Quote: from Shaknbake at 12:24 pm on July 10, 2009
It would seem risky to put all one's revelatory eggs in one scriptural basket. The Bible is (necessarily) a tome more relevant to some cultures than others, more relevant to some traditions than others, and better understood within some historical contexts than others. If it were Jehovah's interest that Christianity be transmitted across time and culture, an active revelation (the "natural" and "rational" revelations you mentioned) would seem prudent to complement the crystallized revelations of the Bible.
Seeing as the Bible was written by multiple authors, in several languages, over a time span exceeding a millennium and it was further rewritten, redacted, interpolated by scribes, naturally it reflects varying cultural mores.
The Jewish scriptures were never written to anticipate Christianity. Note the Jews did not speak of a Messiah until the exile to Babylon. The exegesis of Jewish scripture (Psalms 22, Isaiah 53, and Micah 2:5) created an epistemology for the NT but the OT and its revelations are redefined to Christians through a NT lens.
I enjoyed reading this thread.
-------
We have a new son...his name is Joshua...
596 users online 
225643 members 
You have 1 new message.
Patron
Sustainer
I am a professional surveyor of Christian tradition (it's not a lot of money, mind you, but I still have to report it on my taxes). It does deserve a nod and a seat further up at the table than it presently receives in most evangelical circles, but it would be a mistake to put it where the Catholics do as an independent source of authority. Like the Bible, it contains a testimony to the three forms of revelation, but unlike the Bible it is heavily tainted with other, less noble concerns. Tradition itself is not revelation but a vessel through which other forms of revelation may be transmitted (though often unreliably).
