What does the New Testament Prophet look like?

[hislegacy]

You are assuming that is “revelatory knowledge”, when it could very well be a reference to “experiential knowledge”.

I just believe when God said He would showed Paul what he must suffer

He showed Paul what he must suffer.

 

[atpollard]

I just believe when God said He would showed Paul what he must suffer

He showed Paul what he must suffer.

Me too ... God sent a Prophet to mentally prepare Paul, and then Paul experienced his suffering first hand.
God DEFINITELY showed him!

 

[hislegacy]

Me too ... God sent a Prophet to mentally prepare Paul, and then Paul experienced his suffering first hand.
God DEFINITELY showed him!

I can agree to that only if I ignore Acts 9

Thank you for your opinion. Ours differ.

 

[atpollard]

I can agree to that only if I ignore Acts 9

Point out the MOMENT in Acts 9 where God "shows" Paul all that he must suffer, because I can't find it. Only a promise to Aninias that God will show Paul how much he must suffer.

Thank you for your opinion. Ours differ.

On this we can completely agree.
Shalom (peace and well being).

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I read through the NT perhaps 15-20 times a year. I average a book a day. (Just a reference point)

No. Confirmation is not guidance.

God guided Paul in what he had to suffer.

Agabus confirmed he was about to suffer, that is not guidance.

I disagree. While Agabus did not "inform" Paul of something he did not already know, (again, Prophets are not fortune tellers) the confirmation was guidance to Paul that he understood God correctly. Paul was a regular human and had doubts and fears that he wrestled with just like everyone else.

Just because we read through something several times a year does not mean that we have "caught" everything and know everything about all there is to know. In my opinion, "a book a day" is TOO fast...unless all you're trying to accomplish is quantity. Read it through and consider every word VERY SLOWLY. Read by event, each action taken, just a few verses at a time, and think about each and every sentence. Don't rush over anything...else YOU ARE missing something. I'm not insulting or demeaning you, I'm just saying there is more there than most of us get through in a lifetime. That's a sermon I speak to myself as well as everyone else. Gleaning through scripture is not a relay race where the prize is handed to the one who reads the most.

 

[hislegacy]

I disagree. While Agabus did not "inform" Paul of something he did not already know, (again, Prophets are not fortune tellers) the confirmation was guidance to Paul that he understood God correctly. Paul was a regular human and had doubts and fears that he wrestled with just like everyone else.

Re-read the verses again:

Acts 21:10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ”

12 Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem.
​

Paul is not the one who had doubts about going - look at verse 12 - then look at Paul's answer:

13 Then Paul answered, “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”
​

Paul did not say the Prophet has convinced me - he said I am ready.

Did Paul have human doubts - well yes, he was human. But he sure did not exhibit and doubts on these verses, in fact he was the one confirming that the prophet was right.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Re-read the verses again:

Acts 21:10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ”

12 Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem.
​

Paul is not the one who had doubts about going - look at verse 12 - then look at Paul's answer:

13 Then Paul answered, “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”
​

Paul did not say the Prophet has convinced me - he said I am ready.

Did Paul have human doubts - well yes, he was human. But he sure did not exhibit and doubts on these verses, in fact he was the one confirming that the prophet was right.

I still disagree with your conclusions. I do not see it as so cut and dry as you have assessed.

 

[hislegacy]

I still disagree with your conclusions. I do not see it as so cut and dry as you have assessed.

OK - thanks for your input.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

OK - thanks for your input.

Question: Not saying that Paul DID have doubts but if Paul did not have doubts why did God send a Prophet to confirm?

Also, I do not see "confirming" and convincing" as the same application.

 

[hislegacy]

Just because we read through something several times a year does not mean that we have "caught" everything and know everything about all there is to know. In my opinion, "a book a day" is TOO fast...unless all you're trying to accomplish is quantity. Read it through and consider every word VERY SLOWLY. Read by event, each action taken, just a few verses at a time, and think about each and every sentence. Don't rush over anything...else YOU ARE missing something.

No offense taken nor offered.

Do you know how long it takes to read the Book of Acts? With me, about an hour and a half. I don't time it, but I'd venture an educated guess. That is part of my devotional time and does not include any studies I might do.

It is also how I remembered that Paul already knew what Agabus was speaking about. Please forgive me, but I don't believe I am missing anything. If I am, please show me the verses where Paul expressed doubt and I'll apologize. Thank you again for your thoughtful words.

 

[hislegacy]

Question: Not saying that Paul DID have doubts but if Paul did not have doubts why did God send a Prophet to confirm?

You would have to ask God about that - if it is not plainly written, you cannot teach it as fact. I do my best not to go on presumptions

 

[hislegacy]

IF Paul had doubts, they certainly were not on display in the verses. He is the one correcting the doubt and fear expressed.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

No offense taken nor offered.

Do you know how long it takes to read the Book of Acts? With me, about an hour and a half. I don't time it, but I'd venture an educated guess. That is part of my devotional time and does not include any studies I might do.

It is also how I remembered that Paul already knew what Agabus was speaking about. Please forgive me, but I don't believe I am missing anything. If I am, please show me the verses where Paul expressed doubt and I'll apologize. Thank you again for your thoughtful words.

I'm certainly not going to be able to open your eyes to something the Holy Spirit has not yet opened your eyes to. It is my opinion that when someone says "I'm not missing anything" in regards to scripture, they are most certainly missing something. There ain't a one of us who knows it all.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

You would have to ask God about that - if it is not plainly written, you cannot teach it as fact. I do my best not to go on presumptions

And I do my best to not limit God to a box of human language. Not making presumptions, but questioning why? There must have been a reason. What might that reason been?

 

[topher694]

so show me the difference. I’m open to learning. I have been asking for you to show me from scripture.

Show me from scripture and there is no resistance to change. The problem I have is that you are not using scripture.

Again, I believe 100% in the both the prophetic and the office of the Prophet.

I've been watching for a while before I answer this, and having done so, I am sticking by my original assessment. This is pointless and despite your statements to the contrary, you are not open to learning. I have provided one scripture, I could provide more, but I've seen what happens when people do so. If you can't see what is different and what is complimentary in Acts 9 vs Acts 21, then you won't be open to what I have to say. I'll say it again - as a form of encouragement to examine yourself - you are approaching this far, far too narrowly.

 

[topher694]

You would have to ask God about that - if it is not plainly written, you cannot teach it as fact. I do my best not to go on presumptions

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Who defines if something is plainly written? In this case it is you. You are making yourself the authority and insisting that you must be able to plainly understand instead of letting God be the authority and bring the understanding. That approach throws out a lot of scripture, or, in other words narrows our ability to understand what God is saying.

 

[hislegacy]

I'm certainly not going to be able to open your eyes to something the Holy Spirit has not yet opened your eyes to. It is my opinion that when someone says "I'm not missing anything" in regards to scripture, they are most certainly missing something. There ain't a one of us who knows it all.

This is true and correct. It's the beauty and strength of Brothers and Sisters sharpening one another.

Again, - point me to a scripture (the basis for faith), where it supports the doubting of Paul and you have won me. I am open to learning. I am not looking for opinions, I can get opinions anywhere.

And I do my best to not limit God to a box of human language. Not making presumptions, but questioning why? There must have been a reason. What might that reason been?

Not one clue - the scripture doesn't address it. Again, cite the scriptures that support your statement. If there isn't any, that is ok - no harm, no foul - everyone is entitled to an opinion. Ours differs

I still love you and honor you.

 

[hislegacy]

I've been watching for a while before I answer this, and having done so, I am sticking by my original assessment. This is pointless and despite your statements to the contrary, you are not open to learning. I have provided one scripture, I could provide more, but I've seen what happens when people do so. If you can't see what is different and what is complimentary in Acts 9 vs Acts 21, then you won't be open to what I have to say. I'll say it again - as a form of encouragement to examine yourself - you are approaching this far, far too narrowly.

OK - thanks for your opinions and input. I appreciate them.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Who defines if something is plainly written? In this case it is you. You are making yourself the authority and insisting that you must be able to plainly understand instead of letting God be the authority and bring the understanding. That approach throws out a lot of scripture, or, in other words narrows our ability to understand what God is saying.

The Scripture does - not me, not you, not some theologian.

This approach throws out absolutely no scripture whatsoever, in fact, it put the final authority with the Scripture. What is narrows down, IMHO, every wind of Doctrine.

I believe there is an anointing and a very powerful place for Prophets in the Body. I believe that we are not seeing the harvest that we could because we have reduced the office.

Paul commended the Bereans for checking scripture to see if what he spoke was accurate. He didn't have an issue with it. I question those who do.

 

[topher694]

OK - thanks for your opinions and input. I appreciate them.



The Scripture does - not me, not you, not some theologian.

This approach throws out absolutely no scripture whatsoever, in fact, it put the final authority with the Scripture. What is narrows down, IMHO, every wind of Doctrine.

I believe there is an anointing and a very powerful place for Prophets in the Body. I believe that we are not seeing the harvest that we could because we have reduced the office.

Paul commended the Bereans for checking scripture to see if what he spoke was accurate. He didn't have an issue with it. I question those who do.

But "plainly" is YOUR word, and YOUR standard. You are dismissing out of hand scripture that actually nicely illustrates exactly how the prophetic should and often does work, no matter how many people tell you otherwise. We are all checking scripture here. You are the only one rejecting it based on a personal standard.

I agree completely on your other points, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.

 

[hislegacy]

But "plainly" is YOUR word, and YOUR standard. You are dismissing out of hand scripture that actually nicely illustrates exactly how the prophetic should and often does work, no matter how many people tell you otherwise. We are all checking scripture here. You are the only one rejecting it based on a personal standard.

I agree completely on your other points, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.

okie dokie. Thank you