You are not giving any Bible support for anything in your story. Please provide something like Bible evidence for "to the world" for Moses but "not to the world" for John. -- "To the world" with Isaiah but not with Paul.
I'll repeat again for your benefit. John's revelation was part of that which was given with Christ's advent-so it
was public. Why? Because the
church received it as such. Why is the NT canon what it is? Because the c
hurch received it as such.
Without actual support for your wild speculation - there is no compelling reason for the "objective unbiased reader" to take them seriously.
Care to give some "substance" for the guesswork??
Because someone other than John became aware of it? Because it was promoted - just as Paul said was being done in 1Cor 14 "when you come together... EACH ONE has a revelation"??
So then when Agabus gives his prophetic statement to Paul - and Paul accepts it - it is because Agabus first went to the entire world with it??
When Nathan gives his prophetic statement to David and David accepts it - it is because Nathan first went to the entire world with it so that David would know to accept it?
No, even many of Jesus's words weren't spoken publicly-to the world directly, but were revealed by the writers of the NT and therefore became part of the public revelation. There's simply a body of beliefs and teachings that were made known or revealed at the onset of Christianity that the church accepted as the revelation God meant for man to have for the purpose of his salvation. Is that difficult to understand for some reason? Is there some reason that the Church of God should accept
your personal opinion and private interpretations as correct, interpretations that diverge from much of Christianity BTW, not just RC?
So then in your examples with John and Paul - you accept full well that the prophetic gift extends beyond the ascension of Christ.
I never said otherwise. I maintain that
those were given in conjunction with Christ's first
advent, nothing to do with His ascension.
Making up new rules about how prophecy works - that do not fit the actual Bible - is another way to have a man-made tradition rejected "sola scriptura".
SS doesn't work-or else SDA should be in harmony with the rest of SS adherents, who also don't necessarily harmonize with each other. The only way Scripture can be understood fully, in the Spirit in which it was written, is for God to grant that understanding. Non-biblical documents, such as the creeds or concilliar decrees such as those concerned with the Trinity at Nicea were made in that same Spirit, correctly discerning Scripture together with the traditions, the
experience, the Church as a whole had undergone or received.
You appear to be arguing that the New Covenant was not sufficient at the resurrection of Christ - and so more prophets are on record in the NT as prophesying after Christ's resurrection.
No, you seem to be arguing that-and that even more are needed now. All revelation that occurred in conjunction with Christs advent were given
by Him for
His purposes. No more are needed.
Here again - making stuff up - will then be judged "sola scriptura" to see if the Bible actually proclaims that the New Covenant was "incomplete at the cross" ... "in complete" at the resurrection of Christ -- and that the Bible says "once the NEW Covenant is established no more gifts of the Holy Spirit pertaining to prophecy".
I never said gifts ceased. They are still important, including private revelations, at God's discretion. I said
"no new revelation", in that nothing new is needed to be revealed for our understanding of the gospel/salvation; Christ's work was complete. This doesn't mean He doesn't continue to communicate with us today.
In other words "making stuff up" is easy to "test sola scriptura".
SS doesn't work. The church received a gift 2 millenia ago. She knows what it is-she knew what it was then, before a word of the NT was written-and she continues to hold, preserve, and proclaim it even as her members may fumble and fail and disappoint greatly at times, failing to benefit from it or be changed by it, failing to heed its message. But it doesn't help at all for someone to come along years later, pick up and read the bible and then begin to make what, for all practical purposes, amount to infallible pronouncements on its meaning, perhaps also claiming to receive new, critical revelation, perhaps also asserting themselves to be the authentic restored or continuation of the true church.
