New revelations...

[Ted T]

Was the Divine Messiah a new revelation or a eye opening to an old revelation which had been hidden? If it was a new revelation it contravened [font color="e62419"]Deuteronomy 12:32 See that you do everything I command you; do not add to it or subtract from it.[/font] If not, then it supports the contention that GOD does indeed give new revelations about old meanings, that is, old interpretations must give way to the new interpretation to be in accord with GOD and dogmatically calling them new and therefore forbidden is to be more invested in one's religion than in following the voice of GOD, the Pharisee's disease.

This should force us to ponder the whole idea that the new revelations of Daniel, Zechariah and John ARE ALREADY IN THE BIBLE but have been misinterpreted so all the verses about it (whatever the topic is) have been wrongly decided so are NOT ACCEPTED TO BE IN THE BIBLE!

Non-trinitarians claim the trinity is NOT found in the bible but
Trinitarians find the divinity of the Messiah to be in the bible...
proof enough that all bible understanding is interpretation and claims something is or is not found in scripture is a deke, a red herring of no meaning...

The prophecies of the end times will be probably be correcting a old misinterpretation to provide a new interpretation of scripture and not a totally new revelation about new facts not in reference anywhere in the bible.

How is this idea contrary to scripture when it is found in the most startling new revelation GOD ever gave us - the Divine Messiah??

 

[Ted T]

A progressive revelation seems to be par for the course...from the OT to the New.

Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.

From 12:9 we can see that the disclosing or unsealing of the angel's words ( 12:7 ) will not happen until the time of the end.

Therefore, we can say with assurance that this verse bears witness that there will be an unsealing, disclosing or revealing at the time of the end.

Therefore may I once again suggest that, in the end times, we will be given a new understanding, that is, a revealing of that which has been sealed previously.

This verse also tells us that the understanding of the new disclosures will not be possessed by everyone, but that this blessing will be possessed only by the wise, that is, the purified. I also suggest that because the verse says that it is the wise who shall understand, some in-depth study might be required to understand the new disclosures, that is, that these new revelations will not be blinding visions of light, but that they will most likely appeal to our reason. Stated another way, they will be doctrinal, that discipline that requires so much discipline.

And from the NT too:

John 16:25 These things have I (Jesus) spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Which time was Jesus referring to? Was He speaking of a time more in the future (say like this time)? Well, if it was a time more in the future, then He would be referring to a future doctrinal revelation, would He not?

I guess that one way to tell the time of its fulfilment is to ask ourselves whether we (that is, our educated commentators) yet plainly know of the Father, or whether we do not have it so plainly yet?

In other words, do we understand the Bible plainly, or does it yet speak to us in proverbs?


Revelation 10:8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: "Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land."

9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." 10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.

Very interesting, no? The a sign of the last days, a "scroll" or KJV "little book" a diminutive form of the Greek biblos or in English, bible, is given.

Since 'book' or 'scroll' denotes writing to me, I suggest that eating is a metaphor for reading the scroll and is used so we can get the analogy of sweetness and bitterness/ sour taste into the metaphor.

To continue with the thought would take us to: I read the words on the little book and at first I thought they were very wonderful and gratifying (sweet) but later as I dwelt upon their meaning, I found them hard to digest, (sour in my stomach), that is hard to accept in their full meaning.

This leads me to consider that in the last days a new revelation will be learned that at first seems great but then makes us scared or dismayed as we learn its implications.

In the context of the next verse:

Revelation 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. This person who read and studied until he understood the words in the little book must go out and be a prophet from the Lord, probably teaching us the words/ideas/revelation of the little book.

Since we all know the warnings of Rev 22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

I'd also suggest that this new revelation is probably more correctly called a new understanding of a previous revelation similar to the way we got a new understanding about the Messiah from Jesus and the Apostles.

So I guess we had all better be open to a theological explanation of God's reality about the Church and/or the world, one that is different from all previous explanations we have been taught.

Might not such an occurrence put the Churches in the position of the Pharisees, stuck on their old understandings of the theology of the scriptures and rejecting the new understanding written in the little book?

It is funny that people say "it is not in the scriptures" when they really mean "I was never taught an understanding of the scriptures in this way."
OR
"I automatically reject all interpretations except my own."

Peace, Ted

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Ted T,

A progressive revelation seems to be par for the course...from the OT to the New.
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.
From 12:9 we can see that the disclosing or unsealing of the angel's words ( 12:7 ) will not happen until the time of the end.
Therefore, we can say with assurance that this verse bears witness that there will be an unsealing, disclosing or revealing at the time of the end.
Therefore may I once again suggest that, in the end times, we will be given a new understanding, that is, a revealing of that which has been sealed previously.

You have given some interesting thoughts in your two posts. One suggestion concerning the above is that I consider what is described as "the time of the end" may be a longer period than a brief few years. We find the expression in Daniel 11:40 and perhaps it depends on how we understand this verse as to how long the period of "the time of the end" represents.

This verse also tells us that the understanding of the new disclosures will not be possessed by everyone, but that this blessing will be possessed only by the wise, that is, the purified. I also suggest that because the verse says that it is the wise who shall understand, some in-depth study might be required to understand the new disclosures, that is, that these new revelations will not be blinding visions of light, but that they will most likely appeal to our reason. Stated another way, they will be doctrinal, that discipline that requires so much discipline.

Considering the specific prophetical events that were to some extent hidden to Daniel, I believe that because there is some progress in these events then we are already in the time of the end, and although I may not strictly be among the "wise", I do not look for additional revelation at the time of the end, but a gradual understanding of what has been revealed in say Daniel chapters 8, 11 and 12. I am uncertain about why you consider some of the hidden detail will be doctrinal. I consider that all the doctrinal concepts have been revealed. In general I do not consider that we will receive any new prophetical or doctrinal revelations.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[shroom]

Greetings Ted T,

You have given some interesting thoughts in your two posts. One suggestion concerning the above is that I consider what is described as "the time of the end" may be a longer period than a brief few years. We find the expression in Daniel 11:40 and perhaps it depends on how we understand this verse as to how long the period of "the time of the end" represents.

Considering the specific prophetical events that were to some extent hidden to Daniel, I believe that because there is some progress in these events then we are already in the time of the end, and although I may not strictly be among the "wise", I do not look for additional revelation at the time of the end, but a gradual understanding of what has been revealed in say Daniel chapters 8, 11 and 12. I am uncertain about why you consider some of the hidden detail will be doctrinal. I consider that all the doctrinal concepts have been revealed. In general I do not consider that we will receive any new prophetical or doctrinal revelations.

Kind regards
Trevor

I think the purpose of Ted's posts, while seemingly about the Trinity, is to try to open the door for people to accept his PCE theology.

It is funny that people say "it is not in the scriptures" when they really mean "I was never taught an understanding of the scriptures in this way."
OR
"I automatically reject all interpretations except my own."

To me, that ^^^ alludes to it.

I could be wrong. If so, apologies, Ted.

 

[Comingfrom]

Thanks Ted.
I haven't stopped receiving revelations, and it has been 18 years since I turned to the scripture.

Revelations are not anything new to add to God's word,
but revelations are revealing to us what God's words mean.
Insights into what His word is saying, that we might keep it in righteousness.

Of course, the best revelations happen in His presence, when the Lord comes,
but they also come through meditating on His words.

Surely it happens to you also, some times whilst reading the scripture,
a verse you read suddenly helps you better understand another scripture hitherto not well understood,
causing you to have an 'aha' moment.

And to thank the Lord

 

[Ted T]

I am uncertain about why you consider some of the hidden detail will be doctrinal. I consider that all the doctrinal concepts have been revealed. In general I do not consider that we will receive any new prophetical or doctrinal revelations.

Because new doctrinal interpretations have been suddenly revealed in the past which is the import of the Divine Messiah expansion of teaching, and
the metaphor of eating to learn doctrine is well established about new understandings
of doctrine and
a new understanding of an established doctrine does not contradict the prohibition against radically new teachings, then
why reject doctrinal interpretations from the promised revelations in the end times?

 

[Ted T]

I think the purpose of Ted's posts, while seemingly about the Trinity, is to try to open the door for people to accept his PCE theology.

My post was not about the Trinity which only was mentioned as support for the idea that new revelation is often more properly seen to be a new understanding (the Trinity, echad as unity) of an old doctrine, (the nature of GOD) so it should not be see as a willful adding to scripture.

And indeed, it was not a shot at your one trick pony but part of the platform for my own pony's special trick...

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ted T,

Because new doctrinal interpretations have been suddenly revealed in the past which is the import of the Divine Messiah expansion of teaching, and the metaphor of eating to learn doctrine is well established about new understandings of doctrine and a new understanding of an established doctrine does not contradict the prohibition against radically new teachings, then why reject doctrinal interpretations from the promised revelations in the end times?

I consider both prophecy and doctrine have been firmly revealed and established already, and although some detail may be obscure or obscure to some individuals, does not equate to the need for new revelations. Your example concerning prophecy and Daniel is vague or incorrect as much of the detail was obscure to Daniel because of the time in which he lived, and now that some of the events have occurred and some pending the picture has become clearer, but this is not a new revelation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr G Lee]

John 16:25 These things have I (Jesus) spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Which time was Jesus referring to? Was He speaking of a time more in the future (say like this time)? Well, if it was a time more in the future, then He would be referring to a future doctrinal revelation, would He not?

I guess that one way to tell the time of its fulfilment is to ask ourselves whether we (that is, our educated commentators) yet plainly know of the Father, or whether we do not have it so plainly yet?

In other words, do we understand the Bible plainly, or does it yet speak to us in proverbs?

I would offer from the very beginning in Genesis God spoke in parables or proverbs (same word). Which without he spoke not in that signified way. Therefore hiding the gospel understanding from the lost .

The time is the first century reformation spoken of in Hebrew 9 had come . God had given over the faithless Jews (1Samauel 8) to do that which they should not of .(kings in Israel the abomination of desolation) making the word of God to no effect so that men might come under a visible king as oral traditions of mankind . Rather than serving the invisible King of kings and Lord of lords .

The beginning of the last days is reckoned or signified as a thousand years a unknown (not a literal sign)

There will be no sign to seek after. In that way Jesus says it's a evil generation ,non converted mankind. They have No faith , not little, but none that could please God . They are the ones that made Jesus into a circus seal. . . show a miracle then when they see it we will believe.

The law below

John 4:48Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

Its testimony below .

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Nicodemus is one that did seek after signs to wonder after before he would believe. When it was revealed the most wonderful miracle (born again) he was told to marvel or wonder not . Marveling or wondering is not believing as a anchor to our new soul .

It is Satan the god of this world (lust of the eye, lust of the fesh) the builder of false pride that builds his lies on seeking after lying signs (what the eyes see) ,and God sends a strong delusion to those who refuse to let prophecy the word of God be the light on the path .

2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: