A question of headship and leadership

The prophecy that was Godly, had to meet two binding requirements. The prophet that failed in either test was considered a false prophet.

Prophecy was proclaiming very specifically what would happen in the future. A prophet could cite past events, but the prophecy itself had to be of future events - this separated the prophet from all other proclaimers of God's word.

Paul said, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." He was speaking of God's word.

Because the Word of God is "perfect" that which is in part is no longer.

There are NO modern prophets except false prophets.

 

No, he did not contradict himself.

But as I have already stated there are no modern prophets except false prophets.

The Word of God is complete. God has no more revelations of future events to share that is not already written in the Scriptures.

That which was in part is made perfect and it is available for no private interpretation just as the Scriptures express.

 

I would disagree with the part of a person being able to "prophesy" by reading the Bible.

The very definition of prophecy is to foretell a future event that has yet to be revealed.

To merely read or speak the written revelation of God is NOT a qualification of a what a prophet is - for if it were then every person even a heathen like Voltaire could rightfully be called a prophet.

Prophecy ceased when the word of God was complete.

 

Because, when Paul wrote the letters, the Scriptures were not complete and the local church not having the complete word of God had to rely upon "extra revelation." Not until many years later when John recorded the Revelations was the door shut.

That is why Paul said that when the Scriptures were complete (perfect) that prophecy would cease. The early church only saw but shadows of what we can see clearly. No longer is there any need for prophecy.

However, because we have what the early believers did not, and we have it in a complete way, and we have it with far more understanding, tools to research, and historically significant people, that it is no wonder the Scriptures indicate how much more responsible we will be held (to whom much is given...).

God has given us the complete revelation of the future that He desires us to know and all that we can absorb. Remember that John was told and saw things that he was told not to record.

Makes me long to see what he was so very privileged to see about 1900 years ago.

 

If you repeat prophecy, you are not the prophet, but merely a spokesman.

Even the world knows that prophecy is about future events.

"Definition of PROPHECY from Webster (online)
1: an inspired utterance of a prophet
2: the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3: a prediction of something to come"

Divine will and purpose is to say what God says about what WILL happen and the PURPOSE it is to serve. Even "strongs" says that it is the person speaking under divine inspiration about future events.

If I read the sermon on the mount to my wife, I am not a prophet. If I expound on the monster of Daniels dream, I am not a prophet. Hal Lindsey is not a prophet.

Some may make the claim, but the claim is empty.

All self proclaimed prophets of this day are false prophets.

The Scriptures are not open to be added or subtracted. There is no "Newest Testament" or "Book of Mormon" that is the word of God.

 

I lack understanding because:

> You want to ignore what Paul said, in favor of a personal agenda. That is fine except that from the beginning I have stated what the Scriptures taught.

> You argued from Ex 7 and were shown to be wrong.

> You argued from the thinking that if I can show the old man he is wrong on singing, then he must be wrong on prophecy.

Problem is you boxed yourself into a corner by your own declaration that women were not allowed to sing at temple. Which, I am still not in agreement.

> You argued the point of public prayer by the woman in the assemblies and were again shown that view is not consistent with the Scriptures.

So, now the only response seems to be that I am lacking the understanding of the full meaning of the word. Yet, even the world knows that prophets prophesy about the future events delivered to them personally by God.

The Scriptures are sealed. None can be added. God has delivered and preserved all the Word He desires until Christ (the Very Word of God) sits on the throne of David during the Millennial reign.

It therefore remains that any and all person(s) who claim to have a personal word from God that is not directly taken from the Scriptures but by some "divine revelation" are false and not to be trusted nor joined in fellowship.

Considering that in the last 200 years we have had cults such as the Mormons, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and more preachers claiming a special divine revelation (such as the appearance of a 50 foot tall Jesus) than I can even count, merely shows the shallow lack of discernment of the modern believer because more and more chase after them with itching ears. These are all false prophets and it is not an easy determination for the modern shallow swimming believer to accept. But, it is never the less true.

There are growing numbers who chase after women "speakers" with no care that they both are in violation of the Scriptures, and even excuse the destruction of their own homes by flaunting the authority and blame games.
Such flaunting started in Eden with Eve and Adam.

Sad ....

All so very sad....

 

I doubt you will stay in that corner, but I will tell again why Paul included it.

First let me do a quick restatement of the thread and what I have stated.

> I have shown on this thread more than once exactly what both the world definition and the scriptural view of prophecy.


> I never said women were not allowed to sing. I contend that they sung as part of the chorus at temple. Not as soloists, but in groups.

> Certainly they may pray, just not stand and lead in prayer in the assembly. Again I gave the example of a woman praying at temple.

> They may speak to their husband and as the husband allows to others when in the assembly. For ultimately he is responsible for the family and each members actions and words. Most men can and do trust their wives. Some men can't because the wife has displayed a spirit of self above anyone and everyone.

> Certainly they may teach - the old and wise are compelled by Paul to instruct the young in the womanly attributes that make them a faithful follower of both husband and Christ.

> No one has said anything about them not being welcomed and loved in the assembly.



Paul said (not ME) that women are to be silent.


Now let me restate what Paul said and the reasoning you can look at in the Scriptures.


Prophecy is EXACTLY how the Old Testament presented it. It didn't change just because the word "new" was inserted instead of "old." God didn't suddenly stop talking. He gave specific instructions to specific members of the assembly as guidance to that local body that was without the complete word of God. Again, I have shown by both the world definition and the Scriptural view what prophet and prophecy means.

Because the Scriptures were not complete, prophets and prophecy did continue until as Paul said until that which was in part was made perfect and that the shadow (see through a dark glass) would be removed.

AFTER, John wrote Revelations which took place a number of years after BOTH Paul and Peter had been murdered, the Scriptures were sealed and preserved by God.



Paul (being a prophet) said that which was Perfect would come, and it did, and Paul said that when it did come that prophecy would cease. It has.

NO more prophecy.

We have the complete revelation of God that He wanted us to have. There is NO NEW "word of god" given to anyone.


If you miss understand, then it is not me that needs "to do an in-depth study of the gift of prophecy and what it really means."

 

I am not limiting the term prophet or prophecy.

I am stating what it is in the Scriptures. If you want make more of the word that what the Scriptures state, well not much I can do about it.

Do you know what the test of a true prophet was? Apparently not, for if you did, you would know that EVERY prophet that spoke a prophecy spoke of a future event that no one new would happen until the prophet revealed it.

If you doubt that, then show me in scripture one place that a prophet prophesied that it wasn't about a future event. Certainly prophets spoke other "inspired" words, just as Nathan did before David and so did other men such as Saul. However, when Nathan prophesied, it was about the future.

You said that I am ignoring "basic stuff like this." So, rather than being so condescending or at worst insulting of my education, use the scriptures and show me the real depth of your higher educated understanding.

Start another thread though so that the topic will be more direct and limited to the scope in which YOU desire for me to be educated.