>DAVEH: I would ask if there were any writings written after Jude that are
>accepted as Canon. My reference material is home and my Googling time is
>via long distance, so hopefully DavidM will have a quick answer that
>doesn't require too much of his time.
John's epistles and the Revelation are the only ones that are dated after
Jude, but those dates seem to be in debate. One group places them from 80-95
AD, while yet others place them around 65 AD. Jude comes in at 66-80 AD.
>
> > DavidM wrote:
>
> > . Nevertheless, some
> > >might argue that the New Testament Scripture changed what was revealed
>in
> > >the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, some say that whereas before it
>was
> > >clear that one ought to observe the seventh day and keep it holy in the
> > >Hebrew Scriptures, subsequent revelation did away with that. If this
>is
> > >true, then there appears to be a contra
diction here, or at least a
>paradox
> > >that needs explaining. In what way can new Scripture abrogate older
> > >Scripture?
> >
> > I don't think new scripture does abrogate old scripture. The NT reveals
>what was prophesied and was a mystery to the OT readers (and maybe there is
>still
> > OT prophecy to be fulfilled). It appears to be a continuum to me. God
>has
> > progressively revealed Himself throughout both the OT and NT, and in the
>NT
> > has taken us all the way up to the end of the world.
Michael D: Unfortunately, I have been unable to participate in discussions for a while, due to time etc.Hopefully that will change soon.
Anyway, I just want to point out to Perry, that this discuaaion was pursued at some length with Dave H and the LDSers earlier this year. The point was repeatedly stressed that no new revelation coming from the Lord can contradict the established truth of what was already revealed by the Lord in the New and Old Testaments. I like Perry's point of The Faith being already delivered to the saints. It's the same thing that Paul refers to when he says ...I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith ... It is the truth contained in the revelation of Jesus Christ and the practice outlined by the apostles re our appropriating and walking in what He has brought to us. No new revelation can change that.
Also, the point that the truths of the NT which are rejected by the Jews were already found in the OT which were to be a witness to them of the truth found in Jesus, seems to get lost on the LDSers. Jesus said that they searched the NT for life, but told them that the OT testified of Him!!!
Therefore, using the fact that the Jews rejected the further revelation of the NT as an invalidation of Christians' rejection of Mormon new revelation, is like comparing apples and oranges. One (NT) has full testimony in the already accepted scriptures of the day (OT), while the other (LDS theology) carries alot thas has no biblical reference whatever.
>
>DAVEH: Do Protestants recognize any mysteries of the NT? If the Lord
>reveals his will to explain the mysteries, then should there not be any
>mysteries left IF the gospel has been totally and wholly revealed? Why
>would there be any mystery about the
>nature of God as is left one to ponder in the T-Doctrine realm? Does
>Protestantism claim to understand the nature of God??? If not, then is
>there not room for continued revelation?
I do not believe that all mysteries must be revealed. When we arrive in
heaven I think all mystery will be revealed.
Michael D: Paul did say that now we know in part... but then we shall know as we are known....
God has revealed aspects of his nature throughout the scripture, but there
is still much about God we do not know or cannot understand.
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs
