Reading Lahaye...

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

Let me explain it this way. If you get off the path and become lost you may need a guide to lead you back to the way. During that process you do exactly what the guide tells you to do; you follow his every direction without question. But, once he gets you back to the way you don't follow the guide any more, you follow the way. The prophets were needed to lead the people of God back to Him. They had to do exactly what the prophets said, without question. When they were brought back to the Way, Jesus Christ, the prophet was no longer necessary. His remarks on the Way only provide perspective.

Another example would be a mother and child. In the early years the child must eat whatever the mother puts in its mouth until it is old enough to monitor its own nutrition.

HoneyDew · Sep 12, 2005

statrei said:
Again you misunderstand. It is beginning to look deliberate. Heb. 1:1-2 implies that the office of the prophet would not longer exist, but one can exercise the prophetic gift without being in the office of the prophet.

I have looked at it from that perspective, but it still does not seem to be saying/implying that the office of the prophet would no longer exist. It may mean that Jesus Christ is the Epitome, but that there could still be prophets ... I don't know. I am still working on that one.

Edited to say, I get what you are saying, Stat, in the above post.

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

The only problem with that progression is that you contradict yourself when you say (in essence) "We don't need a prophet when we have Jesus"

Who was (among many wonderful things) a prophet.

2Tim

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

By the way, Statrei,

Bouncing back and forth between these two threads like we are, sharing our ideas with eachother is like fencing with a friend - honing our swords. I'm having fun. Thanks.

2Tim

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

2tim said:
By the way, Statrei,

Bouncing back and forth between these two threads like we are, sharing our ideas with eachother is like fencing with a friend - honing our swords. I'm having fun. Thanks.

2Tim

As they say, iron sharpeneth iron.

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

Amen brother.

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

2tim said:
The only problem with that progression is that you contradict yourself when you say (in essence) "We don't need a prophet when we have Jesus"

Who was (among many wonderful things) a prophet.

2Tim

I don't contradict myself. To have a prophet is to treat the individual as a prophet. To recognize the prophetic gift is something different.

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, how youre making this distinction but at this point I have to ask - is this so great an issue that we can therewith dismiss Ellen White's visions out of hand?

2Tim

deu58 · Sep 12, 2005

Hi Stateri

statrei said:
Let me explain it this way. If you get off the path and become lost you may need a guide to lead you back to the way. During that process you do exactly what the guide tells you to do; you follow his every direction without question. But, once he gets you back to the way you don't follow the guide any more, you follow the way. The prophets were needed to lead the people of God back to Him. They had to do exactly what the prophets said, without question. When they were brought back to the Way, Jesus Christ, the prophet was no longer necessary. His remarks on the Way only provide perspective.

Another example would be a mother and child. In the early years the child must eat whatever the mother puts in its mouth until it is old enough to monitor its own nutrition.

Are linking this to where Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John?? Saying the office of Prophets was ended at that time???

That would work if Jesus had actually said that there would be no more prophets, But that is not what he said,

He meaning is that what the law and the prophets taught was until John, He is the fulfillment of that teaching,

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

He was not abolishing the office of the prophet, If this where the case then there would never again be another prophet,

The days of the great prophets are past, This is true, But just because there are no prophets calling down fire from heaven does not mean the office it self is completly abolished,

Paul speaks of the Gift of prophecy still present in the church and there are acknowledged prophets in the NT,

Ac 21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came (5627) unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

Ac 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Ac 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

Ac 21:11 And when he was come unto us *, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

yours in Christ
deu 58

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

2tim said:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, how youre making this distinction but at this point I have to ask - is this so great an issue that we can therewith dismiss Ellen White's visions out of hand?

2Tim

Definitely not. But it is enough to help me realize where she had been influenced by popular ideas of her time, and the latter has been proven over and over. I treat her the same way the Bereans treated Paul.

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

deu58 said:
Are linking this to where Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John?? Saying the office of Prophets was ended at that time???

I never mentioned John. I deliberately mentioined Hebrews. Yet, in order to make a point you try to introduce John. This tactic is becoming very distressing and smacks of a Rule violation.

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

(regarding the Bereans)As well you should. I'm grateful to hear that. And I think I see where you're coming from. Listen, I have to get back to writing my book, so I'm going to sign off for a bit. i've really enjoyed talking with you Statrei. I'll be back when I hit a "thinking spot" in my writing.

God bless you brother,
2Tim

deu58 · Sep 12, 2005

Hi Staeri

statrei said:
I never mentioned John. I deliberately mentioined Hebrews. Yet, in order to make a point you try to introduce John. This tactic is becoming very distressing and smacks of a Rule violation.

Nope, I am simply tring to understand how you can say there can be a prophet with out the office of a prophet to be fulfilled,

Kind of like saying we have a mayor of the city but we do not really have the office of mayor in our city,

yours in Christ
deu 58

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

deu58 said:
Hi Staeri

Nope, I am simply tring to understand how you can say there can be a prophet with out the office of a prophet to be fulfilled,

Kind of like saying we have a mayor of the city but we do not really have the office of mayor in our city,

yours in Christ
deu 58

Why can't you see the problem you keep creating? I may have to quick engaging you in these exchanges. I said it is possible to have the prophetic gift without having the prophetic office . Somehow, but the time it got through your head it became it is possible to be a prophet without having the prophetic office. I'm tired of cleaning up your mess. Be more attentive.

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

2tim said:
The only problem with that progression is that you contradict yourself when you say (in essence) "We don't need a prophet when we have Jesus"

Who was (among many wonderful things) a prophet.

2Tim

Jesus was not a prophet.

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

You contnue to point to a difference between the prophet and one with the prophetic gift with only one scripture to support you - that I've seen. And Hebrews 1:1-2 isn't enough in my opinion.

Understand that, within the paradigm that all who prophecy (verb: pro fi sy - not sure on spelling) are prophets and all prophets prophecy then Jesus qualifies.

I understand in your pardigm this is not so - and we can go back and forth. But really what I need you to do is present a solid (More than one leg on the stool please brother!) foundation for what you are saying.

It's all yours....

2Tim

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

Quote: Jesus was not a prophet.

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Who was Jesus referring to, someone else?
2Tim

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

2tim said:
Quote: Jesus was not a prophet.

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Who was Jesus referring to, someone else?
2Tim

He quoted a popular saying to illustrate a point. We must not think Jesus was an ignorant man. He once used a story that was obviously flawed to illustrate another point. He did not say, "I am a prophet."

statrei · Sep 12, 2005

2tim said:
You contnue to point to a difference between the prophet and one with the prophetic gift with only one scripture to support you - that I've seen. And Hebrews 1:1-2 isn't enough in my opinion.

Understand that, within the paradigm that all who prophecy (verb: pro fi sy - not sure on spelling) are prophets and all prophets prophecy then Jesus qualifies.

I understand in your pardigm this is not so - and we can go back and forth. But really what I need you to do is present a solid (More than one leg on the stool please brother!) foundation for what you are saying.

It's all yours....

2Tim

Then, I must ask whether you are willing to do everything that EGW has recommended because that is the only honest way to deal with a prophet. If you don't, if there is even one way in which would not you would be guilty of being convenient in your interpretation.

2tim · Sep 12, 2005

statrei said:
He quoted a popular saying to illustrate a point. We must not think Jesus was an ignorant man. He once used a story that was obviously flawed to illustrate another point. He did not say, "I am a prophet."

Why use the image of a prophet at all? Why not say a destist isn't popular in his own town? You have yet to add more than a single leg to this stool Statrei.

So far it's a lot of reading between the lines. Now I know that if ew have three or four scriptures that allude to the same thing - sometimes between the lines is valid. But not with a SINGLE scripture, that's too flimsy.

C'mon, you're holding out. I can take it. Where's the solid Scriptural basis for the truth that all who prophecy are not prophets?

2Tim

Reading Lahaye...

Well-Known Member

HoneyDew

Guest

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency