Question about Gift of Prophecy

[Episaw]

Nowhere in the bible does anybody write that "new testament prophecy is different from old testament prophecy". The very idea is absurd. It can only come from a desperate desire to justify modern day "prophets" whose predictions fail regularly and who are obviously money grubbing charlatans. Besides when people are prepared to degrade New testament prophecy to make room for error-prone prophecy they undermine the inspiration of the scriptures themselves since scripture is itself prophecy as Pater notes when he writes no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. So it is a game with lose-lose result that is played by these false prophets and their apologists. Let the advocates turn away from it before it implicates them in the sins of the false prophets. Remember 1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;

Just one small point which has been overlooked and that is you can't have prophets that are not false if you do not have prophets that are false.

 

[Episaw]

Epi,

I know. I'm a Greek teacher and read NT Greek. But we still need to isolate the differences between kérussó (I preach, proclaim), didaskó (I teach), and prophéteuó (I prophesy).

Eph 4:9-11 (NIV) states: 'So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up'.

The ministry gifts of Christ include these 5 gifts, although 'pastor-teachers' is permissibie according to the Greek grammar, thus reducing it to 4 gifts.

So the pastor-teacher is listed as one of the ministry gifts of Christ to the church for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry. Are you suggesting that a ministry gift of Christ is of less value than a gift of the Holy Spirit?

See 'Preaching and the gifts of the Spirit'.

Oz

P.S. It's a lovely, clear, sunny day where I live in northern Brissy. Predicted max of 29C.

No. They have different roles and outcomes. You are making me jealous with your weather.

 

[OzSpen]

Nowhere in the bible does anybody write that "new testament prophecy is different from old testament prophecy". The very idea is absurd.

GingerBeer,

It most certainly does by way of demonstration. That's where you'll find the evidence.

The differences between the OT prophecy of, say, Deut 18:20-22 (NIV) and the NT prophecy of 1 Cor 14:3 (NIV) are profoundly demonstrated by this comparison.

There is no capital punishment for a 'wrong' prophecy in the NT as there was in the OT.

We don't need a direct statement in Scripture that says 'the Trinity is true' when that doctrine is taught by various Scriptures.

In a similar way, we don't need a specific statement in Scripture that states, 'new testament prophecy is different from old testament prophecy' (your words), when the Bible clearly teaches the difference between OT prophecy and NT prophecy by examples given.

OT prophecy is different from NT prophecy. It is not absurd, but biblical.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No. They have different roles and outcomes. You are making me jealous with your weather.

They are different gifts according to Eph 4 and 1 Cor 12-14.

 

[GingerBeer]

Just one small point which has been overlooked and that is you can't have prophets that are not false if you do not have prophets that are false.

That is an absolutely insane argument. God is good and always is good and never needed evil in order to be good. "you can't have prophets that are not false if you do not have prophets that are false" is an incredibly stupid argument.

 

[GingerBeer]

It most certainly does by way of demonstration. That's where you'll find the evidence.

Demonstrate a false prophecy that is truthfully from God and you will undermine scripture. Claim that false prophecy is not really from God and you affirm what is said in Deuteronomy. You can't make the argument that you do without abandoning the idea that God always speaks truth.

 

[JAL]

Oh, so every time a prophet finishes making a prophecy, this is what Paul is referring to when he says 'prophecies, they will cease'? What a ludicrous interpretation. You really are plumbing the depths of incredulity! It is not surprising your bizarre theory doesn't even come onto the radar of the scholars who have commented on this passage. It can safely be consigned to the theological dustbin. It deserves no further comment.

(1) That idea is not actually ludicrous, since Paul was possibly contrasting the constancy of love with the periodic, sporadic occasions of prophecy, tongues, and words of knowledge. Sanctification (the abiding Spirit as love) NEVER ceases. Whereas a prophecy, a word of knowledge, or a tongue is delivered and then CEASES. That's a fact of life. How can a fact of life be ludicrous? Do you even know what the word fact means? (2) Secondly, you're putting words in my mouth. I was speaking of MATURATION. Here's what I said.

Of course what is in part disappears. If I prophesied in part yesterday and, having matured, can now prophesy at a higher level, why would I continue to prophesy in part? And yes, the prophecies that I spoke yesterday have come to a cease, I certainly don't want to go back there, now that I've matured to prophesying maturely.

Note that I didn't actually postulate the cessation of EACH and EVERY prophecy. What I said was that each instance of MATURATION classifies old prophecies and behavior as ceased. And if you deny this fact, then you don't even know what it MEANS to mature. (3) Thirdly, at least the so-called 'ludicrous' interpretation doesn't extrapolate to the sort of heresy and contradictions demonstrated earlier of your views - charges that you haven't convincingly fended off.

 

[JAL]

You didn't read my post properly and you quoted it out of context. I said:

Cessationism is firmly grounded in scripture. The fact that history demonstrates that the miraculous and revelatory gifts did indeed cease is proof that the cessationist interpretation is correct.​

And restated:

cessationist arguments are drawn from scripture and confirmed by history.​

I made no mention of my personal experience, nor is any involved.

Fair enough. I misunderstood you. What threw me was that you used the word 'proof'. Had you said 'confirmation', I wouldn't have reacted.

 

[JAL]

You didn't read my post properly and you quoted it out of context. I said:

Cessationism is firmly grounded in scripture. The fact that history demonstrates that the miraculous and revelatory gifts did indeed cease is proof that the cessationist interpretation is correct.​

And restated:

cessationist arguments are drawn from scripture and confirmed by history.​

I made no mention of my personal experience, nor is any involved.

Cessationism is firmly grounded in scripture? Help me out here, because I'm drawing a blank, perhaps because I haven't read any cessationist literature lately, combined with the fact that I have serious memory issues (long story). As of the moment, I honestly don't know what verses you have in mind, other than an (extremely debateable) reading of 1Cor 13:8-12. So where is this abundance of firm grounding in Scripture expressly asserting cessationism? I see gifts being mentioned all over the place (providing a firm grounding for a continuationist argument based on emphases), but I honestly don't recall many arguable allusions to cessationism. I do recall SOME of the arguments. Usually they'll point to a verse that suggests, "God gave gifts to confirm His church", and then they'll DEDUCE, 'These gifts disappeared because they are no longer 'strictly necessary'." But such a deduction is merely a theological construct. As such it hardly passes muster as a firm grounding in Scripture. Arguably, it merely expresses an anticharismatic bias rooted in the argument from experience (viz. "These gifts disappeared historically.").

So here's your grand opportunity. Give me a list of verses showing all the places in Scripture that expressly teach a cessation of the gifts. Only then will I be able to evaluate your words:

Cessationism is firmly grounded in scripture.

 

[Francis Drake]

Demonstrate a false prophecy that is truthfully from God and you will undermine scripture. Claim that false prophecy is not really from God and you affirm what is said in Deuteronomy. You can't make the argument that you do without abandoning the idea that God always speaks truth.

Don't limit God.
Here we see through Micah, how the Lord sent false prophetic words to cause the death of Ahab.
1Kings22v19And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 20And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. 21And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

 

[JAL]

Cessationism is firmly grounded in scripture.

On further reflection, I'm still inclined to disagree with your assessment. (Maybe my memory is still failing me). The real basis for cessationism among cesstionist scholars is a set of three theological constructs.
(1) In virtue of the completed canon, apostles and prophets aren't 'strictly necessary'. Agreed. If one has no desire to bring the church into doctrinal unity, and no desire to win the maximum number of souls to Christ, the gifts aren't strictly necessary.
(2) Any 'new' revelation would be a threat to the existing canon. The problem here is that the term 'new revelation' is a red herring. It has no meaning. Prophetic revelation expounds, clarifies, and applies prior revelation. It doesn't introduce 'new' teaching. Even Paul didn't see himself as teaching anything new.
(3) History shows a disappearance of the gifts (this is the argument from experience).

Cessationist propaganda tries to spread paranoia that prophetic revelation is a monstrous threat to the existing canon and thus the worst thing that God could possibly do for us. The facts of history do not warrant such paranoia. After all, was each new generation of prophets, after Moses, a horrible threat to the existing canon? Were Paul and the apostles a horrible threat to the existing canon? In short is it a BAD thing for God to raise up amongst us a Moses, Paul, or David?

The alleged threat to the canon is overstated. When a man stands up to articulate a prophecy, it is scoped to a small audience. Realizing this fact, the audience won't aspire to canonize the utterance. And what if they DID try to canonize it? So what? The rest of the church would simply ostracize them. No big deal.

How then was the canon formed? Given that every prophecy is scoped to a small audience, why did the church canonize ANYTHING? Probably several factors figured in.
(1) A widespread set of church leaders in consensus about a prophet.
(2) A widespread concern for preserving the writings of Christ's apostles.
(3) The witness of the Holy Spirit testifying to church leaders.

Could this system fail us? Is the church in imminent danger of canonizing uninspired texts? The problem is that we can't see the forest for the trees. We're so caught up in paranoia about a contaminated canon that we're blind to the deplorable state of exegetical chaos caused by a lack of prophetic revelation. Our terror leaves us clinging to a system irremediably contaminated with exegetical errors. All too often, cessationism is the ludicrous petition, "Holy Spirit please enlighten me today but, by all means, please do NOT speak to me as clearly as you did to the prophets!"

 

[Acts2:38]

Sounds as though I have hit a nerve.

Your paternalistic response leaves me cold.

When I lived in the UK, I was in a church where for many, having a baby was a miracle because they were told by a doctor that they could not have children. This was brought to the attention of the church and we prayed for them to become fertile. Within the next 12 months, they produced a baby.

That dear boy is a miracle.

2 Timothy. That is no evidence that man has interpreted it correctly.

2 Peter 1. This is talking about prophecy which is not scripture.

Any other mistakes you want to discuss?

No sir, no nerve hit here with me. Just a fact that I have seen with your posts on this thread. It leaves me with a thought of how, if ever, you convince anyone to your position on any matter, regardless of right or wrong. It is not very Christ-like to bash people over the head so to speak. Which is why I replied so to you.

As far as the "paternalistic response" part, I am left scratching my head. How do you suppose I have done so? Do you know how to use the word to the situation I wonder? If I have done this, then most everyone here has done this including you. I merely have stated facts, examples, and scripture. This is normal when trying to get someone to understand something. I don't push it on you, but only mention to you. You are free to decide whatever.

As far as that member of church and their child, that is not a miracle. There are physical and spiritual blessings. These are not miracles. One example is prayer. It is a spiritual blessing for those who are in Christ (ref. Eph 1:3). This is why I said that I believe you have a hard time discerning between miracle and not miracle. This was not meant as an insult by the way.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, is proof that scripture is flawless and correct. The whole "man can misinterpret" I agree with, which is why I discuss this matter with you. 1 Corinthians 13:8-9 is quite crystal clear in that the gifts will cease. When? When "that which is perfect" comes right? Well, the bible IS "that which is perfect". James 1:25 what is the perfect law of liberty?

Pull back to the end of 1 Corinthians 12. Paul is writing to say there is something better than these miraculous gifts. Love (charity). The other gifts will cease.

Take this common misconception people believe is said here...

If the "perfection" was meant to be "heaven," then he could have said something more concrete like "the end" or "on Christ's return". He had to say something that has an indefinite time because the end point is subjective. The Word is also perfect because it is the mind of God. It can also be said to come to maturity (perfection) when it is completely revealed. However, none of us know when that was.

In order for this sort of false interpretation to be true, the passage would have to mean, "Prophecy, tongues, and special knowledge will cease, but not until the end of the world." What would be the purpose of such a statement? All things on earth will cease at the end of the world. It would go without saying that spiritual gifts would end at the end as well. Given that Paul had more to say than just that they would end at the end of the world, he had to explain that the special gifts that they had would cease when the full knowledge of what God would have us know was revealed.

Lastly, I made no mistake on 2 Peter 1:20-21. Maybe you misread, I don't know.

This verse 20, indeed says "prophecy OF scripture". What is that prophecy? James 1:25 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the book of Hebrews, and much, much more. The point to mentioning 2 Peter 1:20-21, is that the gospel is perfect. I am assuming you missed that point, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[GingerBeer]

Don't limit God.

I wrote "Demonstrate a false prophecy that is truthfully from God and you will undermine scripture. Claim that false prophecy is not really from God and you affirm what is said in Deuteronomy. You can't make the argument that you do without abandoning the idea that God always speaks truth." and your reply is "don't limit God" so you think God can tell lies? Scripture refutes you.

Titus 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago​

And here you are pitting scripture against scripture as if God tells lies and yet God never lies. How long will it be before you post something along the lines of "God is evil"? You wrote

Here we see through Micah, how the Lord sent false prophetic words to cause the death of Ahab.

1 Kings 22:19-23 And Micai'ah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' 22 And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.' 23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you."​

You quoted the above passage as if it proved your claim that God speaks lies through his prophets. As if real prophets of God tell lies when they say "This is the word of the Lord". But that's absurd. It is the false prophets of Ahab's court ("your prophets") who speak lies under the influence of a spirit who is called a lying spirit. How long will it take to figure out what sort of spirit that is. Remember what the Lord Jesus Christ said

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.​

Be careful who you listen to because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[OzSpen]

Demonstrate a false prophecy that is truthfully from God and you will undermine scripture. Claim that false prophecy is not really from God and you affirm what is said in Deuteronomy. You can't make the argument that you do without abandoning the idea that God always speaks truth.

You continue to not answer the issue I raised at #363. Unless you respond to the specifics of what I write, I won't be replying to you any further in this thread.

We can't have a rational conversation when you do this.

Oz

 

[GingerBeer]

You continue to not answer the issue I raised at #363.

Demonstrate a false prophecy that is truthfully from God and you will undermine scripture. Claim that false prophecy is not really from God and you affirm what is said in Deuteronomy. You can't make the argument that you do without abandoning the idea that God always speaks truth.

PS: in the new testament there is no Church administered capital punishment for anything. Israel was a nation the Church is not a nation. That is why Israel had an army and capital crimes while the church does not.

 

[Wordkeeper]

This whole discussion needs a bit of lateral thinking, thinking out of the box.

A need to set things out objectively, so that when anyone looks at it, whatever their views, they’ve got to say, “OK, I get it”.

Imagine a pastor telling his congregation,

"Folks, you've been feeding, training, now it's time to go the next level. Putting things into practice.

"I want you to go out and share the Gospel with your neighbours, family, friends, even with strangers on the streets."

This is not unusual. It happens all the time.

So the congregation, feeling very dutiful (and at the same time, a little apprehensive, because yes, it's Biblical, but it's what you read, not do, every day) go right out and begin sharing the "Gospel": If you believe in Jesus, you will not perish, meaning you will go to heaven and not hell.

Everybody comes to church the next Sunday feeling very accomplished, because they've done what's taught in the Bible. After the service, most probably, over a cup of tea or coffee, some share their experiences. They report, almost all, that they bravely talked to people about the Gospel, and got the expected responses: mostly disinterest. Maybe, even the pastor listens in. No one's surprised.

What's your reaction to this ? I suppose it's the same, not surprised.

Mine? Astonishment.

At the hubris.

What? Where's the hubris?

Look, the pastor asked the congregation to go out and share the Gospel.

These people went out and shared the Gospel.

So what’s wrong with the picture?

For starters, no one was a disciple.

And then, they went out asking people to come out of Egypt. Turn away from depending on their own efforts to live temporal lives, fill appetites repetitively. For perishable end results. And turn towards depending on God. For giving them purpose in life, towards having permanent, quantifiable results. With their earthly needs added on, without asking for them to be met.

Oops, my mistake. That's exactly what they didn't do. So no hubris, no big headedness of taking on a job they couldn't possibly do. What they did do was much safer. They offered a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

No wonder they never got any responses. And no wonder they weren't surprised. Their understanding of the Gospel is so impoverished, it's not surprising that the impact on their own lives would be so minimal.

And the reaction they felt at being poorly received? Well, it's not surprising either. That last understanding programmed them to have little self worth, have a sort of false humility, a result of shifting of the responsibility to transform lives, to God, because that's what they have been taught.

What a difference from the attitude of the believers of the First Century! They really believed that when people looked at them, they saw God. And heard His voice.

The other mistake I made (apart from thinking they really shared the astounding message), believed that there was hubris?

Like I said hubris would have been involved if they had thought they could pull of what they were doing. Prove the Gospel was true.

The Gospel, the news that what was promised to followers of God, before Jesus was sent, but never received, was now actually available, after the Cross.

They could actually be saved from a body of death. From the dilemma of a mind that could recognise right responses and acts, imprisoned in a body that resisted doing those right responses and actions, because of the survival drives. And by receiving that gift, be prepared, transformed, to live in the real world, the world to come, of which this world is only a preparatory stage.

I repeat, the hubris would be in making that claim without being able to give proof.

Consider, Moses was asked to prise israel out of Egypt. Of course Israel had been crying out about oppression in Egypt, but wandering out into the desert with no visible form of support and protection, to reach and settle in an unseen destination, filled with hostiles, with no army to remove those hostiles, with only the promise of continued support from God, isn't a very good alternative. What if God could not pull it of? What if God didn't WANT to pull it off? What if God wanted to trick them, lead them into a kill zone, and exterminate Israel, like He had done with countless other nations?

Why should Israel believe Moses himself, in the first place?

That is exactly what Moses asked God. If he hadn't, he would have been guilty of pride, or he would have not understood what was being asked. The last being the situation of most of the believers of the church I gave as an example.

God’s solution was to equip Moses, just like Jesus empowered the seventy two. God gave Moses signs to perform so that when israel saw the signs , she would believe that Moses was God’s messenger.

Now why didn't the congregation ask the pastor the same question Moses asked of God?

Well, if they had, they would have received no suitable answer, or depending on the denomination, they would have received theological constructs.

Maybe, "Our job is to share, it's the Holy Spirit that convinces". If that was so, why study the Bible in detail? Why not just go by the basics. Share the gospel, don't try to convince, that's the Holy Spirit’s part, pray for the person, be happy that you stepped out in faith, be sure of your own reward.

After all, the theologians, and the pastor were the experts right? If there was a boo boo, it was the fault of the leaders, the teachers.

Does this work in real life, passing the buck?

If you are non compliant because your tax consultant goofed up, will you escape the penalties that the IRS rains down on you?

At least you can sue your consultant, can you sue your pastor?

Especially when the instructions are made available to the public, and even the way to become an expert in those instructions are taught in those instructions, is there any excuse to not do due diligence, do your homework?

If you HAD done your own homework, you would have learned that the proof required to convince strangers to leave a safe but sellout, oppressed life, is available to you, the proof that you are God’s messenger, His voice, addressing the listener personally.

The message (never changes): God is not like man, and involved with gold or silver or stone (Acts 17:29) and He wants you to serve Him, not material needs.

The proof (acquired by prayer, asking for bread) signs for the believer (yes, even the “believer” , God's children, must be evangelised), wisdom for the unbeliever (crumbs for the dogs).

How does this play out?

First I pray for a proof to convince the listener, you for example, God’s child, that it is God’s message (leave Egypt).

God gives me proof, supernatural explanation, prophecy of Scripture, tells me to tell you that the perfect is love.

However, prophecies are the imperfect, these will disappear, because when I look in the mirror, the prophet disappears, and what I will finally see is not a prophet, but a lamb, a sin offering. An acceptable offering, because it has found rest, abides in Christ, our hilasterion, by being faithful, and I am saved/fulfilled/perfected by loyalty, which allows me to abide in Christ, God's gift of grace, sufficient to wash clean, overlooking my personal imperfections.

The listener agrees, because the overarching theme of the pericope is how serving each other moves, progresses from prophecy, convincing, to actually washing away the scales that cover the listener's eyes. It's not coincidence that Paul witnessed Stephen's sin offering.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

There is no capital punishment for a 'wrong' prophecy in the NT as there was in the OT.

There's also no capital. It has nothing to do with the nature of prophecy and everything to do with the fact that the people are not their own established political entity.

When was the last time your church staged any kind of public execution?

...when the Bible clearly teaches the difference between OT prophecy and NT prophecy by examples given.

Acts 21:9-11

9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

The pattern holds true to Old Testament prophecy. It uses physical demonstration, like Ezekiel's cakes made of mud. It acts as a warning, such as just about every prophetic work of the Old Testament. It predicts. It claims to be a direct message from God. There is absolutely nothing different from this New Testament prophecy than the Old Testament ones. I must wonder why you would even put yourself out there with such a challenge, knowing that this passage existed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And how do those verses put food in the stomach of the needy?

How do those verses give literal food to feed the belly of the hungry? They don't, to do that we actually give food and feed the hungry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ToBeLoved]

Nowhere in the bible does anybody write that "new testament prophecy is different from old testament prophecy". The very idea is absurd. It can only come from a desperate desire to justify modern day "prophets" whose predictions fail regularly and who are obviously money grubbing charlatans. Besides when people are prepared to degrade New testament prophecy to make room for error-prone prophecy they undermine the inspiration of the scriptures themselves since scripture is itself prophecy as Pater notes when he writes no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. So it is a game with lose-lose result that is played by these false prophets and their apologists. Let the advocates turn away from it before it implicates them in the sins of the false prophets. Remember 1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;

I disagree. Old Testament prophetess were struck down by God. Doesn’t seem to be happening anymore.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I disagree. Old Testament prophetess were struck down by God. Doesn’t seem to be happening anymore.

I just prophesied, spoke God's message: Come out of Egypt.

I performed a sign, made a prophesy of Scripture, explanation of Scripture, love, no expression greater than laying down your life for a friend, is the perfect. My work has no connection with the message. It was just bread that fills a hunger, solves a puzzle, just as the signs accompanying Jesus's message had no direct connection with the message, but healed a sick person, but proved God was present.

So if by the finger of God I prophesy Scripture, solves a puzzle, then you know the Kingdom of God is present here too.

Exodus 8:19
19Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Acts 5:33-39
33But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36“For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.37“After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38“So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown;39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God