New revelations????

[firestormx]

Not adding to the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not there is no new revelation. I realize people have misapplied those verses to mean that and that has caused some confusion. The point is that they are mistaken. The book of Revelation is the same thing. It is saying that we are not to alter it by adding or taking info from it.

Thank you

I had not thought of it like that. I had gotten caught up in how everyone was using it. I truly believe what you have said here lines up to scripture in every way. May God bless you for allowing God to work through your words to bring me some peace.

Firestormx

Joseph

[Guest]

Just An FYI: Contrary To The Writing Of Islam And Other Blaspheming Cults, The Last Words Given Through The Bible (Or Any Words Of Men Or Demon) Will Not Change The First Words Found Within The Bible, You See

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

Thank you for the post. This is not about the mormon or the Jehovah's witness. This for me is about tradition verses what the scripture actually says. This is about seeking Christ and his truth. For Christ is truth. I address the duet. verses you quoted in another post. But to recap briefly. If God said in Duet. nothing was to be added, then the books of Joshua through malachi should never have been added. The scripture is the final authority. Where does it say in the bible that all scripture is revealed, that they're will be no more revelation, that the canon is closed. Where is this in scripture?

May the most high Father and Jesus Christ bless you

Firestormx

Joseph

Dear Joseph You Are Making The Same Mistake Many Make

The Later Scriptures Do Not Override The Prior Scriptures But (Often) Amplify And Clarify Them

And It Is My Experience That The "Old" Testament Of Jesus Does In Fact Explain And Amplify His Second Testament

This Kind Of Thinking (Bibilical Apartheid) Was (IMO) Part Of The Reason We Now Have Mostly No Believing Jews Left

Within The "Christian Church" Today For They Knew The Torah Is Still God's Living Truth

And They Know That All Scripture Is God's Eternal Word And Are Interlaced

And Are Needed So We Can Receive The Whole Councel Of God

Can You

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11

See It

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

Yet?

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

[firestormx]

Dear Joseph You Are Making The Same Mistake Many Make

The Later Scriptures Do Not Override The Prior Scriptures But (Often) Amplify And Clarify Them

And It Is My Experience That The "Old" Testament Of Jesus Does In Fact Explain And Amplify His Second Testament

This Kind Of Thinking (Bibilical Apartheid) Was (IMO) Part Of The Reason We Now Have Mostly No Believing Jews Left

Within The "Christian Church" Today For They Knew The Torah Is Still God's Living Truth

And They Know That All Scripture Is God's Eternal Word And Are Interlaced

And Are Needed So We Can Receive The Whole Councel Of God

Can You

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11

See It

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

Yet?

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

The verses really helped

I think I understand what your saying. There is still revelation because, Christ is the revelation. He is the complete revelation given to us, and in him is found all truth and every answer to every question. Regardless of it is Old testament or new. It all points to Christ. So any and all "new" revelation is nothing more than a further illumination of Christ from Christ ( this is what John 5:39 says) . It all has to line up and point to him. Line upon line and precept upon precept because in Christ there is no contradiction. Every revelation must line up to him. Because he is what all revelation and prophecy should all point to if they are from God.

Is this right? Is this what your saying?

Firestormx

Joseph

[nebula]

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to post.

I still find myself stuck in the same place. So, I'm going to readdress the point where I'm stuck. I pray that God the Father and Jesus Christ will speak his truth over this. Amen.

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, niether shall you diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”-Deuteronomy 4:2

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”-Deuteronomy 12:32

“Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”-Proverbs 30:6

“Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:”-Jeremiah 26:2

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any manshall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”-Revelation 22:18

Let me take this one at a time.

1. God said in Deuteronomy 2 times not to add to his word, and the books of Joshua-malachi were added. More revelation, more canon was added.

2. God said in Proverbs not to add unto his words, and more canon or new revelation was added

3. God said in Jeremiah not to diminish or take away. I don't think anything was left out of his word or taken away. ( the lost gospels nonesense, the book of mormon, and the koran for instance. All were left out for good reason)

4. God said in Revelation not to add to his word, and nothing that I'm aware of has.

These are the verses I keep seeing that people are using to say there is no more new revelation, no more canon to be added. But after 3 different times (2 in Deut. and 1 in Proverbs) that God said not to add, more was added! More revelation, more canon. If God can add more then, Why not now? Where does it say in the bible that there is no more revelation, that the canon is closed. Because as I read these verses, they don't say that, because more was added after every single time except the last. So, using Bible, why can't God add more new revelation now?

Also, if there is no new revelation then there can be no more prophecy spoken. The meaning of speaking prophecy as I understand it.

Prophecy: forth telling the mind, heart and will of God the Father and Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

If there is no new revelation, then there can't be anymore prophecy.

May God bless

Firestormx

Joseph

The problem lies with your understanding of what "adding to His word," means. What the verses in Deut and Revelation are saying is that we are not to alter what is written in them. We are not alter or change what is written by adding or taking info from them. As a behavioral paradigm, we can safely assume that this applies to all of Scripture. It doesn't have to tell us in every book of Scripture that we are not add or take away from what has been there. God doesn't want His word tampered with and people making up doctines that they want to insert in the text and discarding the parts they don't like.

The words of Deut. don't prelude the possibility of more canonical books being written; that is not the point. The point is that we are not alter Scripture to make it fit what we like or don't like.

Not adding to the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not there is no new revelation; that is a separate issue from adding or subracting from Scripture.

Not adding to the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not there is no new revelation. I realize people have misapplied those verses to mean that and that has caused some confusion. The point is that they are mistaken. The book of Revelation is the same thing. It is saying that we are not to alter it by adding or taking info from it.

So why are these Scriptures used to justify "the closed Canon"?

And by what measure was it determined that Revelation was to be the last word of God spoken?

[GoldenEagle]

Joseph it seems to me as if somehow you'd like someone to say that the canon of Scripture isn't closed? Or am I reading this thread wrong...

I agree there is a difference between illumination and {new} revelation.

God bless,

GE

[Guest shiloh357]

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to post.

I still find myself stuck in the same place. So, I'm going to readdress the point where I'm stuck. I pray that God the Father and Jesus Christ will speak his truth over this. Amen.

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, niether shall you diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”-Deuteronomy 4:2

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”-Deuteronomy 12:32

“Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”-Proverbs 30:6

“Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:”-Jeremiah 26:2

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any manshall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”-Revelation 22:18

Let me take this one at a time.

1. God said in Deuteronomy 2 times not to add to his word, and the books of Joshua-malachi were added. More revelation, more canon was added.

2. God said in Proverbs not to add unto his words, and more canon or new revelation was added

3. God said in Jeremiah not to diminish or take away. I don't think anything was left out of his word or taken away. ( the lost gospels nonesense, the book of mormon, and the koran for instance. All were left out for good reason)

4. God said in Revelation not to add to his word, and nothing that I'm aware of has.

These are the verses I keep seeing that people are using to say there is no more new revelation, no more canon to be added. But after 3 different times (2 in Deut. and 1 in Proverbs) that God said not to add, more was added! More revelation, more canon. If God can add more then, Why not now? Where does it say in the bible that there is no more revelation, that the canon is closed. Because as I read these verses, they don't say that, because more was added after every single time except the last. So, using Bible, why can't God add more new revelation now?

Also, if there is no new revelation then there can be no more prophecy spoken. The meaning of speaking prophecy as I understand it.

Prophecy: forth telling the mind, heart and will of God the Father and Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

If there is no new revelation, then there can't be anymore prophecy.

May God bless

Firestormx

Joseph

The problem lies with your understanding of what "adding to His word," means. What the verses in Deut and Revelation are saying is that we are not to alter what is written in them. We are not alter or change what is written by adding or taking info from them. As a behavioral paradigm, we can safely assume that this applies to all of Scripture. It doesn't have to tell us in every book of Scripture that we are not add or take away from what has been there. God doesn't want His word tampered with and people making up doctines that they want to insert in the text and discarding the parts they don't like.

The words of Deut. don't prelude the possibility of more canonical books being written; that is not the point. The point is that we are not alter Scripture to make it fit what we like or don't like.

Not adding to the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not there is no new revelation; that is a separate issue from adding or subracting from Scripture.

Not adding to the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not there is no new revelation. I realize people have misapplied those verses to mean that and that has caused some confusion. The point is that they are mistaken. The book of Revelation is the same thing. It is saying that we are not to alter it by adding or taking info from it.

So why are these Scriptures used to justify "the closed Canon"?

And by what measure was it determined that Revelation was to be the last word of God spoken?

Those Scriptures are used to justify a closed canon because people are not understanding what the text is actually saying: We are not to alter the text.

I don't think that Revelation was meant to be understood as the last word of God spoken, but it is the last of our "revelation" of God in the canon. God still speaks; He speaks loud and clear, but it is not revelatory. He speaks to us through the word and through the Holy Spirit.

As I have stated earlier, people use the word "revelation" to refer to spiritual insight or spiritual knowledge and that is an incorrect way to use it. When we are talking about spiritual insights, we are speaking of illumination. "Revelation knowledge" as some are prone say, is biblically and theologically incorrect in terms of how God speaks to us today. He doesn't give new revelation. He gives new illumination.

[nebula]

I don't think that Revelation was meant to be understood as the last word of God spoken, but it is the last of our "revelation" of God in the canon. God still speaks; He speaks loud and clear, but it is not revelatory. He speaks to us through the word and through the Holy Spirit.

OK, but that still begs the question -

How do we know that it is the the last of our "revelation" of God in the canon?

If someone had not taught this to you, would you have come to this conclusion on your own from reading and studying the Bible?

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think that Revelation was meant to be understood as the last word of God spoken, but it is the last of our "revelation" of God in the canon. God still speaks; He speaks loud and clear, but it is not revelatory. He speaks to us through the word and through the Holy Spirit.

OK, but that still begs the question -

How do we know that it is the the last of our "revelation" of God in the canon?

If someone had not taught this to you, would you have come to this conclusion on your own from reading and studying the Bible?

Revelation is the summation of entire plan of God. It reveals the end of the age and final and full realization of everything spoken of by the prophets of God. The very nature of the book intuitively lends itself to the being the last revelatory word from God canonically speaking. In terms of "revelation" in its theological sense. Jesus is THE final revelation of God to mankind.

[nebula]

The very nature of the book intuitively lends itself to the being the last revelatory word from God canonically speaking.

The "canon" consists of history, poetry, and teaching, not just prophecy. How does Revelation seal such things as well?

In terms of "revelation" in its theological sense. Jesus is THE final revelation of God to mankind.

OK, but canonical books were written after Jesus left the earth. What makes Revelation the "end" of all this is to be revealed?

Goodness, there are things about Jesus I would like to know that are not written in the Canon - like His body language and countenance, how He dealt with life's annoying little inconveniences and annoyances, what came out of His mouth when He did something like hitting His thumb with a hammer, etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

The "canon" consists of history, poetry, and teaching, not just prophecy. How does Revelation seal such things as well?

But all of those things were revelatory about God as well. God reveals Himself in all of those different genres. And there is so much cross-fertilization between them that we can see their unity in how they portray God. I am not sure that the book of Revelation was written by John with the intent or knowledge that it would be last book of the canon. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Gospel of John was written after Revelation, but don't quote me on that, LOL.

OK, but canonical books were written after Jesus left the earth. What makes Revelation the "end" of all this is to be revealed?

When you read Revelation, don't you get a sense of finality? I mean it is the end of our current age and the fullness of the eternal Kingdom. The final and full realization of God's plan. It makes the perfect ending to the canon. Wouldn't it be strange if the book of Revelation ended up being included in the general epistles and the Bible ended with something like Philemon or James?

Goodness, there are things about Jesus I would like to know that are not written in the Canon - like His body language and countenance, how He dealt with life's annoying little inconveniences and annoyances, what came out of His mouth when He did something like hitting His thumb with a hammer, etc.

I think we all would like to know some of those things. But without the canon, how would you set about demonstrating that the information was accurate? What standard would you erect to test information that is not in the Bible?