Am I a prophet 🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠
- Thread starter Fundaamental
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Peter walking on water was a literal event recorded in scripture. it was not a Parable. You asked what I thought was a "Parable" if it was fictional.
"Some people are suggesting the parable of the op is only fictional."
What's your take on that. ?
Jesus said why he spoke in parables, you will find that in Matthew chapter 13.
10 Jesus’ disciples came and said to him, “Why do you use parables when you speak to the crowds?”
11 Jesus replied, “Because they haven’t received the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but you have.
12 For those who have will receive more and they will have more than enough. But as for those who don’t have, even the little they have will be taken away from them.
13 This is why I speak to the crowds in parables: although they see, they don’t really see; and although they hear, they don’t really hear or understand.
14 What Isaiah prophesied has become completely true for them:
You will hear, to be sure, but never understand;
and you will certainly see but never recognize what you are seeing.
15 For this people’s senses have become calloused,
and they’ve become hard of hearing,
and they’ve shut their eyes
so that they won’t see with their eyes
or hear with their ears
or understand with their minds,
and change their hearts and lives that I may heal them.[a]
16 “Happy are your eyes because they see. Happy are your ears because they hear. 17 I assure you that many prophets and righteous people wanted to see what you see and hear what you hear, but they didn’t.
THe reason for Parable are what Jesus said
Nothing more, nothing less.
"Some people are suggesting the parable of the op is only fictional."
What's your take on that. ?
Jesus said why he spoke in parables, you will find that in Matthew chapter 13.
10 Jesus’ disciples came and said to him, “Why do you use parables when you speak to the crowds?”
11 Jesus replied, “Because they haven’t received the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but you have.
12 For those who have will receive more and they will have more than enough. But as for those who don’t have, even the little they have will be taken away from them.
13 This is why I speak to the crowds in parables: although they see, they don’t really see; and although they hear, they don’t really hear or understand.
14 What Isaiah prophesied has become completely true for them:
You will hear, to be sure, but never understand;
and you will certainly see but never recognize what you are seeing.
15 For this people’s senses have become calloused,
and they’ve become hard of hearing,
and they’ve shut their eyes
so that they won’t see with their eyes
or hear with their ears
or understand with their minds,
and change their hearts and lives that I may heal them.[a]
16 “Happy are your eyes because they see. Happy are your ears because they hear. 17 I assure you that many prophets and righteous people wanted to see what you see and hear what you hear, but they didn’t.
THe reason for Parable are what Jesus said
Nothing more, nothing less.
No I'm not being an ass @tourist 😊.
I'm being as stubborn as a mule in my belief based on this passage.😊.
I believe Jesus was referring to this passage when he spoke in Luke about the unjust judge and the widow
Isaiah 10
Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
I'm being as stubborn as a mule in my belief based on this passage.😊.
I believe Jesus was referring to this passage when he spoke in Luke about the unjust judge and the widow
Isaiah 10
Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
The bigger issue is people teaching unrevealed doctrine.
I'll give you some background on what I am thinking of regarding this verse. John MacArthur put on an anti-spiritual-gifts conference maybe 9 years ago or so. RC Sproule was a guest speaker. They played a recorded message. He was addressing the issue of believers being empowered by the Spirit supernaturally. He went through three passages in Acts-- Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19.
Here were his reasons, as I recall, for why he thought these things occurred- so that God could show he was accepting the Samaritans in Acts 8, so that God should show he was accepting the Gentiles in Acts 10, and so that God could show that he was accepting disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19. That wasn't his exact wording, but it was something along those lines.
The Acts 19 explanation smelled of poppycock. Jesus had disciples who had been disciples of John the Baptist and John acknowledging Jesus was part of the message the apostles recounted as seen in the gospels. So it seems rather silly to think that they would need some special supernatural acknowledgement. Paul was already ministering among the Gentiles at this time.
Come up with some kind of special reason why something in scripture happened as an excuse to rule out that scripture being 'profitable for doctrine' in other ways is a poor approach to scripture, especially if the reason one argues for is unrevealed-- the Bible doesn't teach it.
I'll give another example. Some believers-- especially those influenced by Reformed thinking-- may argue that the reason Jesus did miracles was to demonstrate His deity. I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, though I do think it is more nuanced than that, because the Man Christ Jesus was also doing miracles by the power of the Spirit. I seem to recall John Calvin making the point about Christ doing miracles that proved His divinity in at least one commentary on a passage, that I don't remember the specifics.
The problem comes when someone argues that the exclusive reason for all of His miracles was to prove His divinity. Then you run into problems with actual specifics of passages. Jesus fed the 5,000. Was the only reason to prove His divinity? Doesn't one of the passages point out how Jesus had compassion on the multitude, who were like a sheep without a shepherd? Couldn't compassion be a reason behind the miracle. Is there nothing in the event to show that He was a Prophet? Elisha the prophet performed a miracle, through prophecy, of multiplying food? Is there no lesson there about trusting God for our material possession? What about Jesus using His servants to cooperate with Him in His work? He had the disciples have the people sit down and distribute the food.
You can come up with ONE reason and argue that this is THE reason something in the Bible happened. Even if you can find scripture that gives a reason something happened, that doesn't prove it is the only reason. And if you just make up the reason and it isn't taught in scripture, you could be way too far out on a limb.
I'll give you some background on what I am thinking of regarding this verse. John MacArthur put on an anti-spiritual-gifts conference maybe 9 years ago or so. RC Sproule was a guest speaker. They played a recorded message. He was addressing the issue of believers being empowered by the Spirit supernaturally. He went through three passages in Acts-- Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19.
Here were his reasons, as I recall, for why he thought these things occurred- so that God could show he was accepting the Samaritans in Acts 8, so that God should show he was accepting the Gentiles in Acts 10, and so that God could show that he was accepting disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19. That wasn't his exact wording, but it was something along those lines.
The Acts 19 explanation smelled of poppycock. Jesus had disciples who had been disciples of John the Baptist and John acknowledging Jesus was part of the message the apostles recounted as seen in the gospels. So it seems rather silly to think that they would need some special supernatural acknowledgement. Paul was already ministering among the Gentiles at this time.
Come up with some kind of special reason why something in scripture happened as an excuse to rule out that scripture being 'profitable for doctrine' in other ways is a poor approach to scripture, especially if the reason one argues for is unrevealed-- the Bible doesn't teach it.
I'll give another example. Some believers-- especially those influenced by Reformed thinking-- may argue that the reason Jesus did miracles was to demonstrate His deity. I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, though I do think it is more nuanced than that, because the Man Christ Jesus was also doing miracles by the power of the Spirit. I seem to recall John Calvin making the point about Christ doing miracles that proved His divinity in at least one commentary on a passage, that I don't remember the specifics.
The problem comes when someone argues that the exclusive reason for all of His miracles was to prove His divinity. Then you run into problems with actual specifics of passages. Jesus fed the 5,000. Was the only reason to prove His divinity? Doesn't one of the passages point out how Jesus had compassion on the multitude, who were like a sheep without a shepherd? Couldn't compassion be a reason behind the miracle. Is there nothing in the event to show that He was a Prophet? Elisha the prophet performed a miracle, through prophecy, of multiplying food? Is there no lesson there about trusting God for our material possession? What about Jesus using His servants to cooperate with Him in His work? He had the disciples have the people sit down and distribute the food.
You can come up with ONE reason and argue that this is THE reason something in the Bible happened. Even if you can find scripture that gives a reason something happened, that doesn't prove it is the only reason. And if you just make up the reason and it isn't taught in scripture, you could be way too far out on a limb.
The unjust judge is a character in a parable. But isn't it likely that a judge in Judea who did not fear God could be not an atheist, but still not fear God. A lot of people who do not act like they fear God say they believe in God. You can talk to people who go out and get drunk, fornicate, even commit adultery, or even participate in some 'light' theft, and if you ask them if they believe in God, they say they do.
This appears to be a different kind of baptism that happened to Peter, a baptism that occurred not because of faith, but because of a lack of faith.
I do wonder if the fellow disciples give him the ancient Jewish equivalent of a high five or a thumbs up after He got into the boat. They were amazed at the Lord Jesus, but He was always doing amazing stuff, and they probably already at least suspected that He is the Messiah.
I do wonder if the fellow disciples give him the ancient Jewish equivalent of a high five or a thumbs up after He got into the boat. They were amazed at the Lord Jesus, but He was always doing amazing stuff, and they probably already at least suspected that He is the Messiah.
He didn't want to be bothered or pestered. He probably had some social constraints that kept him from being cruel to her. If he granted her justice, she would leave him alone.
If unjust judges are pressures or bothered enough, they can render just rulings that are inconsistent with what they want to do. I suppose philosophically an answer might be that justice does not find its source in unjust humans, even if they are the instrument of dispensing it.
If unjust judges are pressures or bothered enough, they can render just rulings that are inconsistent with what they want to do. I suppose philosophically an answer might be that justice does not find its source in unjust humans, even if they are the instrument of dispensing it.
Some of you guys seem rather mean towards the OP. If I remember right, he has been a believer for about a year.
I disagree in that I see no reason to think that the unjust judge had to be a real person. But it could have been one of those cases where there were unjust judges in society back then and the way the legal system happened, cases like that really happened. Someone thinking to himself that he does not fear God seems maybe a bit fictional, but it could be some people, including judges, in Israel were just that introspective and self-aware.
But be that as it may, I don't know why one would dismiss him as a troll.
I disagree in that I see no reason to think that the unjust judge had to be a real person. But it could have been one of those cases where there were unjust judges in society back then and the way the legal system happened, cases like that really happened. Someone thinking to himself that he does not fear God seems maybe a bit fictional, but it could be some people, including judges, in Israel were just that introspective and self-aware.
But be that as it may, I don't know why one would dismiss him as a troll.
