For those who don't believe in prophets today....explain this

[Dave L]

That doesn't follow from the (immediate) context of this conversation.

We could learn from their mistakes though....

 

[Dave L]

"instruction in righteousness" doesn't show us how we should act? See 1 John 3:7.

Acting = hypocrisy

 

[justbyfaith]

We could learn from their mistakes though....

I suppose we could. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Willie T]

How about the false prophets?

Or Adam & Eve... or Cain... or David... or Saul... or Joseph's whole family... or Balaam... or Peter... or Moses... and the list could go on and on.

 

[justbyfaith]

Acting = hypocrisy

Not always. Acting can = behaving.

 

[Willie T]

Acting = hypocrisy

The "Acts" of the Apostles?

 

[Dave L]

The "Acts" of the Apostles?

5273. ὑποκριτής hupŏkritēs, hoop-ok-ree-tace´; from 5271; an actor under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (fig.) a dissembler (“hypocrite”):—hypocrite.

Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 1, p. 74). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

 

[Dave L]

I suppose we could. Would you care to elaborate?

The killed false prophets = not a good practice today.

 

[justbyfaith]

5273. ὑποκριτής hupŏkritēs, hoop-ok-ree-tace´; from 5271; an actor under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (fig.) a dissembler (“hypocrite”):—hypocrite.

Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 1, p. 74). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

We weren't looking at the word "acting" anywhere in the Bible, so going to a Greek word isn't warranted...understanding what the word means in English will do just fine.

 

[justbyfaith]

The killed false prophets = not a good practice today.

It would be against the laws of the land where I live...but if warranted by God...would it be necessarily an ungodly practice to do that today if the laws of the land were to mandate such thing? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

 

[justbyfaith]

We weren't looking at the word "acting" anywhere in the Bible, so going to a Greek word isn't warranted...understanding what the word means in English will do just fine.

That guy acts like an idiot, or, that guy acts like a saint...would be referring to the person's behaviour in today's English language...now of course it would preclude that the person in his character may not actually be an idiot or a saint...but it refers to behaviour nevertheless.

 

[CoreIssue]

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
1 John 2:27 NASB

Read the whole chapter to get the full context behind this verse.

It does not mean God just pours his teachings into you. You still have to study and learn.

 

[justbyfaith]

Read the whole chapter to get the full context behind this verse.

It does not mean God just pours his teachings into you. You still have to study and learn.

1 John 2:20 is in both the immediate and topical context.

 

[Willie T]

5273. ὑποκριτής hupŏkritēs, hoop-ok-ree-tace´; from 5271; an actor under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (fig.) a dissembler (“hypocrite”):—hypocrite.

Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 1, p. 74). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Don't get too carried away with trying to claim a point, or you might find yourself accusing God of hypocrisy.

Exo 6:6
"Therefore tell the Israelites: I am Yahweh, and I will deliver you from the forced labor of the Egyptians and free you from slavery to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and great acts of judgment
(and there are more than 300 more verses)

For kicks, look up the word, "run" in an unabridged dictionary. Not all words have only the first meaning we choose for them to have.
(Dictionary.com claims that: "Set" has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Run" runs a distant second, with 396. Rounding out the top ten are "go" with 368, "take" with 343, "stand" with 334, "get" with 289, "turn" with 288, "put" with 268, "fall" with 264, and "strike" with 250.)

 

[Dave L]

Don't get too carried away with trying to claim a point, or you might find yourself accusing God of hypocrisy.

Exo 6:6
"Therefore tell the Israelites: I am Yahweh, and I will deliver you from the forced labor of the Egyptians and free you from slavery to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and great acts of judgment
(and there are more than 300 more verses)
For kicks, look up the word, "run" in an unabridged dictionary. Not all words have only the first meaning we choose for them to have.

Obviously God is not a hypocrite. Are you treading dangerous ground suggesting he could be accuse of such?

 

[Dave L]

It would be against the laws of the land where I live...but if warranted by God...would it be necessarily an ungodly practice to do that today if the laws of the land were to mandate such thing? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

Luck thing for many "prophets" today.

 

[Dave L]

We weren't looking at the word "acting" anywhere in the Bible, so going to a Greek word isn't warranted...understanding what the word means in English will do just fine.

Just that "hypocrite" in the bible denotes something far worse than film stars making a living.

 

[CoreIssue]

People incorrectly assume that the command/warning/curse at the end or the book of Revelation includes the whole bible. But that is not what it says. Other places in the scriptures it refers to books and the scriptures collectively, but in the book of Revelation. It says in particular "this book." Meaning, that if one adds to that book, any of the other books, that in fact would be adding. But the command/warning/curse is specific, saying only "this book."

In addition, the "Bible" which constituted the Christian canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements. Which would mean the church fathers would have added and taken away any real ability to claim that the command/warning/curse of the book of Revelation ("this book") included anything in particular of the rest of scripture, making the argument moot.

Harmanuetics has been a long accepted rule that everything in the Bible must harmonize with everything else in the Bible.

Otherwise you have what I call shopping cart theology, a favorite of non-literalists. Take what you want from the Bible, make it say what you want and ignore the rest.

So yes, it is stated specifically for the book of Revelation, but I see no reason it does not harmonize with the rest of the Bible.

As well, well before the fifth century, the true Church had already accepted the books of the Bible we use today and rejected all the rest.

So-called church fathers, meaning the founders of the Catholic Church, recognized This reality but still added the books of the Apocrypha and some others.

So calling this argument moot, to me, is a nonstarter.

 

[Willie T]

This scrambling for validity is beneath you, Dave.

 

[Dave L]

This scrambling for validity is beneath you, Dave.

Are you being judgmental?