The PoMo-Prophet Killers - 1
/ Topic was > Re: Who Can Cite Scriptures? / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion / Date > 1 Jan 2001 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.baptist /
] [M.B.? wrote:] This is under the concept that the office of apostle is no longer in operation.
.
>>> [GoldRush? replied:] The office of Apostle is no longer ordained by God, nor necessary.
.
textman say: Given the dismal and corrupt nature of the Faith as it is practiced today, I think it is incredibly arrogant for anyone to claim that apostles are no longer necessary. Indeed, if one were to take an honest look at what Christianity has become of late, it ought to be apparent that the "office" of apostle is *very* necessary, and that it is indeed the very lack of apostles today that has led all believers into this unfortunate condition wherein we must rely on priests and fundies to tell True Believers the truth of things!
.
>> Micah Burke wrote: Please cite scripture.
.
> On Nov16 GoldRush replied: If you want to argue this, cite your own Scripture.
> We have already made our argument with Scripture.
.
textman answers: Dear GoldRush, too bad so sad I missed that.
.
> (There is *no* Scripture that says an apostle is anything less than an eyewitness and contemporary
> of the Lord, and personally ordained to the office by Him.) <snipsome>
.
No? Are you so certain of that? If an apostle is an eyewitness of the Lord (presumably you mean prior to his Ascension) and personally ordained to the so-called 'office' by Him (presumably you mean prior to his Ascension) how do you explain the fact that Paul, who never saw Jesus in the flesh, is (and was) widely known as an apostle; in fact "The Apostle" (cf. Clement of Alexandria).
.
And furthermore, how do you explain the following verses which plainly assert that Silvanus and Timothy (neither of whom were an eyewitness and contemporary of the Lord, and so neither of whom were personally ordained to the 'office' by Him), along with Paul, *are* apostles (ie. 'apostles' very NOT according to your phony and contrived definition):
.
"For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed (God is witness), nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority" (1Thes.2:5-7 / NASB).
.
Ah so. It would appear that the entire authority of this small band of Hellenistic-Jewish prophets resides not in the idea that the source of their power derives from the authority and eyewitness-ship of the original Aramaic 'pillars' (ie. Peter/Antioch, James/Jerusalem, John/Alexandria; cf.Mk.9:1-7), but rather flows directly from their relationship with the Risen, Post-Ascension, Glorified Christ Jesus. This relationship is essentially the same as that between all prophets and the Lord. This is what Silvanus and Paulos mean when they refer to themselves as 'apostles of Christ'.
.
> Fight your own battle. Cite your own Scripture to support your view that there are present-day apostles
> with ordained authority to write Scripture.
.
"For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law,
some of whom you will kill ..." (Mt 23:34 / NETbible).
.
[The Reader should note that the Lord did NOT qualify this assertion by adding that all this sending will promptly cease in the year 100CE because ***THE-CANONICAL-HOLY-BIBLE-ALREADY!*** will thereafter make the prophets useless, unnecessary, and obsolete. And yet, as a matter of plain historical fact, the Lord's gracious promise is precisely what happened; as the prophetic tradition can easily be traced throughout church-history (especially in pre-Constantinian Egypt up to Origen).]
.
"If any one among you thinks to be a prophet or a spiritual man, let him fully know the things I write to you; that they are of the Lord (and so a commandment). But if any one of you does not recognize this, he also is not recognized. So then, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy! And do not forbid the speaking in tongues. But let all things be done decently, and in an orderly way." -- 1Cor.14:37-40 / Prophet Version
.
"Yet the one these things are spoken about belongs to a different tribe and no one from it has ever officiated at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord is descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests in connection with that tribe." -- From the book sadly miscalled 'Hebrews' 7:13-14 / NETbible
.
Then some of the Pharisees began to say, "This man is not from God, because he does not observe the Sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such miraculous signs?" Thus there was a division among them. So again they asked the man who used to be blind, "What do you say about him, since he caused you to see?" "He is a prophet," the man replied. -- John 9:16-17 / NETbible
.
"Now to the one who is able to guard you without stumbling, and sets before you the glory of Him-blameless- with-exultation - and the only God, our Savior (through Jesus Christ our Lord) - let that one [ie. the "slave"] be given glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the Age; now and unto all the ages to come. Amen!"
-- Jude v.24-25 / Prophet Version
.
[Note to Reader: The good prophet Judas is most certainly NOT referring to priests, bishops, Reformers, or even Fundy evangelicals! I'll give you all one guess as to which particular group of influential believers the prophet is here pleading for ... ???]
.
"Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."
-- 2Peter 1:19 / NETbible
.
"Now you are Christ's body, and each of you is a member of it. And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, managements, different kinds of tongues. Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform miracles, do they? Not all have gifts of healing, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do they? But you should be eager for the greater gifts." -- 1Cor.12:27-31 / NETbible
.
Well! That certainly seems clear enough. So if prophets and teachers are good enough for the believers in Wicked Corinth, why are they not good enough for all these many wondrous Fundy churches that claim to take the Word of God seriously, eh? ... The careful Reader should also take notice of the conspicuous absence of priests, bishops, popes, AND Fundies in this list of divinely ordained ministers and ministries!
.
And why would the Word of God (through Paul) encourage all believers to yearn and strive to be prophets if these key high-ranking members of Christ's body were foreordained to be relegated to obscurity and non-existence in just a few decades hence (whether by bishop or by scripture hardly matters to this point)? ...
.
Perhaps Fundies and Cats are all comfy-cozy with the idea that all such verses are rendered null and void by the fact of the supposedly "new" presence of 'The Holy Bible Already!' and/or those glorious Shepherd-Overseers (the
Bishops), but no True Believer who wishes to avoid doing grave violence to the Word of God can rest easy with any such gross and dismissive "interpretation"!
.
> When the eyewitness of the Lord Jesus Christ died, that was the end of them!
.
That was the end of the original eyewitnesses, to be sure; and that's why the first generation of prophets and believers can be accurately fixed to the years between 30-70CE (ie. the early apostolic period). But how does this translate into the idea that *only* the first generation of believers were graced with the apostolic ministry? Where
in scripture does the text explicitly state that being an eyewitness is an absolute requirement for apostleship? Is there any verse anywhere that specifically defines the term 'apostle' as primarily or essentially 'eyewitness'? ...
.
The best I could find along those lines is this nice prophetic bible-byte from the Book of Silvanus: "So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you: give a shepherd's care to God's flock among you, exercising oversight not merely as a duty but willingly under God's direction, not for shameful profit but eagerly" (1Peter 5:1-2 / NETbible). But the only problem here is that the author is not talking about apostles specifically, but about 'shepherds' in general; which (btw) argues against a narrow and literal reading of the words "a witness of Christ's sufferings" (and consequently weakens the idea that 'apostle' means *only* 'eyewitness').
.
> God appointed no others,
.
God appointed apostles, prophets, and teachers, in that order of descending authority over the hearts and minds and faith of the Corinthian believers (according to the Word of God). But you are claiming that scripture supports your contention that there are no more apostles and prophets? *AND* you are unwilling to back up your claim with the relevant bible-bytes?! ... Are you *sure* you got this right? The Word of God doesn't *really* mean what it plainly says, but rather it *really* means what the Fundies say it *really* means?! ...
.
I guess the beauty of claiming to respect the literal meaning of the Sacred Text is that this principle can be conveniently forgotten should any biblical verse dare to disagree with one's most-cherished doctrines :)
.
> unless you want to join with the Roman Catholics who would also argue with us.
.
On the contrary, Fundies and Cats are two peas in the same pod when it comes to zealously denying, ignoring, and killing the prophets. But we should not be at all surprised at this, since it is only natural that the Mother of Harlots and her supposedly "autonomous" daughter-whores see eye to eye on this matter!
.
> And, in the end of time, the Scriptures still limit the number of Apostles to only twelve. [Rev. 21:14] <snipsome>
.
You're using the prophet of Patmos to deny the existence of Christian prophets?! Oh that's *just* lovely!
And I'm sure that the good prophet would be thrilled with your creative use of his book ... NOT!
P.S. Please proceed to the conclusion of Prophet-Killers ...
/ Topic was > Re: Who Can Cite Scriptures? / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Religion / 2Jan2001 /
/ Ngz: alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.baptist /
.
] GoldRush wrote: Do you have biblical evidence that present-day disciples should be entitled "Apostle"?
.
>> Micah Burke replied: The office is mentioned twice in scripture as an office believers can fill.
.
> GoldRush answered: The office is mentioned twice in Scripture as an ordination within the church. In 1Cor.12:28
.
"And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, managements, different kinds of tongues." -- 1Corinthians 12:28 / NETbible
.
textman rudely points out that: There is no mention of "ordination" or "office" in this text, only the bald statement that apostles and prophets are tops among the members of Christ's body because God has placed them so in His
churches. ... Would that all believers could take this verse as seriously as it is intended by the author (and the Lord)!
.
> and Eph. 4:11. (See, we have to do *your* homework for you!)
.
"It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God — a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ's full stature" (Eph.4:11-13 / NETbible).
.
Hmmm, no mention of "ordination" here either. But it's interesting to note that the Word of God [NOT through Paul this time, btw; hardly a minor slip gr] here makes a point of emphasizing that apostles, prophets, etc, are given for upbuilding "until we all attain".
.
But surely GoldRush is not suggesting that "the unity of the faith" and "the knowledge of the Son of God" have been fully realized? And surely GoldRush is not claiming that every believer today is a mature person according to the measure of Christ's full stature? And surely GoldRush is not so foolish as to deny that this 'all attaining' still lay far in the future? And surely GoldRush is not so silly as to deny that these verses clearly and authoritatively affirm that
*until that time* the ministry of the apostles and prophets remains in effect within the body of Christ as a whole?!
.
> Paul said to the church at Corinth that the Apostles were primary in church position and to the church at
> Ephesus he merely made the distinction between apostles and the other church offices.
.
You find no significance in the fact that the unknown author mentions 'apostles' first, and 'prophets' second (the same way that Paul does)? ... No? ... Then what, pray tell, makes you think that you *fully* understand the meaning and truth and value of these scriptures?
.
> Paul also said that apostleship must be ordained directly by the Lord Jesus Christ, in order for the office to
> be valid. (For example: Gal.1:1 ... which Scripture we have already presented, but repeat it, so maybe you
> will read it this time.)
.
"From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead) ..." (Gal.1:1 / NETbible).
.
The Reader will also note that Paul doesn't really make the statement that GoldRush just attributed to him; ie. Paul is talking very specifically about himself, and NOT about what does or does not make the 'office of apostleship' in general "valid".
.
> No man, or men can call themselves "apostles" on their own.
.
Here we see the importance of understanding the value of one's definition of 'apostle'. Many believers wish to drive a wedge between Paul's two "highest-ranking" church ministers [So as to make it easier to dispose of them both, presumably] by restricting 'apostles' to a special elite with a fixed number of members having the unique and unrepeatable quality of being of the Lord's generation. Thus they are defined as 'eyewitnesses', and all connection with the prophets is thereby severed once and for all. Or so it seems. But when the prophet-killers make statements like the one just above, they draw attention to the fact that apostles and prophets are not so radically different creatures as the Fundies and Cats would have us believe:
.
"Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." -- 2Peter 1:20-21 / NETbible
.
Hmmm ... Just like apostles, eh? Coincidence maybe? ... Nyet!
.
> The Apostles were personally anointed to the office by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself,
> and that cannot be duplicated today. <snip remainder>
.
Since Paul here (ie. Gal.1:1) clearly implies that it was the risen post-Ascension Lord *and* God who made him into an apostle, it is difficult to see how it is that Christ (and/or the Father) cannot continue to make apostles and prophets according to His good will ...
.
Unless GoldRush is of the opinion that the post-Ascension Lord no longer exists, or is incapable of taking any direct actions in this complex and confusing post-modern world? ... This is certainly not a position I would like to defend. :(
.
btw: Being an apostle (which is to say, a prophet by Christ) is most certainly NOT a matter of "office". Applying such a Romish concept to biblical prophecy is in itself a gross distortion of the truth. And the truth is that any man chosen for the ministry of prophecy is empowered and authorized by the grace and direct action of the Christ-sent Holy Spirit; and *not* by any man-made institutions, Fundy doctrines, Romish theologies, or 'offices':
.
"... until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen" (Acts 1:2 / NETbible). Yet Paul *wasn't* chosen at that time, but only became an apostle years *later*; which clearly demonstrates that Christ was *AND IS* still able to make apostles and prophets out of whomsoever He chooses, whenever and wherever He chooses . . . Amen!
P.S. The LORD said to me, "Before I formed you in your mother's womb I chose you. Before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations." I answered, "Oh, Lord GOD, I really do not know how to speak well enough for that, for I am too young." The LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am too young'. But go to whomever I send you and say whatever I tell you. Do not be afraid of those to whom I send you, for I will be with you to rescue you," says the LORD. Then the LORD reached out His hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "I will most assuredly give you the words you are to speak for me." -- Jeremiah 1:4-9 / NETbible
/ Topic > Re: The PoMo-Prophet Killers #1 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Religion / 4Jan2001 /
/ Ngz: alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.baptist /
.
I have applied these things to myself and Apollos because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn "not to go beyond what is written", so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of the one against the other. -- 1Cor. 4:6 / NETbible
.
> On 2Jan Navey Sealed wrote: erasmian
.
erasmian answers: Dear Navey, yes?
.
> Are you Clark Pinnock?
.
Who? ... Say; isn't there supposed to be a smiley after that question mark? :)
.
> Seriously though, the problem I have with the idea of Christ raising up another apostle like Paul is
> the "new revelation" that would be involved.
.
I see. A so-called "new" revelation would seem to imply that the previous revelation was somehow incomplete or imperfect. But since that revelation was perfect and complete there can be no new revelation, because nothing essential was omitted, etc. Personally, I'm none too thrilled with that kind of loose talk, and would much rather just say that the job of any post-modern 'apostle like Paul' is less likely to involve 'new revelations', and far more likely to involve clarifying the revelation already given, by way of coming to a deeper understanding of the sacred scriptures so as to expand and illuminate our knowledge of the Word of God (in whole and in part). Surely, this is not the sort of "new revelation" that any believer could possibly object to?
.
> Christ revealed to Paul the mystery which had been hidden from ages and generations (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:3-6;
> Col 1:25-27) and Paul was the one who was to make it known throughout the world.
.
But the Mystery of Faith is far larger than any one prophet (even one of Paul's stature), and so is entrusted to the People of God as a whole. Paul himself acknowledges this when he recalls his impressions of another early Christian prophet:
.
"And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise ... and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter" (2Cor.12:3-4 / RSV).
.
Now Paul was certainly more than justified in asserting his apostolic authority (ie. seeing as the pillars were none too keen on granting Paul equal status), but this does not detract from the fact that the Faith is necessarily a cooperative and collective enterprise. In other words, two prophets are better than one. Thus even Paul did not see
*all* that could be revealed, else he would have known that the Faith had a long future ahead of it. The measure of Paul's full stature as 'a prophet by Christ' lies in the fact that he can admit his limitations:
.
"For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away ... For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully ..." (1Cor.13:9-10,12 / RSV).
.
The good prophet Paulos placed his hope in the future where things will be seen more clearly. I share this same hope, even as I point out that the centuries between Paul's day and ours has allowed most bible-students to see many things about the scriptures more clearly. A *full* understanding, however, still eludes us, and so remains both a motive and a goal. And if our knowledge of the Faith (its history and mystery) grows and deepens with the passing generations of believers, then surely the dynamic nature of the prophetic ministries will expand to encompass the "new" richness and complexity of the Word of God (which was always there, of course, but for our collective blindness).
.
> Do you claim to have been given a similar job?
.
Being a prophet is not a job ... It's an adventure!
.
> A similar stewardship (1Cor.4:1;
.
"People should think about us this way — as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."
.
Hmmmm ... Paulos, Silvanus, and textman are all the same prophet-type servants and stewards? . . .
Yup, sounds alright to me :)
.
> 9:17;
.
"For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward. But if unwillingly, I am entrusted with a responsibility."
.
I do this voluntarily *and* unwillingly!
.
> Eph 3:2;
.
"If indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you"
.
See answer to 1Cor.4:1 above.
.
> Col 1:25)? -- Sealed
.
"I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship of the grace of God — given to me for you — in order to complete the word of God"
.
Well now it also depends upon how exactly you care to define 'similar'. How similar is similar? The biblical prophetic- tradition as a whole shows that there is a great variety among the prophets, just as there are many specific prophetic ministries. And just as there are/were many sorts of valid prophets and faithful teachers, so there are/were many sorts of false prophets and false teachers. I suppose that one way to distinguish between true and false prophets today is to see whether or not the prophet urges people to accept his message on the basis of his
authority *as* a prophet. In my view such an appeal demonstrates a notable lack of faith in the innate power and persuasiveness of the message itself. Thus I am very much in agreement with herr Galileo:
.
"To pretend that truth is so deeply hidden from us, and that it is hard to distinguish it from falsehood, is quite preposterous: the truth remains hidden only while we have nothing but false opinions and doubtful speculations; but hardly has truth made its appearance than its light will dispel dark shadows."
.
Now maybe I'm just too darn naive to be an effective prophet unto a confused and disbelieving People of God, but I've always fancied that the light of truth holds a natural attraction for all lovers of truth (and all true believers too). Consequently, if a prophet is serving the Spirit of Truth (as he ought) then there is no real need to supplement the power of the message by pointless appeals to (imputed) authority.
.
Having said all that, let's now return to the idea of having different types of prophets. The apostles, we might say, constitute a special category within the larger prophetic tradition; but we err greatly in any attempt to separate 'apostle' and 'prophet' so as to confuse the essential identity that clearly exists. Another category of prophet suggested by Paul (4X: 1Cor.12:31) is that of 'interpreter' [or, to be more precise, the 'prophet-interpreter']. For Paul it is only good common-sense to acknowledge that a prophet is the best and ablest to know and judge and explain the words and/or deeds of another prophet.
.
In other words, if the People of God require someone to show them the light of the New Testament's abundant prophetic literature, who should they turn to? Should they seek guidance from Fundies and Cats and bible scholars (who have all worked so long and hard to utterly eradicate all lingering traces of the prophetic traditions of the early Greek churches)? Or should they rather come to know and love the Bible's prophetic tradition by way of a prophet specifically trained and formed to know and love the biblical prophetic tradition as the Lord intended it should be?
.
These are not difficult questions; or at least they shouldn't be. But if your answer to that last question is 'yes', then you have gone a long way in understanding just what sort of creature the cyber-prophet really is ... Aw Shucks! Now you went and took all the fun and mystery out of it! :(
P.S. "... in order to complete the word of God" (Col.1:25). One might even say that it is toward this end that all my various prophetic scribblings are directed; for nothing is more required today than a more rational, more respectful, and more historically-complete vision of the scriptures as a whole.
/ Topic > Re: The PoMo-Prophet Killers #2 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Religion / 5Jan2001 /
/ Ngz: alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.baptist /
.
"May grace and peace be lavished on you as you grow in the rich
knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord!" - 2Peter 1:2/NETbible
.
> On 3Jan Evangelist replies: Erasmian: Verrry interesting! Allow me to submit to you (and whoever else may
> read it) what I believe a prophet is. Based upon Nabhi'.
.
erasmian say: Dear Evangelist, what is a Nabhi anyway? :)
.
> He is an uncompromising individualist, not bound by conventions or by public opinion or restrainable by the
> conventions of diplomats or political correctness. He is painfully aware of a divine call that holds him to a task
> set forth by God. He must obey this divine compulsion. He is usually a man of action, and tends to command
> attention in any gathering, even without saying anything. He is intense, and generally is apt to stir up
> antagonism and opposition. He is conscious of God's authority and backing in situations whereto he is called.
> Most of the time, he stands alone against most of his contemporaries. He generally leads a lonely, solitary
> lifestyle that does not lend itself to social intercourse. He is an outspoken critic of specific social ills and
> churchly slothfulness, and cares not that to whom he speaks is a president, king, priest or judge. If needed,
> he will denounce them without fear or favor. He does not deal in abstract thought, but raises his voice in
> almost violent protest against any person or institution meriting denunciation according to the will of God.
> He is God's agent to reprove, rebuke, and exhort.
.
Well! That's certainly a fine and glowing portrait (of the prophet as an angry young man) you've got there. Very nice, and quite accurate too (in *some* respects). But it's not very realistic, I think, in that most of the NT prophets (eg. Paulos and Silvanus) grew past their 'angry prophet denouncing' phase, and went on to embrace knowledge and what you call 'abstract thought'. Nor would I describe the later NT prophets (eg. Jacob) as not having any interest in knowledge and learning (for the sake of the Faith). Indeed scholarship (or dealing in abstract thought) certainly made a better prophet out of Paul, out of Silvanus, out of Jacob, and out of many other early prophets among the Greek churches.
.
In fact, I dare say that it was the Greek-speaking Christian prophets that developed the true Christian gnosis; and this can be traced from Paul (in the mid first-century) to Second Peter (in the mid second-century). Naturally the prophetic gnosis is much better developed in this more recent document:
.
"I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence. ... For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately" (2Peter 1:3,5-8 / NETbible).
.
Now that's what I call a prophet (the author of 2Peter, I mean)!
.
> Most of what passes today as "prophets" are nothing more than self-seeking little men (and women) who
> have no real clue as to what, or who a prophet is.
.
This has been my experience also.
.
> They dabble in "personal prophecy" that is usually nothing more than inane drivel, learned in the halls of a
> morally-challenged "school of prophets". Oftentimes, they may even be used as channelers by familiar spirits.
.
Oh, you must mean "New Age" prophets ... LOL
.
> But there are some real prophets today, just as there were 2000+ years ago. They do not write scripture,
> nor do they even believe that they could. But they do thunder out the message that God has always had
> for mankind..."there is NONE righteous, no, not ONE....prepare to meet thy God....make straight the paths
> of the Lord ... REPENT! ye generation of vipers..."
.
Seems to me that any faithful preacher or teacher could and should say all of those things. More is required of the prophet than this (just ask Paul).
.
> Would that there were more, and that mankind would hear them. -- In the service of Jesus Christ, BroHank
.
I don't think that it's really a question of more or less. Even one prophet is quite sufficient to cause a reform (or even a revolution) in the Faith; provided that enough believers are willing to listen. The problem with the churches today is that they are unable to listen. They want nothing to do with prophets because prophets want the People to change their thinking and practice of the Faith, and *change* is the LAST thing that the churches want; for most post-modern churches are nothing more than monuments to mindless conformity at any cost!
P.S. "Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." -- 2Peter 1:19-21 / NETbible
/ Topic > Re: The PoMo-Prophet Killers #3 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - Religion / 12Jan2001 /
/ Ngz: alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.baptist /
.
>> erasmian asked: Dear Evangelist, what is a Nabhi anyway? <snip>
.
> On 5Jan Evangelist answers: From the OT, one of three words used to describe what we call prophets.
> Ro'eh generally denoted "seer" and is used only 11 times, and indicates "special powers of sight. Prime
> example is Samuel. Chozeh, used 22 times, denotes the same "seeing" but adds "gazing", apparently to
> indicate some additional property. Examples, Balaam and Gad. Both Ro'eh and Chozeh seem to place
> emphasis on the mode of receiving rather that the mode of delivery. Nahbi', used 300 times emphasizes
> the utterance of the message and not the vision. Probably comes from the Semitic root "Naba' "to utter,
> proclaim, speak. The same word is also found in ancient Assyrian and Arabic with the same meaning
.
erasmian replies: Dear Evangelist, so, in other words, in the Bronze Age world of the Ancient Near East there was a sort of man widely recognized as a "proclaimer", and these later came to be distinguished from seers and wise-men in general, although presumably the family resemblance remained. This suggests to me that maybe the prophet has
more in common with say a bible scholar than with your average preacher?
.
>> Well! That's certainly a fine and glowing portrait (of the prophet as an angry young man) you've got there.
>> Very nice, and quite accurate too (in *some* respects). But it's not very realistic, I think, in that most of the
>> NT prophets (eg. Paulos and Silvanus) grew past their 'angry prophet denouncing' phase, and went on to
>> embrace knowledge and what you call 'abstract thought'. Nor would I describe the later NT prophets (eg.
>> Jacob) as not having any interest in knowledge and learning (for the sake of the Faith). Indeed scholarship
>> (or dealing in abstract thought) certainly made a better prophet out of Paul, out of Silvanus, out of Jacob,
>> and out of many other early prophets among the Greek churches.
.
> Considering the ages of most of the "prophets" spoken of in the OT, I do not think the appelation of "angry
> YOUNG" is appropriate. I further would not describe the general demeanor of Jeremiah as that of angry.
> Anger is not mentioned, but certainly whenever one denounces, reproves, rebukes, or speaks of those
> things that people do not want to hear they are generally perceived as "angry".
.
And rightly so (for the most part), I should think.
.
> I believe that Jesus did teach us, though, that *righteous* anger is allowable, and even necessary.
.
And rightly so (for the most part).
Indeed, one might even say that one could hardly be an effective prophet without it ...
.
>> In fact, I dare say that it was the Greek-speaking Christian prophets that developed the true Christian
>> gnosis; and this can be traced from Paul (in the mid first-century) to Second Peter (in the mid second-
>> century). Naturally the prophetic gnosis is much better developed in this more recent document:
.
>> <snip quote> (2Peter 1:3,5-8 / NETbible). Now that's what I call a prophet (the author of 2Peter, I mean)
.
> No contest there! By the way, I assume that you attibute 2Peter to someone other than Peter. Is that correct?
.
Just so.
.
> If so, who would you consider a good candidate?
.
I consider some (anonymous) early second-century prophet of Egypt to be a good candidate. Probably someone who knew the prophet Judas (the author of 'Jude'; not the Lord's brother) very well. Well enough, at least, to further his efforts and intentions as revealed in his short (but universal) epistle; (which all the churches and believers love to
ignore because it is just so darned politically incorrect these days):
.
Yes, these Ones are the grumblers and complainers who walk according to their own lusts. By their mouths they speak haughty words; and also admire persons for the sake of advantage. But you, Beloved, remember the words that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were telling you that in the Last Time there will be mockers walking according to their own lust for ungodly things. These are the Ones creating divisions; these "natural" men and women (being utterly bereft of the Holy Spirit). -- Jude v.16-19 / Prophet Version
.
>> <snip> Erasmian says (tongue in cheek): Oh, you must mean "New Age" prophets ... LOL
.
> They call themselves Christian, not new age, although one would be hard pressed to ascertain a difference.
.
That's true. The term 'Christian' today covers so many different types of believers (warm, cold, and lukewarm) that it no longer serves to distinguish between True Believers and those still living in error (but nevertheless choosing to identify themselves as Christians) . . .
.
>> <snip> Erasmian continues with an astute observation: Seems to me that any faithful preacher or teacher
>> could and should say all of those things. More is required of the prophet than this (just ask Paul). <snip>
.
> Very true ... how many do?
.
Just a few faithful and hardy souls, I'm sure
.
> So that leaves it up to ? and you.
.
Not necessarily to me specifically, since my main function is mere exegesis and commentary, but perhaps the Lord will raise up an army of proclaimers and denouncers to burn the safe and secure ears of a morally indifferent and spiritually blind People of God. It may be that this will not even begin to happen until the World as a whole has quite
thoroughly choked itself upon the spirit of greed and harlotry (as the big-ho puts it) ...
.
>> I don't think that it's really a question of more or less. Even one prophet is quite sufficient to cause a reform
>> (or even a revolution) in the Faith; provided that enough believers are willing to listen. The problem with the
>> churches today is that they are unable to listen. They want nothing to do with prophets because prophets
>> want the People to change their thinking and practice of the Faith, and *change* is the LAST thing that the
>> churches want; for most post-modern churches are nothing more than monuments to mindless conformity
>> at any cost!
.
> What more can be said!
.
Long live the faith of the apostles, prophets, and saints!
.
> P.S. Erasmian: I meant to ask...you make numerous references to "fundies and cats". While I understand
> fundy, I don't understand cats (they make me sneeze).
.
'Cats' are usually Roman Catholics, but it can also refer to other churches of the same sort like unto them (eg. episcopal churches).
.
> Besides, what do you have against fundies.
.
Well now *that's* a long story ...
.
> I'm a fundy. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Is that a bad thing?
> -- In the service of Jesus Christ, BroHank
.
Of course it is. Ideas such as 'inerrancy' necessarily prevent a proper appreciation for the texts (and what they say), *and* for the way the texts became what they are now (ie. how they assumed their canonical formats). 4X: the general assumption is that canonical 1Peter was written in the exact form that it now has in our bibles, but this
is very NOT the case; and the failure to acknowledge this plain and simple literary fact leads to much unnecessary confusion and erroneous conclusions (for example, about the date and author, etc), etc. Thus Silvanus is the one and only author of 1Peter, and no amount of "inerrant interpretation" (ie. fundy hermeneutics) is going to change that literary, historical, and very prophetic, fact!
