Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets

[Dave]

The operative point is whether He HAS allowed new revelation DAVEH:   Nonsense, Perry.  I have no interest in discussing that.  I already know what your answer is to the above point, and why.  And....I know what my answer is to the same question....so, what is there to discuss about that point....nothing.     But....I do find the Protestant thinking on this to pertinent to my interests.  So far, I've not found many Protestants who would welcome further revelation, especially post Biblical revelation that would be considered to be Scripture.  To me, that is a very interesting question to pursue. Dave...you are arguing with Jesus. DAVEH:  Not at all, Perry.  I'm just arguing with the guy who thinks when Jesus said it is finished, he presumes Jesus was referring to revelation being finished, or the Bible being finished.  Such thinking is simply incongruous with what the Bible represents and teaches.  After Jesus said those words, the Lord continued revealing himself, and the entire NT was written subsequent to his utterance.  Therefore, it is finished cannot possibly refer to either. contradicting the Bible. That is allowed in mormonism...you (mormons)  do it all the time. DAVEH:  If you mean disagreeing with your understanding of what the Bible says (viz., it is finished), yes.....I do often disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, Perry.  A little common sense goes a long ways in interpreting the Bible, IMHO.  I don't even need post Biblical revelations to know the error of your belief that it is finished means there will be no further revelation from God, nor Scripture revealed by him. See the URL in a subsequent post, plus the book I referenced. DAVEH:  I did, and found his logic and facts so lacking that what he suggests is a little hard to believe without a big dose of skepticism. Satan is out to destroy the gospel by turning as many as he can away from the Jesus and God of the Bible. The mormons seem to be one of his best foils, in my opinion. DAVEH:  You are welcome to your opinion, Perry.  I have a contrasting opinion. YOU are being ILLOGICAL if you think scripture had to be written while He was still alive. DAVEH:   I don't think that way at all, but that is how I understood what you were saying.  It is obvious that revelation occurred post crucification, and that Scripture was added to subsequent to that.  To me it is logical that such revelation and additional Scripture be an ongoing event, whereas most Protestants I've chatted with seem to think it ended at some point, presumably at which time the Bible was collated. The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. DAVEH:   Wow!  I'd never heard that before, Perry.  Is that something you just made up, or is that commonly believed by many Christians?  why, after being on TT for years, do you continue to challenge the same points over and over ad nausium? Why do you never learn although you have asked the same thing many times and have been told the same things over and over and over. DAVEH:  Because Perry....from comments such as you just made above, I continue to learn interesting things here that I find very surprising and intriguing.  I'm still wondering why you think the gospel had no power prior to Jesus' resurrection.  I hope you will comment more on that....     I've also found that not all TTers think the same, and by asking these questions of each one, different understandings can be ascertained.  Hence.....I am curious whether other TTers agree with you on the gospel having no power prior to the resurrection comment you made. Dave, you and I have had this VERY discussion at least once before. Why do you not remember that I am saying exactly the same things I said before, and you are giving exactly the same responses you gave before? Plus, i am not trying to change your religious perspective. Write it down this time so we don't have to go through this again next year, okay? When you ask the question again next year I'll remind you to check your notes. DAVEH:   I've got a better idea, Perry.  Why don't you just not respond to my TT posts.  You jumped into this thread....which is not a problem from my perspective.....but then you want to complain about the direction the thread is taking and the nature of my subsequent questions.   You pretty well can predict (apparently) what I am going to ask and say, so why do you give me reason by replying to my posts?  Just hit the delete button if you don't like responding to my posts, Perry. The point here is that we believe that NO NEW SCRIPTURE has been produced. Period. Could He? Yes. Did he? No. DAVEH:   Have you ever considered that the Jews at the time of Jesus might have thought the same way...... Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *The operative point in our discussion is not that Christians would or would not welcome new revelation...* DAVEH:   To me, it is a very pertinent point.  You made the claim, and from my experience it is not a claim I've heard any Christians previously make.  If what you say is true, then it should be easy to hear the same words come from other Christian.  So far....you are the only one I can remember saying such.  My experience suggests that most Christians simply want to believe the heavens are closed. The operative point is whether He HAS allowed new revelation. The point, in particular, is whether the mormon works are scripture. THAT is the question, Dave. Not whether or not he COULD; we all know he COULD if he wished...we just beleive that the mormon works are not scripture. *No more needs to be done, or said to complete or augment the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is finished.* DAVEH:  That is the attitude I've found so prevalent, that we LDS find so incongruous. It is prevalent because it says so in the Bible, Dave...you are arguing with Jesus. You are contradicting the Bible. That is allowed in mormonism...you (mormons)  do it all the time. *If indeed Jude 3 and Hebrews 1-2 are true, there would be no gain (biblically...although perhaps personally) from adding to it. * DAVEH:  It seems to me that continued revelation/Scripture could have significant *gain,* if for no other reason than answering Christian questions of doctrine. Not if it is truly finished as Jesus says. Not if Jude 3 and Hebrews 1:1-2 are correct. *  There are a series of objective tests that books of the Bible had to meet before they were considered scripture ("canonical"), and against which new "scripture" is judged.* DAVEH:  I've not heard of them......Where can those *objective tests * be found? See the URL in a subsequent post, plus the book I referenced. *That is why we must take heed to take 2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9 to heart.* DAVEH:   It does cause one to wonder that if........ /[Gal 1:6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:/ .........they were having such problems so soon, then does one suppose they may have had such problems in the 2 millennia since then. There will always be doubters, detractors, changers, liars, deceivers, Dave. Satan is out to destroy the gospel by turning as many as he can away from the Jesus and God of the Bible. The mormons seem to be one of his best foils, in my opinion. *We assume that Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct, in that in these last days God spoke to us through his Son.* DAVEH:   Logically, that would present a dilemma if one assumes your understanding of it is correct, since all of the NT was written after Jesus died, and much of it characterizes the events that happened post crucification. Only a diilemma to those that are trying to justify false scripture. Jesus delivered the faith once...he IS the gospel message...the Word...the writers of the NT just documented it and its spread through the world. YOU are being ILLOGICAL if you think scripture had to be written while He was still alive. The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. *How honest a scholar are you Dave? Are you the man to do it? * DAVEH:   As you well know, I'm not much of a scholar, Perry.  I prefer to trust in the Lord over scholarship.   What he has revealed to me via the Holy Ghost is more pertinent to my needs than a scholarly discussion.  That's why I previously said that I did not join TT to change my religious perspective, but rather I'm here to find out why and how Protestants justify theirs. What? The burning in the bosom? And why, after being on TT for years, do you continue to challenge the same points over and over ad nausium? Why do you never learn although you have asked the same thing many times and have been told the same things over and over and over.  Dave, you and I have had this VERY discussion at least once before. Why do you not remember that I am saying exactly the same things I said before, and you are giving exactly the same responses you gave before? Plus, i am not trying to change your religious perspective. Write it down this time so we don't have to go through this again next year, okay? When you ask the question again next year I'll remind you to check your notes. *I would not rely on Google for uncovering the truth about anything.* DAVEH:  I was not asking you to use Google to discover truth, but rather use it to find evidence to support your theory that seemed rather flawed to me.  I spent a few minutes trying to find others who expressed the same thing you did, but was unable to find it.   As I've pointed out before, it is pretty hopeless to try to prove a negative.  When you think of the vastness of the net, it will only be a few weeks before these TT posts will be googleable, and your specific quote will then be online for anybody to access.  Yet when I queried google for some other Christian expressing exactly the same sentiment, I turned up a big fat zero.  To me....that is amazing.  That's not to say there aren't other Christians who think as you do, Perry....but it does suggest few of them are willing to express it publicly. You won't find this on Google. It lies within the fact that we accept the sovereignty of God, and His ability to produce additional scripture (in fact, to do anything) any time HE deems it desirable. I think ALL who accept the God of the Bible believe that. The point here is that we believe that NO NEW SCRIPTURE has been produced. Period. Could He? Yes. Did he? No. Simple. Google all you want. But search for articles about God's sovereignty and omniscience, and then in your mind try to think of something he CANNOT do. It is the mormon god who has produced what you call scripture, which we call extra-biblical works, and we al know who he is. Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.