Am I a prophet 🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠
- Thread starter Fundaamental
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
God is faithfull to reward those with prophechecies in visions who diligently seek him.
It keeps you out of harm's way.
Where from different countries
A donkey has the same meaning as an athiest. They can both be used for any purpose and both act like a fool,
If they seek God befor they act, God will allegorize a prophecy that will happen.
But if they act upon the vision, then they will no longer be a donkey.
Ok putting the importance of understanding intellect aside.
In your opinion was the unjust Judge in the op an athiest.
It keeps you out of harm's way.
Where from different countries
A donkey has the same meaning as an athiest. They can both be used for any purpose and both act like a fool,
If they seek God befor they act, God will allegorize a prophecy that will happen.
But if they act upon the vision, then they will no longer be a donkey.
Ok putting the importance of understanding intellect aside.
In your opinion was the unjust Judge in the op an athiest.
-
1
- Show all
I don't doubt that you are 100% certain about that, but it makes me wonder about the difference between a prophet and a medium. Biblical prophets were anointed and had a place in the state government of Israel, what happens in the stories is that God would speak to the prophet privately, presumably while the professional was at study, prayer and meditation, and then the leader would pass the message on to the people ex cathedra as part of his duties under the auspices of the King and the Council of Elders. That's not what channeling is, and it's not what the donkey did either. The anointed prophet has an office, he knows the right time and the appropriate place and way to deliver the message to the people. Channeling is not that, it's more like livestreaming a news report, or more often probably a prerecorded Netflix drama.
That is not true
Prophecies are not a reward. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not prizes to win. The word of God states Those who come to GOD Must Believe that HE IS a rewarder to them that seek Him diligently. What is the reward? Those who seek HIM FIND HIM. The idea that a donkey is the same as an Athiest is allegorizing the word of God, which is an improper Bible interpretation.
To answer your question about the Parable of the "Unjust Judge," Jesus said this to teach us the lesson of opportunity
Luke 18:1-8
18 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, 2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. 3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’
4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ”
6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
Jesus said "that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, "
This is the statement that led to Jesus telling the Parable TO continue to pray and don't stop. Keeps asking, keep seeking, keep Knocking.
fervent prayer is not a one time prayer, whether it includes one person or many.
fervent prayers are daily and continual and could drag out for months even into years but you keep going to the Lord about it.
i have to disagree with you here.
this person was healed that moment, not during the 2 weeks before seeing a doctor or having to go back after that. this person was "on the spot" healed. just like the Bible examples.
difference is, when Jesus and Apostles healed, they had the Authority to say you are healed.
today, we have same Authority.
difference, because of a billion idealism and denominations, we still need to a doctor's word of this must be a "miracle," to be a valid miracle by God.
yeah, the value of our Authority by God, in us, to be able to lay hands on the sick and pray in the Name of Yeshua and they are instantly healed of something internal ([woman with issue of blood had to prove herself even though Jesus already knew] but those around would not know she was healed because hers was internal, only visible if you saw the blood, which she kept secret) but this case it is not an issue of blood, is not recognized for what it is even on these forums, let alone dealing denomination viewpoint on cessation.
it happened.
it is Real.
and the biopsy was even rechecked and confirmed.
on the Spot Miracle.
fervent prayers are daily and continual and could drag out for months even into years but you keep going to the Lord about it.
i have to disagree with you here.
this person was healed that moment, not during the 2 weeks before seeing a doctor or having to go back after that. this person was "on the spot" healed. just like the Bible examples.
difference is, when Jesus and Apostles healed, they had the Authority to say you are healed.
today, we have same Authority.
difference, because of a billion idealism and denominations, we still need to a doctor's word of this must be a "miracle," to be a valid miracle by God.
yeah, the value of our Authority by God, in us, to be able to lay hands on the sick and pray in the Name of Yeshua and they are instantly healed of something internal ([woman with issue of blood had to prove herself even though Jesus already knew] but those around would not know she was healed because hers was internal, only visible if you saw the blood, which she kept secret) but this case it is not an issue of blood, is not recognized for what it is even on these forums, let alone dealing denomination viewpoint on cessation.
it happened.
it is Real.
and the biopsy was even rechecked and confirmed.
on the Spot Miracle.
In Acts, receiving the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit), being baptized in the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit falling or coming upon individuals is associated with power, speaking in tongues, and prophecy. In some of Paul's writings it is associated more with topics related to salvation and we receive the Spirit as an earnest/downpayment of our future inheritance. There are Christians who say there is one receiving of the Spirit, and there are those who would consider the soteriological aspect of it to be separate from the empowerment aspect of it, and I suppose some that are in between.
But we are talking about Acts. Let's back up and consider what you were arguing earlier. Wasn't it that miraculous gifts were given through the laying on of hands. But you have to add and assume to come up with doctrine like that, and such a doctrine actually contradicts other scripture. I am not sure how you can disagree with the wording of what I wrote on Ananias. Paul received the Spirit without the Twelve apostles laying hands on him. Later, he would write concerning a meeting with seemingly eminent apostles that 'they that seemed to be somewhat added nothing to me'. They perceive that he had been given grace to go to the Gentiles. It did not say that they imparted grace.
Whether Saul/Paul received the Spirit-- weather in some soteriological sense, or in an empowerment sense-- through Ananias laying on of hands, or whether the laying on of hands was associated only with Saul's healing, one reason Ananias was sent was that Saul might be filled with the Holy Ghost. We se this in scripture. Whether that came through baptism or the laying on of hands, Ananias was the one who performed both.
Peter telling his audience that they, their children, and them that are afar off shall receive the Holy Ghost upon the condition of repentance and baptism does not prevent God from doing as He pleases in regard to the order of the outpouring of the Spirit and baptism. In Acts 10, the Spirit was poured out, and then Peter asked who should forbid water, and baptized them in water afterward. we should be open to the idea that Paul may have received the Spirit first and then was baptized.
But later Paul did miracles, and it was not the 12 that enabled him to do so, but rather God's grace. Paul even received grace and apostleship. If one can receive the gift of apostleship apart from the laying on of hands of the apostles, and scripture witnesses this, that disproves the theory that one can only receive gifts through apostolic hands. Paul was also a miracle. Ananias laid hands on him, and prophets and teachers laid hands on him.
Timothy had a gift in him which he received through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders. In this case, the impartation of this gift actually came through the prophecy being given to him. This again disproves the idea that spiritual gifts only come through the laying on of hands of the apostles.
Also notice that some of those who argue that miraculous gifts are imparted exclusively through apostolic hands may refer to Acts 8, which does not directly mention any spiritual gits, speaking in tongues, etc. The Spirit was imparted through the laying on of hands of the apostles. And for those who like the 'special case' line of argument, this was the first conversion of non-Jews in Acts. We might say it was the first Gentile conversion, though Samaritans were likely mixed-race with Jews and Gentiles and followed a kind of corrupted quasi-Judaism, so Acts 10 is probably a clearer first example. Still, it was an unusual case and getting the apostles involved in the situation helped the development of the faith in the early years.
That is not true Prophecies are not a reward. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not prizes to win. The word of God states Those who come to GOD Must Believe that HE IS a rewarder to them that seek Him diligently. What is the reward?
Those who seek HIM FIND HIM. The idea that a donkey is the same as an Athiest is allegorizing the word of God, which is an improper Bible interpretation.
To answer your question about the Parable of the "Unjust Judge," Jesus said this to teach us the lesson of opportunity
Luke 18:1-8
18 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, 2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. 3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’
4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ”
6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
Jesus said "that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, "
This is the statement that led to Jesus telling the Parable TO continue to pray and don't stop. Keeps asking, keep seeking, keep Knocking.
Prophecies are not a reward. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not prizes to win. The word of God states Those who come to GOD Must Believe that HE IS a rewarder to them that seek Him diligently. What is the reward?Those who seek HIM FIND HIM. The idea that a donkey is the same as an Athiest is allegorizing the word of God, which is an improper Bible interpretation.
To answer your question about the Parable of the "Unjust Judge," Jesus said this to teach us the lesson of opportunity
Luke 18:1-8
18 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, 2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. 3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’
4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ”
6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
Jesus said "that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, "
This is the statement that led to Jesus telling the Parable TO continue to pray and don't stop. Keeps asking, keep seeking, keep Knocking.
Was the Judge in the parable of the op an atheist.
Now you have taken something out of context allegedly.
Hebrews 11.6
God is faithfull to reward those who diligently seek him.
Answer the first question
Answer this
question what better reward is there than being kept out of harm's way.
I don't want to play word games.
Tongues is a sign to unbelievers. But speaking in tongues is for believers. To unbelievers, tongues is a sign. To believers, 'divers tongues' is among the gifts given for the profit of the body of Christ like we see in I Corinthians 12. If tongues were only for a sign, and a sign to unbelievers at that, Paul would not continue his message in I Corinthians 14 to tell believers to allow speaking in tongues in the assembly and to allow interpretation. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that speaking in tongues combined with interpretation can edify the body of Christ.
And the surrounding context regarding tongues as a sign. One type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. Look at the example Paul gave. When an unbeliever or unlearned person comes into the assembly, and hears all speaking in tongues, that Old Testament prophecy, "with men of other tongues and other lips, I will speak unto this people, and yet for all that they will not hear Me" is fulfilled (or some sort of application of the principle is taking place in that situation.) In that sense, tongues is a sign. But that is not it's only purpose, as is crystal clear from the rest of the passage.
Paul goes on to allow for the use of speaking in tongues in the assembly to edify the assembly, but in a proper orderly manner combined with interpretation.
I have actually known at least three people personally who have gotten the same interpretation of tongues in church as someone else, but the other person gave the interpretation before they could speak it out.
Similar things happen with prophesying, where you go to one church somewhere and someone prophesies something over you and you go somewhere else and someone else gets the same prophecy for you, even if you don't know the people involved.
And the surrounding context regarding tongues as a sign. One type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. Look at the example Paul gave. When an unbeliever or unlearned person comes into the assembly, and hears all speaking in tongues, that Old Testament prophecy, "with men of other tongues and other lips, I will speak unto this people, and yet for all that they will not hear Me" is fulfilled (or some sort of application of the principle is taking place in that situation.) In that sense, tongues is a sign. But that is not it's only purpose, as is crystal clear from the rest of the passage.
Paul goes on to allow for the use of speaking in tongues in the assembly to edify the assembly, but in a proper orderly manner combined with interpretation.
I have actually known at least three people personally who have gotten the same interpretation of tongues in church as someone else, but the other person gave the interpretation before they could speak it out.
Similar things happen with prophesying, where you go to one church somewhere and someone prophesies something over you and you go somewhere else and someone else gets the same prophecy for you, even if you don't know the people involved.
Yes, true... God does what He wills...
And this was a special event... it happened in that order to convince the doubting Jewish believers that Gentiles were accepted by God....
The way I've heard it explained is that "apostles" were actual witnesses of Jesus.... meaning, they SAW him and associated with him. Paul was made an apostle because of his meeting Jesus on the road.... he was an eyewitness to Jesus..... that gave him the status of apostle.
Saying that George down the road is an "apostle" because he received that "gift" is not correct. George has not seen Jesus, or associated with him. All of that stopped when the last of the original apostles died out. At least that is what I understand scripture to say...
And this was a special event... it happened in that order to convince the doubting Jewish believers that Gentiles were accepted by God....
The way I've heard it explained is that "apostles" were actual witnesses of Jesus.... meaning, they SAW him and associated with him. Paul was made an apostle because of his meeting Jesus on the road.... he was an eyewitness to Jesus..... that gave him the status of apostle.
Saying that George down the road is an "apostle" because he received that "gift" is not correct. George has not seen Jesus, or associated with him. All of that stopped when the last of the original apostles died out. At least that is what I understand scripture to say...
Nothing says he was an Atheist it says he did not Fear God or man. In one account, be lived in a god but had no fear of reverence for God.
Your idea of what a better reward is from Hebrews chapter 11:6 is not saying the reward is kept from harm; that could be a possible application you can use, but it is opinionated and not authoritative.
Playing word games?
no not completely true some parables are principles of ideas but each parable represents a true event.
What your suggesting is The parables are just imaginary.
The parable of the unjust Judge was a true event, the parable started of with there was a certain city.
Which means it's certain there was also an unjust judge there.
Fairy tales are not the foundation of truth.
What your suggesting is The parables are just imaginary.
The parable of the unjust Judge was a true event, the parable started of with there was a certain city.
Which means it's certain there was also an unjust judge there.
Fairy tales are not the foundation of truth.
I think it's not a good idea to continue in this disagreement anymore.
But go right ahead I can take it.
Your failing to see the point if you diligently seek God right now he will reward you with something.
You've made that out to be a prize not me,
Whatever that reward may be
It could even be some little like recieving gladness or comfort or renewing of your mind from the fruits with in, that you where blessed with.
Or a vision or anything.
I'm glad you stepped in and spoke about the gifts of the holy spirit appropriately,
but turning what I hold valuable to be a prize I'm chasing is your idea.
An athiest does not fear God
Neither did the unjust Judge.
A Christian Does fear God.
Both athiests and Christians can go into a state of unbelief.
One those unbeliefs is Fear of there own making or out side influence.
I won't be intimidated by any man anymore I know exactly how intimidating works. And I know how to overcome it. By going to be with the lord, who rewards me with peace.
If you cant see my fear and appreciate my concern by sharing in my frustration. Then your only going to make my frustration worse.
Which seems to happen alot around here.
Somebody chucks a stone the other person's reacts,
And so there for, there intelligence is worthless or there calling isn't of the spirit.
Now all the doubters can wade in.
And attack a brother.
Because why.
Well because he never answered a critics answer how the critic wanted it answering.
Anyway peace to you sorry for my frustration.
But go right ahead I can take it.
Your failing to see the point if you diligently seek God right now he will reward you with something.
You've made that out to be a prize not me,
Whatever that reward may be
It could even be some little like recieving gladness or comfort or renewing of your mind from the fruits with in, that you where blessed with.
Or a vision or anything.
I'm glad you stepped in and spoke about the gifts of the holy spirit appropriately,
but turning what I hold valuable to be a prize I'm chasing is your idea.
An athiest does not fear God
Neither did the unjust Judge.
A Christian Does fear God.
Both athiests and Christians can go into a state of unbelief.
One those unbeliefs is Fear of there own making or out side influence.
I won't be intimidated by any man anymore I know exactly how intimidating works. And I know how to overcome it. By going to be with the lord, who rewards me with peace.
If you cant see my fear and appreciate my concern by sharing in my frustration. Then your only going to make my frustration worse.
Which seems to happen alot around here.
Somebody chucks a stone the other person's reacts,
And so there for, there intelligence is worthless or there calling isn't of the spirit.
Now all the doubters can wade in.
And attack a brother.
Because why.
Well because he never answered a critics answer how the critic wanted it answering.
Anyway peace to you sorry for my frustration.
Where does the Bible teach that that was the reason, and the exclusive reason. In Acts 8, there is some gap of time between the Samaritans believing Philip's preaching and being baptized and their receiving the Holy Spirit/the Spirit falling on them. In Acts 19, there was a gap of time between the approximately 12 disciples in Ephesus being baptized and the Spirit coming on them... however long it took between baptism and Paul laying hands on them.
If all scripture is profitable for doctrine, and we only have so many scriptures on the topic, are we to dismiss the lessons of certain scriptures as just being a special case, and saying 'This was the one and only reason that happened'? If the Bible doesn't teach that X was the only reason Y happened, why should that be part of our doctrine?
According to Peter, whoever was to replace Judas as the 12th apostle not only had to have seen Jesus, but also had to be going in and out with the apostles from the time of John. Paul did not fulfill that requirement, but he was an apostle. Acts calls both Paul and Barnabas apostles in Acts 14:4 and 14. Paul seems to allude to Barnabas' apostleship in I Corinthians 9, also. We don't know whether Barnabas was a witness of the resurrection. But in Acts 13, we read that the Spirit spoke and said to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work to which he had called them. Then they left, being sent out by the Spirit.
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy wrote II Thessalonians according to 1:1. In chapter 2:6-7, they refer to themselves as 'apostles of Christ.' Now it is possible that Silas/Silvanus had seen the risen Lord prior to the ascension, but scripture doesn't tell us that much about his background. We know that he was a prophet that the apostles and elders had sent to deliver a letter with instructions for Gentile believers. But Timothy? It is extremely unlikely that he saw the risen Lord. I Corinthians 3-4 seem to be referring to Paul and Apollos as apostles. Those two are the subject when Paul wrote about God setting forth the apostles as a spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men.
Paul calls Epaphraditus 'your apostle'. That might mean he was the messenger from Philippi to Paul, or that he was 'their apostle' in some other sense. He was a co-laborer and fellow soldier with Paul. The church in Corinth had 'apostles' who would deliver money also.
Historically, 'apostle' was also used of certain church leaders, usually bishops, who were influential in spreading the gospel to new territories and people-groups: Gregory apostle of Armenia, Oscar apostle of the North, Patrick apostle of Ireland, the twelve apostles of Ireland, Cyril and Methodius apostles to the Slavs.
The definition you shared shows up on Protestant apologetic defenses of the Bible and descriptions of apostles. I don't see that as the definition of apostle as derived from studying the texts of scripture.
Btw, some people think Paul was the replacement for Judas as one of the twelve. But that does not fit Peter's description, and Paul says that Jesus appeared to ___the twelve__ before appearing to him. Judas was dead. If Mathias and Justus Barsabas were going around with the twelve from the time of John the Baptist, they could conceivably been present when Jesus said to His disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. But Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.
Also notice that Paul wrote that Christ appeared to 'all the apostles' after appearing to the twelve, and before appearing to him? Was he including the 70? Jesus sent them out? Was he including James?
I Corinthians 15
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
If all scripture is profitable for doctrine, and we only have so many scriptures on the topic, are we to dismiss the lessons of certain scriptures as just being a special case, and saying 'This was the one and only reason that happened'? If the Bible doesn't teach that X was the only reason Y happened, why should that be part of our doctrine?
According to Peter, whoever was to replace Judas as the 12th apostle not only had to have seen Jesus, but also had to be going in and out with the apostles from the time of John. Paul did not fulfill that requirement, but he was an apostle. Acts calls both Paul and Barnabas apostles in Acts 14:4 and 14. Paul seems to allude to Barnabas' apostleship in I Corinthians 9, also. We don't know whether Barnabas was a witness of the resurrection. But in Acts 13, we read that the Spirit spoke and said to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work to which he had called them. Then they left, being sent out by the Spirit.
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy wrote II Thessalonians according to 1:1. In chapter 2:6-7, they refer to themselves as 'apostles of Christ.' Now it is possible that Silas/Silvanus had seen the risen Lord prior to the ascension, but scripture doesn't tell us that much about his background. We know that he was a prophet that the apostles and elders had sent to deliver a letter with instructions for Gentile believers. But Timothy? It is extremely unlikely that he saw the risen Lord. I Corinthians 3-4 seem to be referring to Paul and Apollos as apostles. Those two are the subject when Paul wrote about God setting forth the apostles as a spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men.
Paul calls Epaphraditus 'your apostle'. That might mean he was the messenger from Philippi to Paul, or that he was 'their apostle' in some other sense. He was a co-laborer and fellow soldier with Paul. The church in Corinth had 'apostles' who would deliver money also.
Historically, 'apostle' was also used of certain church leaders, usually bishops, who were influential in spreading the gospel to new territories and people-groups: Gregory apostle of Armenia, Oscar apostle of the North, Patrick apostle of Ireland, the twelve apostles of Ireland, Cyril and Methodius apostles to the Slavs.
The definition you shared shows up on Protestant apologetic defenses of the Bible and descriptions of apostles. I don't see that as the definition of apostle as derived from studying the texts of scripture.
Btw, some people think Paul was the replacement for Judas as one of the twelve. But that does not fit Peter's description, and Paul says that Jesus appeared to ___the twelve__ before appearing to him. Judas was dead. If Mathias and Justus Barsabas were going around with the twelve from the time of John the Baptist, they could conceivably been present when Jesus said to His disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. But Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.
Also notice that Paul wrote that Christ appeared to 'all the apostles' after appearing to the twelve, and before appearing to him? Was he including the 70? Jesus sent them out? Was he including James?
I Corinthians 15
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.