False Prophets

[Servus]

It did for me. I looked up Paul Washer. Not a big fan of Calvinism, myself.

I'm sure it did, but unfortunately I'm not a mind reader. I like what Washer said, regardless of him being a Calvinist.

You really don't know what's orthodox for the Kingdom Gospel, since you don't follow it... you're like a born-blind man trying to describe the color blue.

I'm not trying to describe it, I've been asking you to describe it. "you're like a born-blind man trying to describe the color blue" applies to you rather than me. I have tried to decipher what you've been saying, but so far you haven't given me much to work with.

I wish you could be comfortable speaking for yourself alone, without resorting to the usual marginalization attempts by the majority... for which I'm fairly certain you have not been chosen as spokesperson.

I really wish you'd explain what you've been getting at in plain comprehensive manner, rather than deflecting with ad hominem rhetoric.

 

[Servus]

If one pays attention to the whole Bible, let alone Jesus' teachings, they should be aware that God insists we put His will ahead of our own. Period. Yet we seem to have reversed that. How many Christians make it all about themselves and what is in it for them. Self interest in their salvation and not Jesus' good news. Jesus made it clear in the Lord's Prayer it is not about us but about the Father, and His good news was about the Father returning to govern over us, not about us primarily as so many would like to think. It all focuses on the Father, not on us.

I agree, anyone who reads the Bible should be fully aware of that.

 

[Servus]

wow... that's the same thought I've been having for the past week... the whole "what's in it for them" focus.

Matthew 6:31-34 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?[32] (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.[33] But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness;* and all these things shall be added unto you.[34] Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
________________
* Physical, not vicarious.

I've been hearing about "name it and claim it, blab it and grab it" for decades. Every church I've attended has condemned it. It's probably best described as counterfeit Christianity in my opinion.

 

[apollosdtr]

It did for me. I looked up Paul Washer. Not a big fan of Calvinism, myself.

I'm sure it did, but unfortunately I'm not a mind reader. I like what Washer said, regardless of him being a Calvinist.

Actually, what Washer said is pure Calvinism. So even if you're not a card-carrying Calvinist, people who like to put other people into easily controllable boxes might find a box your size. According to that link, the Greek Orthodox have a problem with Calvinism... to them you'd be unorthodox.

Maybe you don't like it when people use a label-maker on you, and try to marginalize you? Neither do I... especially when someone prints the wrong label. Are you humble enough to learn this without your ego getting in the way? I'd like to be considered on my own merits, rather than that of all unorthodox people everywhere... even from your side of the aisle, no less.

You really don't know what's orthodox for the Kingdom Gospel, since you don't follow it.

I'm not trying to describe it, I've been asking you to describe it. "you're like a born-blind man trying to describe the color blue" applies to you rather than me. I have tried to decipher what you've been saying, but so far you haven't given me much to work with.

I really wish you'd explain what you've been getting at in plain comprehensive manner, rather than deflecting with ad hominem rhetoric.

No explanation is possible: If you're not already following the Gospel of the Kingdom, you cannot be told what it is. The Gospel of the Kingdom is found. Precept by precept: one doctrine is found... and another is built upon that, when His-Kingdom-seeker is ready to believe it. And all of this happens only in a vacuum, in my experience.

 

[apollosdtr]

I've been hearing about "name it and claim it, blab it and grab it" for decades. Every church I've attended has condemned it. It's probably best described as counterfeit Christianity in my opinion.

The focus of the Gospel of the Kingdom is the Father.

Deuteronomy 18:18-19 [18] I will raise up to them a prophet of their brethren like thee, and I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them as I shall Command Him.[19] And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever words that Prophet shall speak in My name, I will take vengeance on him.LXX

Matthew 21:33-46 [37] But last of all He sent unto them His Son, saying, They will reverence My Son.

John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you, but He that sent Me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

John 12:44-50 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me but on Him that sent Me.[45] And he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me.[49] For I have not spoken from Myself: but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a Commandment, what I should say and what I should speak.[50] And I know that His Commandment is Life Everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak.

John 14:24 He that loveth Me not keepeth not My words, and the word which ye hear is not Mine but the Father's which sent Me.[31] But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me Commandment, even so, I do. Arise, let us go hence.

John 15:10 If ye keep My Commandments ye shall abide in My love, even as I have kept My Father's Commandments and abide in His love.

John 17:6-8 I have manifested thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me; and they have kept Thy word.[7] Now they have known that all things whatsoever Thou hast given Me are of Thee.[8] For I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me: and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me.

 

[Servus]

Actually, what Washer said is pure Calvinism. So even if you're not a card-carrying Calvinist, people who like to put other people into easily controllable boxes might find a box your size. According to that link, the Greek Orthodox have a problem with Calvinism... to them you'd be unorthodox.

Maybe you don't like it when people use a label-maker on you, and try to marginalize you? Neither do I... especially when someone prints the wrong label. Are you humble enough to learn this without your ego getting in the way? I'd like to be considered on my own merits, rather than that of all unorthodox people everywhere... even from your side of the aisle, no less.





No explanation is possible: If you're not already following the Gospel of the Kingdom, you cannot be told what it is. The Gospel of the Kingdom is found. Precept by precept: one doctrine is found... and another is built upon that, when His-Kingdom-seeker is ready to believe it. And all of this happens only in a vacuum, in my experience.

I listen to and talk to Greek Orthodox folks quite a lot. Even ones who are sophisticated PhD theologians. And I have no problem understanding what they're talking about. While you on the other hand do a lot of rambling that doesn't seem to go anywhere.

 

[apollosdtr]

I listen to and talk to Greek Orthodox folks quite a lot. Even ones who are sophisticated PhD theologians. And I have no problem understanding what they're talking about. While you on the other hand do a lot of rambling that doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Then you probably should just ignore me.

 

[Servus]

Then you probably should just ignore me.

So you'd rather be ignored than understood.

 

[apollosdtr]

No explanation is possible: If you're not already following the Gospel of the Kingdom, you cannot be told what it is. The Gospel of the Kingdom is found. Precept by precept: one doctrine is found... and another is built upon that, when His-Kingdom-seeker is ready to believe it. And all of this happens only in a vacuum, in my experience.

So you'd rather be ignored than understood.

What part of "no explanation is possible" don't you understand?

 

[apollosdtr]

First assuming everyone is a false prophet, considering the prescription for false prophets, that was heading in a direction that was a little too dark even for my own bad sense of humor.

The Father sent His Son to be the last Prophet, didn't He? That's what
Deuteronomy 18:18-19 calls Jesus, confirmed by John 12:44-50.

Matthew 21:33-36 [37] But last of all He sent unto them His Son, saying, They will reverence My Son.

Even though the Pharisees hated Jesus and wanted Him dead, they feared the masses who considered Him a Prophet. It wasn't until that Caiaphas guy "prophesied" that Jesus would die for them, that they finally killed Him for His inheritance. As If... since that tribe (His own) were His murderers. Apparently the blind guides of the blind had changed the mind of the masses... or told them that supposed "prophecy"... which they set about to fulfill, making it not prophetic at all. The end result is that Jesus says the chief priests and Pharisees will be broken to powder by the Stone the builders rejected. (builders?)

 

[apollosdtr]

There are three instances I know of off the top of my head.

A "real" prophet arises that leads others to go serve some other god(s) (Deuteronomy 13)

I've never encountered one of these performing real miracles, but then I don't go carousing in places they might be, and I can't say much about them.
​

A presumptuous prophet who prophesies in the name of God (Deuteronomy 18:22 -- not commanded to be put to death here).

There are plenty of these around. Their embarrassment should be punishment enough, in my opinion.
​

A corrupt prophet, like Balaam, also emphasized in the NT.

The OT treats him as a real prophet, not a fraud. He wasn't executed but apparently killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are perhaps plenty of these to go around, but I would not consider a corrupt fraud to be a Balaam. Maybe in spirit, but a real disobedient prophet can be in danger with God in other ways.
​

Then there are corrupt teachers who are complete frauds.

Should false teachers be considered prophets? I don't know, and I don't really care.

​

My personal opinion is that there is a kind of unwritten difference between someone with the gift of prophecy and the office of a prophet. Even though Paul instructs the church to desire prophecy, one perhaps should not seek the office, because, for one, the church is a very different context as compared to the ancient Hebrew nation that received these commands. Exalting one's self is not without consequences, which an aspiring prophet may come to learn quickly.

Excellent points. When the Prophets spoke from God, the people to whom they were sent killed them. "I alone am left and they seek my life." "For many shall come in My name, saying, I am anointed, and shall deceive many." Obviously they don't say they're Christ if they're coming in Christ's name. Christos means anointed, and should have been translated. Beware of bad translations.

Thats pop mythology. Constantine simply legitimized Christianity, along with other religions, with the Edict of Milan. The church continued to hold to her own teachings, voting against the emperor’s pet Arian belief at Nicaea, incidentally. And those basic teachings remained the same and consistent with eastern church teachings BTW, through the tenure of good and bad popes, any political intrigue church members engaged in while becoming the glue that held society together through the dark ages when the Roman Empire fell into a politically fragmented mess. Schools, orphanages, hospitals, the university system- altruism as a new ideal-all developed by the big bad Catholic Church.

By the time Nicaea rolled around, how many nay-sayers were left? The Roman Empire created the power of the Roman Church.

 

[fhansen]

By the time Nicaea rolled around, how many nay-sayers were left? The Roman Empire created the power of the Roman Church.

True enough. And not so great bedfellows. And yet the power of the church at that point was in its service to the people, and being the common bond after the Roman Empire fell, not very long after Constantine. And the church was still pretty basic at the time of Nicaea, recently persecuted, and yet they denied Constantine his preferred agenda.

 

[timothyu]

The Roman Empire created the power of the Roman Church.

Actually the Eastern Roman empire which was Greek created the state church which was definitely not of the Latin city Rome but of the empire in name only.

 

[apollosdtr]

Actually the Eastern Roman empire which was Greek created the state church which was definitely not of the Latin city Rome but of the empire in name only.

I stand corrected, thank you.

 

[timothyu]

I stand corrected, thank you.

No you were right as it was still called the Roman Empire, but it wasn't the Latin west or it's churches in power

 

[Servus]

What part of "no explanation is possible" don't you understand?

I'm trying to figure out why you're posting a bunch of cryptic material that you're unable to explain. The question of what's your point and or what's the point of it keeps arising.