irrelevant.After the Law is given, there are also examples that exist outside of the Law. As far as I know there is no law in the Law empowering a donkey to speak for God, yet the OT bears witness to that happening
The way I read that was the John the Baptist was likely dead so Jesus didn't list him as an eyewitness. Therefore Jesus had to testify for himself with God's testimony.
Jesus never violated the Law. They picked up stones to kill him but God protected him and the disciples during his seven year mission. This is detailed in the verses and in Revelation 12.
Yes Moses was special and Jesus noted that by separating him out from the OT prophets.Your Bible then becomes the Pentateuch, the histories, and the prophets. All the psalms and proverbs written by a king have to be removed.
Which means.........
Every single occasion throughout your life (not just here in CCAM) where the Psalms, Proverbs, the gospels and/or the writings of John have been used....... you have unwittingly been speaking for God without justification or warrant
If you can speak for God then why cannot Paul?
Because Paul supposedly does not meet the criteria stated in Deuteronomy.
But what is Deuteronomy is not the only place that defines who can and cannot speak for God.
Here is a challenge for all of you: Start editing out questionable content as I suggested - as you all have already done with everyone else - leaving a bracketed "[EDIT BY MOD]" and see what ensues. If and when that happens EVERYONE will then have an objective measure of 1) frequency, 2) severity, and 3) duration of all the rule-violating content I post. If, say, after a month you ALL find three posts required editing, or 20 posts required editing, or 500 gazillion posts required editing then you'll know whether this campaign to fix Josh is warranted. If, after one month, you come to me and report, "Josh there were XXX number of violations and that is too many," then 1) I will have some actual evidence and 2) I can see there's an evidenced need for change. If, on the other hand, the combined effort of all the mods against Josh
Can we agree that if you all make a conscientious effort* to moderate objectively and (over a given amount of time) it is discovered actual violations are rare or infrequent this thread will be the last DM of its kind? Are any of you willing to try this?
We know Moses spoke for God before the Law was given. We therefore also know there is a means by which a person can speak for God that has nothing to do with the Law's Deuteronomy criteria.
Turn with me to Exodus 3. This is the account where Moses is reported to have been called by God..... to speak for God! to the Egyptians and Hebrews still enslaved there. Every time we read, "Thus you shall say....." that is God telling Moses to speak for Him. But who is it that wrote Exodus. Moses is the one who purportedly wrote the Pentateuch! That means the first testimony of Moses's ability to speak for God is Moses. Here again the Law is silent about Moses being identified as a prophet and even if it di then that would be Moses calling himself a prophet. When we look to other scripture to see where Moses is identified as a prophet, we again find complete silence..... except for Luke. Luke is the only author who explicitly identifies Moses as a prophet of God's. The problem is, there' no Luke in your canon.
John never bore witness to Paul. John never mentioned Paul in his Gospels and comparing Paul to Moses is somewhat ridiculous. Yes Paul claimed he was chosen to spread the word of God, how does that mean he was commissioned to speak it? Those are his own words. Jesus couldn't testify for himself and he required two- or three-witnesses to validate him to the people of all nations. Are there witnesses for Paul? Nope.
Did you not say only prophets (as defined by the Law) and Jesus can speak for God? Have you not also made claims about God's word that God's word itself does not state? If the latter is true, then you have implicitly spoken for God and NOT the words of Jesus.
Yes, he did make that assertion.
No. That alone does not give him any authority to speak for God. If that was all it took, then every nutcase who ever claimed to be the Messiah and God self-qualified himself (or herself) to speak for God. Gilgamesh, most of the Pharaohs and Caesars, Alexander the Great, Purnawarmun, Sun Myung Moon, Apollo Quiboloy and Ezra Miller all qualify as people who can speak for God if all it takes is a self-declaration, "I am the Messiah," and "I am God!"
No, Jesus reprtedly addressed this in the gospel of John but we have no way of knowing John was telling the truth.
Mark was not an eyewitness, His testimony is unreliable.
There is nothing approving Jesus to speak for God if Luke and Mark are discarded and John is questionable.
No. You most definitely NOT provided anyone all that is needed. What you've done is carve up the Bible based on some invented misuse of scripture that treats select texts as valid and others as invalid.
If John is the sole witness, then there is no validity because, according to the Law, the matter must have the testimony of two or more witnesses.
Not if the conclusions contradict both scripture and themselves.
Which is something I have not done. Others here may have but I have not. Please do not confuse my posts with another's. I know if can be difficult to track the various branches of discussion given so many people responding to the op. Do your best and I'll address any lapses as they occur.
YEs and I am not a prophet so I wish you would get off that kick of claiming to speak for God. I don't meet the criteria.
You are right, that is the importance of the two- or three-eyewitnesses. BTW, you left off Mohammad.
If the Gospel is proven to have been written by John, then we can believe the words of Jesus.
Yes you have a point, but the evidence saying that Mark wrote it is non-existent. It has to be proven to be someone who was with Jesus. Part of the proof for that author to be an eyewitness is the fact that Matthew's author considered him an eyewitness because he copied from him to complete his testimony.
You are spot on. In reality, all four Gospels are questionable because Matthew is never documented as having any interaction with Jesus other than following him in the Gospel of Matthew. The fraudsters didn't plan on someone finding that the version of Matthew's recruiting in the Gospel of Matthew, was copied from Mark. All the eyewitness details are presented in Mark--unneccessary fine points. But this is what the early church fathers have told us. If we dig in deep into the Gospels we can uncover clues to identify the authors.
Jesus put the plan for his eyewitnesses in place, so it just needs to be found. God certainly ensured that it could be found too.
Actually that is not the case. John and Peter showed up but didn't witness Jesus resurrected until later that day in the room.
I'll tell you in advance that Matthew is an eyewitness testimony, but it was edited to build the story of Peter. Matthew 16:18-19 and Peter walking on water were accounts that were copied from Mark, then the additional references to Peter were added. I know you won't take my word for it.
This is the closest there is to validation from someone else that Paul was commissioned to speak for God. But who wrote that letter? It's the most contested authorship of all the letters and for good reason. 1 Peter attributed to Peter was written by Silas the scribe--it is likely that Peter couldn't write, but the letter claims authorship by Peter and no scribe. Then there is the references to a "tent" in the letter that would be attributed to Paul, not Peter. There are other writing similarities in 2 Peter to Paul's writing.
That is an awesome task and that is why feedback from others is important. Could there be other sections of scripture supporting others to speak for God? I don't think so, but just cuz I haven't found it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But consider that God laid out the plan for salvation starting with Moses. Why wouldn't Moses get the criteria?
Thank you or the effort but none of it answers the question asked. The question asked was,
Not sure how that is relevant. I do spend a lot of time reading and exegeting the contents of the Bible but I do not call myself and "expert." The testimony of most here, however, will be that I do parse scripture well on most occasions. I will let them be my witnesses
.Yes, but its veracity is based - according to you - on the witness of a man who witnesses about himself. According to what I read earlier that disqualifies Deuteronomy!
Lots of people have prophesied the Messiah will speak for God and been false prophets. David was a liar, a murderer, and an adulterer. No one you accept gives witness testimony to his being a prophet and speaking words about a Messiah alone is not proof of anything.
I thought the matter of who could speak for God required witnesses to that effect. I do not think you are being very consistent.
So the rules got changed?
Says who?
Never said he did. What I did say was John bore witness to Peter and Peter bore witness to Paul. If all that is required is a witness, then both Peter and Paul meet that criteria.
I did not claim Paul's personal claims bore any veracity. Please do not confuse others' posts with mine. Luke is the one recording the commissioning of Paul but if Luke is discarded as valid or veracious then there still exists the post hoc testimony of Peter. I have proved that passage from Peter's second epistle. It's important because, according to Paul, he and Peter did not always get along. That would make Peter's testimony in favor of Paul the testimony of a previously divided relationship! How often do you testify on behalf of your former adversaries? Not only does Peter testify on Paul's behalf but he does with a very, very extraordinary claim. He compares Paul's writings with scripture, and the scripture in those day would have been the Tanakh. The New Testament had not yet been compiled. How can the man Jesus commanded to feed his sheep compare Paul's writings to scripture and not be correct? Was the man commissioned by Jesus to feed his sheep lying? Incompetent?
YEs and I am not a prophet so I wish you would get off that kick of claiming to speak for God. I don't meet the criteria.
You are right, that is the importance of the two- or three-eyewitnesses. BTW, you left off Mohammad.
If the Gospel is proven to have been written by John, then we can believe the words of Jesus.
Yes you have a point, but the evidence saying that Mark wrote it is non-existent. It has to be proven to be someone who was with Jesus. Part of the proof for that author to be an eyewitness is the fact that Matthew's author considered him an eyewitness because he copied from him to complete his testimony.
You are spot on. In reality, all four Gospels are questionable because Matthew is never documented as having any interaction with Jesus other than following him in the Gospel of Matthew. The fraudsters didn't plan on someone finding that the version of Matthew's recruiting in the Gospel of Matthew, was copied from Mark. All the eyewitness details are presented in Mark--unneccessary fine points. But this is what the early church fathers have told us. If we dig in deep into the Gospels we can uncover clues to identify the authors.
Jesus put the plan for his eyewitnesses in place, so it just needs to be found. God certainly ensured that it could be found too.
Actually that is not the case. John and Peter showed up but didn't witness Jesus resurrected until later that day in the room.
I'll tell you in advance that Matthew is an eyewitness testimony, but it was edited to build the story of Peter. Matthew 16:18-19 and Peter walking on water were accounts that were copied from Mark, then the additional references to Peter were added. I know you won't take my word for it.
This is the closest there is to validation from someone else that Paul was commissioned to speak for God. But who wrote that letter? It's the most contested authorship of all the letters and for good reason. 1 Peter attributed to Peter was written by Silas the scribe--it is likely that Peter couldn't write, but the letter claims authorship by Peter and no scribe. Then there is the references to a "tent" in the letter that would be attributed to Paul, not Peter. There are other writing similarities in 2 Peter to Paul's writing.
That is an awesome task and that is why feedback from others is important. Could there be other sections of scripture supporting others to speak for God? I don't think so, but just cuz I haven't found it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But consider that God laid out the plan for salvation starting with Moses. Why wouldn't Moses get the criteria?
I've done my homework and this is what I've found. It's your turn so I'll flip that around for you. Please provide me a verse that explicitly states that something other than the Law can define who can and who cannot speak for God? I haven't found it, but you seem to believe it exists so dig in deep my friend.
It may not say only but with the absence of anything else, it sure means it. You've given me nothing to dispute the meaning. BTW, 19:15 does not specify only a death penalty crime, but it doesn't matter as both apply to Jesus because he came to remove the death penalty.
Good job at ad-libbing nonsense. You really believe that Paul wouldn't mention having been with Jesus? I see you've ignored my comments and the reviews of scholars for 2 Peter.
Again, specifically provide me a single verse that defines something else other than from the Law. Burden's on you.
Take your time cuz I'll check in here every now and then to see what you've found. But then again, if there were something else, you would have already presented it.
Just like any investigation I've done, by the time I'm wrapping up the details, I am an expert in subject.Not sure how that is relevant. I do spend a lot of time reading and exegeting the contents of the Bible but I do not call myself and "expert." The testimony of most here, however, will be that I do parse scripture well on most occasions. I will let them be my witnesses
You presented nothing that disqualified Deuteronomy. Present some scripture or quit.
I'm getting a little tired of you inability to understand what is written in the Law of God. Name one false prophet that prophesied the Messiah. Who said that the OT Prophets needed to have two witnesses? The Law is very clear--if they prophesied Jesus they spoke for God.
John never bore witness to Paul--he never even mentioned him. You're being creative again...
I'm waiting for you to prove to me that Peter wrote 2 Peter. I already addressed the concerns with that. You have again proven nothing.
But you neglected to mention that the Paul in his own words rejected the leadership of the disciples over the Church while elevating himself. In addition, a man that took seventeen years to meet the disciples was certainly not welcomed into their fold.
Please point out the specific words in there that from God that claim he gave Paul the authority to speak for him? I don't see them. Both Jesus and the Law through Moses in Deuteronomy are very clear, yet you want to point me to some fuzzy writing in Acts. We don't know who wrote Acts and we don't know who the author got that story from.
I marked them in red JTF!!
If you have a Bible that has references to other places the same thing is mentioned, it should refer you back to Acts which is a largely historic account of the the gospels first spreading. Go read them. Follow the timeline, instead of just calling Paul a liar. And Jesus one too since I showed you the words of Jesus.
Read the timeline. And the "then it didn't go well as Paul indicated" was over a particular dispute about circumcision and Jews eating with Gentiles. And it was Peter who was in the wrong. 7-9 On the contrary when they saw that I have been entrusted with gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
You are reading something into that, that is in no way there. Paul mentioned three of the disciples who were apparently were pillars of the burgeoning church. He did not say they weren't. He did not say he was. Why are you so h---bent on discrediting Paul? Is that your real agenda? Are you really here to discredit the Bible, and wearing an I'll fitting coat? I am not saying you are, but it is beginning to look that way. So if you aren't you might put forth the effort to be more careful in what you say and how you say it.
Peter was being hypocritical because his "old man" was still back before that fire denying Christ out of fear for his life. Don't yank a scripture from its context and say you are engaged in a careful investigation, when you are simply using it to supposedly bolster your case. 12-14 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated itself, fearing the circumcision party, And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Peter was there. Cephas is Peter. John 1:42 Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas" which means Peter. Repeat that so that you make sure you understand it.
Neither one of those things is true and you have been shown, so don't repeat it again.
They didn't reject him. At the beginning of his ministry they were afraid of him because he had been persecuting the Christians. I suppose figured he was trying to infiltrate in order to destroy. Do your really think that twelve men who had seen Christ laid in a tomb dead and then seen him resurrected---or all the other miracles he performed while they walked and talked with him before the crucifixion, though the Damascus Rd account reeked of a fabricated lie. No, only someone who has not been born again of the Spirit would think that. 1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Don't bother with posting your analysis. It has already been proven faulty to a fault and has one apparent motive. To discredit the Bible and in particular, Paul.
What exactly was fuzzy about the entire set of Scriptures I gave you to meet your demand for scripture that says Paul was given the authority to speak for God by someone besides Paul himself? "Fuzzy words" is fuzzy exegesis, fuzzy investigation, fuzzy thinking, fuzzy reasoning, fuzzy logic.
I must be losing it because I have seen nothing from you or anyone else proving to me that I have misrepresented my references to Deuteronomy as it applies to the word of God. I'm not sure how that could be because it seems so clear. I'm not going to answer anything else here so that you can focus on that one thing. Go ahead, please show my how I have erred and spell it out very slowly and clearly so that my feeble brain can understand.
Give the scriptures and what you think they are saying. I am not going back through all the posts in three threads to find them. But you aren't applying them to the word of God, you are applying them to discredit Paul and many of the other NT writers as speaking for God.
Pretty dang easy and clear:
Are you saying that prophecy only happened in the OT?
