As I pointed out, to interpret these verses,ANY of these verses, in the way you have is to deny that the men who actually wrote them had any authority to speak for God, since according to your interpretation of them, they were all specifically denying that THEY could tell us anything ‘true…’ After all, after Jesus there was nothing; John was the last prophet…
Then who do these men think they were, that they could say what they did, teach what they did, BE who they were?
If your interpretation stands, they were nobody…just men who were making up stuff, with no more authority to write scripture than today’s shouter on the corner holding up a sign declaring the end of existance as we know it.
But…if they were recievers of revelation, as they claimed to be; if what they wrote is indeed scripture and authoritative, then what they wrote MUST mean something other than what you think it does.
Again, Dianaiad, you attempt to misdirect and avoid, rather than answer the question about how you’d interpret the passages. Your answer amounts to “the authors of Scripture can’t possibly have meant what you think they meant.” You never answer what YOU think they meant, which was the main question. I’m left wondering if you just dismiss the passages entirely as incomprehensible. Words mean something.
I mentioned that, by the way…perhaps not as comprehensively as you would prefer, but I did. They all are talking about Christ’s fullfilling His role as Messiah and Savior…of Him being the one who reveals TO prophets and apostles. It’s not that everything came to a screeching halt…it’s that we all now look to HIM.
So you’re saying that things operate just like in times before Christ, except that now it’s Jesus who is speaking through the prophets and apostles, as opposed to someone else in times past? You’re saying that Jesus isn’t finished, that there’s still more he needs to reveal about himself, more that is necessary for us to believe in order to be saved? That he was holding something back in his Incarnation, and wasn’t fully God, so we couldn’t fully encounter God through him and in him?
I want to understand better what you’re saying before I respond about how it relates to Scriptures.
THAT is the circularity of your argument; that men who claim authority from God…because they were called of Him and recieve revelation that they pass on to us, claim that all such revelation ceased with the advent of Christ.
However, if revelation ceased at that time, then nobody (obviously) recieved any and could not honestly claim to have done so…so those who did were lying.
If it did NOT cease, then the men claiming to have recieved it were lying when they claim that it had ceased.
Either way there is a very big problem…and a false dichotomy that you have set up. Another option is…you are interpreting what they said incorrectly. They are all talking about the gospel, Christ’s role as Savior and Messiah, and that HE would be the Guide from then on.
:sigh: It’s evident that we’re going to go round and round in circles again. Do you listen at all? Do you have any comprehension whatsoever that words have meaning in more than one sense? That “revelation” has many senses of meaning?
I said this before, and you are proving the truth of it:
“You need to be more attentive or honest to what I’ve said, and the
sense in which I’m meaning “revelation,”
so we don’t get back into that problem where Mormons use all senses of revelation at once and confuse every discussion of it, because as soon as a Catholic narrows the sense down, the Mormon switches senses…
So, taking what I said in context and not confusing the various potential meanings of “revelation”…”
We’ve been round and round with this before, on other threads. When Catholics speak of “revelation,” we have several different very distinct, well-thought-out and established, very specific “senses” in which we mean it. When we speak of an end to “public revelation,” we are talking about those truths necessary for salvation, and a sufficiency in Christ by which we mean that Christ revealed everything about God in Himself, that there is no more to reveal.
Again, “To put it simply (as I have several times already), Christ revealed all. Paul is
repeating and explaining what Christ revealed. He’s saying that there is no more need for prophets, because Christ came and God spoke to us through him. Once, as Jude clarifies.”
You want to confuse the senses, because any time we talk about one form of revelation, you change the sense in which you refer to revelation, apparently not realizing that the word has multifaceted meaning (or being intentionally deceptive if you do).
So yes, of course, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide and inspire and help us to understand
those truths already and finally revealed by Christ.
My interpretations of the passages thus are not self-contradictory. Instead, they refer to the fact that things change after Christ. Jesus revealed many things which were hidden, and was God’s true Word, spoken once and for all. No longer were prophets needed in the sense of prophets of times past, for Jesus completed that mode of revelation. The Scripture passages I posted are apparently indicative of a major change.
Now the Spirit would guide people to understand what had already been revealed. The form of revelation, now, to Paul and others is that of understanding and guidance in how they are supposed to live out their calling. It is not new information that Christ didn’t share with them.
Do you see the difference?
ParkerD, Todd, thanks for your responses. I’ll get to them when I have time.
sniffed too much incense 
