- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Fair enough.Correct. However, the first instance that gives us a contextual clue of what a prophet does or is in Exodus 7:1
Upvote
0
Fair enough.Correct. However, the first instance that gives us a contextual clue of what a prophet does or is in Exodus 7:1
I tried, you dismissed or twisted what I said, badly.I think epistemology is probably better reserved for the other thread. But you don't seem to be discussing/debating. You seem to be asserting without evidence.
This is just all off... Way off.
I was going to ask how experienced in the prophetic you are, but I think you answered it. By your own admission and standard you are not mature, so why would we listen to you about what maturity is?
I have a great deal of experience in the prophetic. I know several prophets. Some of my very best friends in the world in fact. I've trained several prophets personally. Every single one of them would agree with me because they've all preached the very same thing.
Disagree. Abuses happen, sure, but this is a narrow and inaccurate application of scriptures on prophesy.I am experienced enough in the prophetic to say most of the prophetic is false prophets talking rubbish, nothing from God.
Anyone who claims to have a word from God, ought to realise this is a capital offence to be lying from God. If one is putting ones life on the line, how many "prophets" would actually speak. Very few because most aspire to grand stand while actually not knowing the God who they are claiming to speak on behalf of. God bless you
Don't just assert your conclusions. Argue them.I tried, you dismissed or twisted what I said, badly.
I could go deeper into it, but you've shown you're not able to receive of meat.
My advice if you are truly interested in the prophetic and maturity, would be to throw all of this convoluted, inconsistent, unfounded stuff out completely. Start with a blank slate on this topic and find someone prophetic to follow who has good fruit and let them guide you for awhile.
Why? When I do it's completely twisted, dismissed and disrespected:Don't just assert your conclusions. Argue them.
So you don't give points I made much thought, but just assume that they are moot... which they are not: Dismissive and disrespectfulI wouldn't be too quick to classify Jonah as immature. I have no idea, haven't given it much thought. It's a moot point
Misrepresent what I say then accuse me of misrepresenting. Isn't the whole point to debate the topic? That is impossible when your default position is to label understanding that is different than your own misrepresenting: Twisting and dismissingBut it's always easier to misrepresent what is said when trying to refute it, isn't it?
*I* am disputing *your* interpretation of those facts but that is apparently not permissible or something: twisting, dismissive and disrespectfulMostly you're arguing facts not in dispute. Not sure of the relevance.
Again, a person who experiences some degree of fallible revelation isn't necessarily a prophet. But even if you and your friends are prophets in a fallible sense, the only thing it would refute is either (A) the strictness of the term prophecy as I have defined it or (B) my opinion as to the number of prophets existing today.I have a great deal of experience in the prophetic. I know several prophets. Some of my very best friends in the world in fact. I've trained several prophets personally. Every single one of them would agree with me because they've all preached the very same thing.
I didn't intentionally misrepresent you. Feel free to correct me.Why? When I do it's completely twisted, dismissed and disrespected:
So you don't give points I made much thought, but just assume that they are moot... which they are not: Dismissive and disrespectful
Misrepresent what I say then accuse me of misrepresenting. Isn't the whole point to debate the topic? That is impossible when your default position is to label understanding that is different than your own misrepresenting: Twisting and dismissing
*I* am disputing *your* interpretation of those facts but that is apparently not permissible or something: twisting, dismissive and disrespectful
Elitism is probably the most immature thing of all.Anyone's list of mature saints would rightly include Abraham, Isaiah, Elijah, Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, David, Joshua, Samuel, the author of Hebrews, the apostles, and Christ Himself. In the OT such men were variously called "a man of God", "a seer", or "a prophet". In fact the prophet Abraham is taken in Romans 4, Galatian 3, and Hebrews 11 as an exemplar par excellence of the Christian walk - a paradigm for ALL of us to follow.
Is anyone seeing a pattern emerging here? I mostly certainly am.
While exegesis is fallible, we favor the interpretations seemingly most harmonious with the author's words. This thread will expose evidence in 1Corinthians strongly favoring mature prophethood as the definition of spiritual maturity climaxed at 14:1, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy."
The original Greek at 14:1 - and 12:1 as well - says not spiritual gifts but spiritual things because Paul's obsession isn't with a set of superfluous gifts (understood as merely an optional bonus to spirituality) but with spirituality/maturity itself. After all, the Corinthians were unspiritual (i.e.impoverished in spiritual things). For such 'mere babes in Christ' (1Cor 3), the obvious remedy is to 'eagerly pursue spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy'. It is in fact only tautological - and thus irrefutable - to point out that a spiritually mature man is a man mature in spiritual things - and topping Paul's list of spiritual things is 'especially the gift of prophecy' (14:1).
In a nutshell, 1Corinthians doesn't value gifts for gifts' sake but for maturity's sake. This is the epistle's most distinctive emphasis and yet it is still overlooked by the entire church even today, some 2000 years later.
As we shall see, this thesis surfaces most strongly in chapters 2 and 3, but is powerfully reiterated at chapter 13 as well.
It's clear to me you aren't looking for a debate, but to demonstrate you are right. I have no interest in that.I didn't intentionally misrepresent you. Feel free to correct me.
You don't have to like Paul's definition of maturity to accept it.Elitism is probably the most immature thing of all.
So my goal should be to demonstrate that I'm wrong? Is that how you post, and how everyone else posts, as you see it?It's clear to me you aren't looking for a debate, but to demonstrate you are right. I have no interest in that.
Your definition
Your opinion
You know what glorifies God in services you're not at
You know what other's standards of prophesy are
You know their intentions
You know what others are presuming
You know who is hearing God's voice and who isn't
You know what their traditions are
None of this is language consistent with debate.
Whoa slow down a bit. You're jumping ahead several verses deep into chapter 14. And yes at some point down that road, Paul makes comparisons between tongues and prophecy. I agree with you on that point.1 Corinthians 14's reference to prophesying isn't speaking on one's maturity or standing with God. Paul is merely saying that prophesying is more beneficial to the body as a whole than speaking in tongues as prophesy can be understood without interpretation while tongues cannot.
actually it starts in verse 1 and ends at verse 25Whoa slow down a bit. You're jumping ahead several verses deep into chapter 14.
But let's not jump over the first 13 chapters of the epistle! Chapters where Paul had some OTHER claims to make about prophecy, as I've been demonstrating (see posts 8 and 34). Starting in chapter 2, Paul labored to provide us a criterion of what it means to be spiritual (mature) and his definition involved inspired speech.
If you say so. But tongues isn't mentioned in verse 14:1 and I'm mostly focusing on chapters 2, 3 and 13 where the words 'babes' and 'mature' and 'spiritual' are compared and contrasted.actually it starts in verse 1 and ends at verse 25
That was one of his points. And?chapter 2 merely states that those without the Spirit cannot properly discern the things of the Spirit.
At least you confirmed a crucial contrast thematic to my thesis. You just hinted at the very things I claimed:Paul was speaking of himself and his apostolic contemporaries that they didn't speak according to the wisdom of men but by the Spirit of God leading them(same thing said in 2 peter 1:20-21).
We can certainly debate terminology here, if you really want to argue that most Spirit-inspired speech isn't prophecy. But regardless of any semantic nitpicking, chapter 2 is clear enough that inspiration largely defines maturity. More on this point shortly.nothing about prophesy, which is simply speaking accurately of events that have yet to take place. the way the LORD told us to discern a false prophet is if the things they proclaim don't happen(Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
Now your twisting my words again. I said nothing of the sort. I am saying they way you are presenting, and responding is not at all condusive to debate.So my goal should be to demonstrate that I'm wrong? Is that how you post, and how everyone else posts, as you see it?
I think you're harping on irrelevant points. Virtually every opinion posted by any poster on this forum is presented as a fact. Some opinions are asserted more or less vigorously/apodictically depending on the poster's degree of felt certainty. I'm not sure whether we need to dwell on this point any further.Now your twisting my words again. I said nothing of the sort. I am saying they way you are presenting, and responding is not at all condusive to debate.
For example what prophets or anyone "presume" to know of or hear from God is not something that any of us can know. You present it as a fact.
See above. Opining is not inherently a circularity. All proofs are ultimately circular in the sense of relying on foundational axioms to avoid infinite regress, but if we at least agree on the axioms (e.g. Scripture is inspired) we can proceed from there.It is not a debatable fact. Ironically it is itself a presumption. Therefore trying to argue the point becomes circular.
I don't recall dismissing it out of hand. I recall promising to demonstrate the correct reading of the passage, which I subsequently attempted as promised.As I stated before, I presented scripture, direct and indirect and it was dismissed out of had... not debate.
No as I recall, you raised an inherently epistemological issue. And I didn't shut you down, I merely expressed a preference to discuss it on another thread. I never said I would ignore you on this thread.You are the one that brings up epistemology, and I respond with epistemology examples and I'm considered off topic... not debate.