Honoluluwindow
Well-Known Member
Not today, but the two witnesses of revelation will be elevated to the office of prophets during the Tribulation.
Upvote
0
Do you believe there are prophets today?
- Thread starter ImAllLikeOkWaitWat
- Start date
Not today, but the two witnesses of revelation will be elevated to the office of prophets during the Tribulation.
- Oct 17, 2015
- 15,722
- 16,445
- 80
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Unorthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
To me a prophet is seldom one who foretells the future but rather is one who sees the faults of society and acts to shake us up accordingly. Such an one can be either religious or strictly secular. Humanity seems to generate such prophets every few generations. In the last century Mahatma Gandhi was a prophet. In our present century I see two prophetic figures --- the Dalai Lama and Pope Francis. Time will tell, perhaps there will be others.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2003
- 4,011
- 814
- 83
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Well, it was a strange thing to say. HIH. If you believe as strongly in a Christian truth and that you can express it more lucidly than another Christian, you should be pleased that he does share your perception in the matter, and wish and pray that he can improve in the way he communicates it. Remember when Moses was told certain individuals had been prophesying, his reply was that his interlocutor should not feel jealous on is behalf, as he wished all the children of Israel were prophets.
Upvote
0
I certainly am. I'm sort of an aggressive personality underneath it all, and I "play a little rough" if you will even with my closest friends and associates. Unfortunately, through no one's fault but my own, I get misunderstood in my intentions somewhat, especially wth those who don't know me yet. My better friends are those who know I'm not as awful as I can sometimes seem. I believe my wife said the first few times she saw me, she thought, "Who's the weird guy?" and tried to avoid me as much as possible. Ha!
Actually, I believe I'll have to admit I don't. Sounds interesting. Mind giving me Chapter and verse?
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2009
- 5,244
- 1,767
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree. Even as Moses did, so also Paul stated his opinion that 'you may all prophesy'.
1CO 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, even more to prophesy.
I think we error in thinking that prophesy is only something prophets do, as the above verse refutes. And being a prophet isn't a spiritual or charisma/gift. It is a dorea/gift, or a position of authority as are all of the five fold ministry gifts/dorea. In other words it is an office where one is called to speak at a higher level of responsibility, but it is the same charisma gift of prophesy at work in the prophet or the parishioner.
The church at Corinth had 'who knows' how many prophets. Paul limited them to only letting 2 or 3 speak at one time. I believe a lot of churches have prophets who are limited to never speaking in America.
EPH 4:8 Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts/dorea to men.".....11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think when we speak of prophecy we are dealing with two completely different things. If we use the more general simple definition of a prophet being someone who communicates a message from God to people. Then a lot of people can fit under this category easily even now. However if we use a definition of a prophet as someone who predicts something in the future and is always correct, there isn't anyone that I know of who fits this definition. Yet it is this second definition that most people think of when the word prophet is thought of not the more general first definition.
I think under the first definition a prophet could even be someone doing something as simple as quoting a message god said in the bible to a group of people. However under the second definition I don't know of anyone now who fits that definition of a prophet.
I think under the first definition a prophet could even be someone doing something as simple as quoting a message god said in the bible to a group of people. However under the second definition I don't know of anyone now who fits that definition of a prophet.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2003
- 4,011
- 814
- 83
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Well, I sympathise with you, HIH. You remind me of myself sometimes ! Only you didn't sound as crass as I can be. There I go again...! Oh, and the quote from Scripture is at Numbers 11.29
Upvote
0
PollyJetix
Well-Known Member
And then, there are two subdivisions within your first group.
Because there is a general "message from God" category, but not word for word what God has spoken...
And then there's a word-for-word, "Thus saith the Lord" kind, which may not be a prediction at all, but "edification, exhortation, and comfort."
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 12, 2003
- 4,011
- 814
- 83
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Politics
- UK-Labour
It can be even broader than that, Longname. I think when we speak truth we prophesy. It is by infusion of the Holy Spirit, who coordinates the strands of our intelligence. Of Dr Mengele's capacity for scientific reasoning must have been high, but the field itself, contrary to modern-day atheists' belief, concerns matter at its grossest level. Well, it was before quantum physics, when the atomic and subatomic substrate of all matter came into view. But even then that cannot be compared with the study of the more human dimensions of our existence.
When bestowed as a very strong charism, it seems, from Moses' experience, that it can be accompanied by dramatic signs such as the cloud that came down on the mountain, and the dizziness, giving the appearance of drunkenness. In Acts 2: 11-13, when the preaching disciples appeared to be drunk, it was not because of the Gift of Tongues, as some suggest, since people from many different countries heard the disciples' evidently-intelligible words in their own language.
Upvote
0
Wow! Another OT foreshadowing fulfilled in Christ's ministry with the 70! Love it, man. Love it. How have I missed that passage all these years? <face palm>
Thank you, PJ and Paul Becke both. I appreciate that.
P.S. Paul, please see #114 below.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hey, I'mLike: Speaking of prophecy, thought I'd let you know I now have 10 separate outlines for individual Posts that will all be headed up under the title: "Modern Prophecies Fulfilled." Judging by the climate I'm gathering at CF, they may go over like a led balloon, but I plan on just posting and avoiding getting into much debate.
Thought you'd like to know I hadn't forgotten about you. I do believe I'll also give credit for the inspiration to you.
That way, when everyone votes to have me kicked to the curb, I can say it was all your fault : )
Upvote
0
This is an interesting hypothesis, and bares up under the weight of Christian practice. I recall Smith Wigglesworth operating in nearly everything, and yet his office was that of evangelist.
This is also a rather stunning confirmation I hadn't noticed (as regards how many were operating in it, in NT times in general presumably).
@PaulBecke: Something lost me:
I kinda blew through this post not exactly making a connection between your appraisal of my episode with I'mLike and then relating it to Moses being ordered not to feel jealous over others... oh, Ok. You're saying it appears I was becoming jealous that someone was assuming the same doctrinal position as me. Ok. No. More the merrier all the way with me. Very humble man actually. I've been prophesied over as such. Would have loved to hear something a bit more exciting when he got to me, like "This man will set the world on fire and turn the world upside down for Christ, yadda, yadda world without end, Praise be to His holy Name." But no. I get "This is a very humble man," followed by the entire congregation getting a sermon on the importance of it in the eyes of God, which most of them started falling asleep to. Actually, that's probably why I didn't even get your point till now. It went over my head.
@ Hillsage: Thank you for your post, Hillsage. Voted it "Winner, Chicken Dinner." Especially appreciated the Greek. Sealed the deal.
But why exactly did you include this verse at the end of the post? Didn't quote follow.
EPH 4:8 Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts/dorea to men.".....11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
@ I'mLike: All joking aside, I think it'll be a worthwhile project, and you actually were the inspiration for it through this thread. Thanks.
Upvote
0
PollyJetix
Well-Known Member
The passage you refer to is this:
1Corinthians 14:27-31
It seems Paul is telling them to establish a pattern of two or three tongues, one after the other, and not at the same time. Interpretation is to follow those two or three messages in tongues.
And in the same pattern, Paul says the prophets are to be allowed to operate freely in their gifts, one by one, with a cycle of two or three prophecies, and then the other prophets are to give their discernment concerning those prophecies, before more prophets take the floor.
This is not to discourage anyone from exercising their gift, but rather to make things easier for everyone to understand. And also, to keep those who are young in the faith from perhaps being led astray from prophecies given out of the flesh. And then, the unconverted in the meetings needed more order, so things would be easier for them to understand what was going on.
But it does seem that neither prophecy nor tongues were limited to only 2 or 3 per meeting. Because Paul said "Ye may all prophesy, one by one."
The reason I think this extends to include tongues and interpretation, is because of two reasons:
1. This is a pattern for the exercise of both gifts.
2. In 1 Corinthians 14:5, Paul says interpreted tongues are equal in value to prophecy.
...Which Acts 2:18 seems to bear out. In fact, Peter said the tongues spoken by the 120 in the upper room (and understood by the crowd) were a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy of "your sons and daughters shall prophesy" ... even though no prophecy happened on the Day of Pentecost. Only tongues happened. Check it out.
Therefore, tongues which are either interpreted, or else are naturally understood by the audience, are prophecy. Because both are inspired utterance, straight from the spirit, bypassing the brain. Both are utterance from God, empowered by the Spirit of God.
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2009
- 5,244
- 1,767
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
Wigglesworth is a good example.
But if we build a bit further on what I shared, it will also help explain another verse which is often misinterpreted by the anti-tongues teachers.1CO 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts/charisma.
This verse does not mean, 'don't seek tongues' because it's not a "higher gift" like an "apostle/prophet/teacher" as our ungifted cessationist brethren want to teach. We can "earnestly desire" all we want to be an "apostle, prophet, teacher"...evangelist, pastor. But those five fold ministry 'dorea/gifts', are a calling from the womb and not a 'charisma/gift' we "earnestly desire" to manifest. Remember Jeremiah was ordained from the womb to be a prophet (Jer 1:4).
But, if we've received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, we don't just have access to one of those 12 charisma/gifts or "manifestations of the Holy Spirit", we have 'access' to all of them, because we have initiated an access to the Holy Spirit. And manifesting those charism/gifts for the edifying of 'the church' is more important than someone being a "apostle/prophet/teacher", when you really need the Spiritual 'charisma/gift of healing, knowledge, wisdom...ect. for a particular need in your life.
If I, as a dorea/gifted prophet, were to say; Gee, you need the charisma/gift of healing, but all I, as a dorea prophet can do is give you a "prophetic word", I am not as valuable to you and your need. But, if a non five fold ministry dorea/gifted brother or sister comes to you, they can be used of the Spirit to meet your need.
To sum this all up; Paul is saying, we don't need a church full of apostles prophets, teachers because they wouldn't even have anyone to have authority OVER with those offices. So the "higher gifts" that all should be "earnestly desiring" in verse 29 are the Charisma gifts. And that means that the tongues charisma/gift is higher than the apostle, prophet, teacher dorea/gift.
Thanks HIH, I love chicken.
I hope that with this post, you know better, as to why I included the Eph 4:8 verse at the end of my last post. I thought it was just giving more scriptural support for what I said about the 'dorea/gifts' being the 'five fold ministry offices'...or 'positions of authority'.
Upvote
0
- Jun 12, 2009
- 5,244
- 1,767
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
I'd agree. Here Paul seems to be dealing with the correct order of those who aren't prophets, but parishioners. But, as I'm sure you've seen, many times in Charismatic assemblies, there are those who have a "zeal without knowledge" that they are just standing up and 'praying in tongues', which is not a 'manifestation of the Holy Spirit speaking through them 'to the church', but is really just 'their spirit praying to God'. So they really should have never spoken 'to the body' with 'that tongue' to begin with.
Why do you say, the other prophets are to give their discernment? I'm just curious, because what if we have such a small congregation that we only have 'one' prophet to speak? It's for that reason that I'm inclined to think the 'words' spoken might be open for even the elders...or olders, in the church to judge 'the spirit'. What think ye on that thought?
I have checked it out. And, hang on to your hat....
I don't think that the disciples spoke in tongues in the 'upper room', where they, devoid of the Spirit, had to "cast lots" to pick an apostle to replace Judas. I think that they spoke in tongues after the 'upper room' as they were celebrating "when the day of Pentecost had FULLY come". And where would Jews, coming from everywhere, have celebrated that feast? I believe they would have done 'that' in the "house/oikos" of the Lord...or the Temple. ACT 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house/oikos where they were sitting.
MAT 12:4 How he entered into the house/oikos of God, and did eat the shewbread,
And they were all gathered in whatever portico or particular place the 'Christian Jews' would have gathered. So when the Spirit blew in to the Temple, these all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and their spirits spoke in prayer tongues to God, as is typical of the Charismatic experience. And when this utterance of 'tongues of of angels' sound began, what did this 'noise/phone' sound like to everyone?
(5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language)
So when this 'prayer tongues' was noised/phone abroad in 'the Temple/oika', Jews also gathered in the Temple to celebrate Pentecost, were drawn closer to the noise/phone of the Christian Jews. It was at that point that the Charisma/gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit was manifested to those non Christian Jews who had gathered. Some of which actually understood the tongue spoken in their language. But, other non Christian Jews did not understand any of the languages, and said they're just drunk.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PollyJetix
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I'm in a hurry here. I have to get to work quickly, and have a lot of other stuff on my mind. (My mom's funeral is in two days.)I'd agree. Here Paul seems to be dealing with the correct order of those who aren't prophets, but parishioners. But, as I'm sure you've seen, many times in Charismatic assemblies, there are those who have a "zeal without knowledge" that they are just standing up and 'praying in tongues', which is not a 'manifestation of the Holy Spirit speaking through them 'to the church', but is really just 'their spirit praying to God'. So they really should have never spoken 'to the body' with 'that tongue' to begin with.
Why do you say, the other prophets are to give their discernment? I'm just curious, because what if we have such a small congregation that we only have 'one' prophet to speak? It's for that reason that I'm inclined to think the 'words' spoken might be open for even the elders...or olders, in the church to judge 'the spirit'. What think ye on that thought?
I have checked it out. And, hang on to your hat....
ACT 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house/oikos where they were sitting.
MAT 12:4 How he entered into the house/oikos of God, and did eat the shewbread,
And they were all gathered in whatever portico or particular place the 'Christian Jews' would have gathered. So when the Spirit blew in to the Temple, these all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and their spirits spoke in prayer tongues to God, as is typical of the Charismatic experience. And when this utterance of 'tongues of of angels' sound began, what did this 'noise/phone' sound like to everyone?
(5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language)
So when this 'prayer tongues' was noised/phone abroad in 'the Temple/oika', Jews also gathered in the Temple to celebrate Pentecost, were drawn closer to the noise/phone of the Christian Jews. It was at that point that the Charisma/gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit was manifested to those non Christian Jews who had gathered. Some of which actually understood the tongue spoken in their language. But, other non Christian Jews did not understand any of the languages, and said they're just drunk.
I think you are reading into the passage what you want it to say.
It does not say it was the Temple where they were on the Day of Pentecost.
It did day in Acts 1:13-14, that they continued in the upper room, in prayer together.
And in Acts 2:1, it simply says "they were all with one accord, in one place."
If they had gone to the Temple, it probably would have said so.
In any case, there is no mention that they had all moved to the Temple, so there exists no grounds for you to assert so positively that they did.
After all, all of the Jews didn't stay in the Temple all day, on the Feast of Pentecost. That would have been an impossible situation.
Besides which, they were hiding, for fear of the Temple authorities. Peter didn't get his boldness until the Holy Spirit fell on him.
As far as why they were accused of being drunk... It couldn't have been because of them speaking calmly in foreign languages.
Jerusalem was full of foreigners, talking foreign languages.
Do you accuse foreigners of beign drunk, just on the basis of not understanding them?
Of course not. It wouldn't make sense.
Drunks act a certain way.
You can recognize when someone is drunk, no matter if their language is foreign to you, if you watch their behavior.
No one accuses sane-acting people of being drunk.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
