vooks:
My brother,
Quit dancing around your confusion.
1. Define generations
2. Explain when generations ceased

CAVEAT: I am responsible for what I say, not how you choose to interpret it.

Now (armed with this), go back and read the verses he posted and what I said in relation to them. All that rubbish talk about generations will be nullified when you do.

Thanks.

vooks:

Paul was the MOST influential perverter. Of course everybody did but you can't possibly explain why Paul persecutions were overboard otherwise can you? Who told you the men from James were any threat to Peter? Peter THOUGHT / IMAGINED so and he misbehaved accordingly. Nobody tells you they were pro-circumcision. In fact if they were pro-circumcision, Paul would have rebuked them plus Peter. He just rebuked Peter because Peter was the ONLY confused guy

Any value you see in circumcision, Paul must have missed it by suffering Gentile Christian Titus and others to go uncircumcised

Am not God, I work on coherent questions and thought processes. You know that

This makes zero sense and there's no quibbling over all the debatable points you are making. In the book of Galatians, Paul talked about men from James and referred to them copiously as pro-circumcision. If you can not see it, I cannot help you or your bovarism.

Acts 3:25 KJV

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Trustman,

You are the one who seems to mixing things up. The JEWS (like you) THOUGHT that the covenant was their exclusive preserve but they were wrong. Paul said so in Galatians 3 but even if that confuses you listen to Peter teach his fellow Jews in the above verse. Please read it slowly. You will understand it.

Peter says; you my fellow Jews are the CHILDREN of the covenant which God had with Abraham. . . So that ALL the nations of the earth will be blessed through his SEED.

I want you to notice his language. He didn't say the JEWS had a covenant with God THROUGH Abraham. He said God had a covenant with Abraham and the JEWS (like the rest of the world) are the products; offspring; offshoot; children of that covenant. And Peter said this was possible through Abraham's SEED. Good.

Now, Paul told us in Galatians 3 that the seed God was referring to was CHRIST and not ISRAEL or Isaac or whoever. So the underlying questions will be:

1. Is Christ present or Past?
2. Does that covenant still exist?

The answer to the above posers shows us why without a doubt that the Abrahamic covenant still exists and that is because the SEED is what was produced from the covenant. That seed was Christ and nothing else.

Isaac and Israel are what you call Abraham's fleshly seed or children of the flesh while (in thist context), Christ is that spiritual seed. Why is this important? It is because it shows us what circumcision really is, which is a fleshly way of identifying with the promise of the blessings which came though Christ, same way Isaac and by that Israel, were just a fleshly way of saying Abraham's seed. They were NOT what God was referring to. God was referring to Christ and Christ is the WHOLE BODY of the Church including Gentiles AND NOT ONLY JEWS.

So the verse about Paul saying if you are circumcised Christ will not benefit you, should be studied IN CONTEXT. He was saying if you get circumcised because you feel that it adds to your salvation then Christ will not benefit you. Why? Because salvation is not a mixture of law and grace. It is by grace only (recall that the Christian jews were insisting on circumcision According to the LAW of Moses).

Sorry if the post is too lengthy.

Did they intimidate Peter to stay away from Gentiles?

mbaemeka:


This makes zero sense and there's no quibbling over all the debatable points you are making. In the book of Galatians, Paul talked about men from James and referred to them copiously as pro-circumcision. If you can not see it, I cannot help you or your bovarism.

You are wise, no need expositing your ignorance.


Shalom

mbaemeka:


CAVEAT: I am responsible for what I say, not how you choose to interpret it.

Now (armed with this), go back and read the verses he posted and what I said in relation to them. All that rubbish talk about generations will be nullified when you do.

Thanks.

^^

I believe the ignorant one points at those who make non-sequitor arguments or statements such as the ones you have been making on the subject matter.

Shalom.

Galatians 2:12 KJV

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

vooks:

Did they intimidate Peter to stay away from Gentiles?

the certain that came from James were "of the circumcision". If you read the preceding verses you would have seen how Paul said while he ministered to Gentile Christians, Peter on the other hand ministered to Jewish Christians. It follows logically that "of the circumcision" referred to NO ONE ELSE but Jewish Christians.

If you would not see it, then let it rest.

BTW, you are bullying Mr. Sura o. . .

mbaemeka:
Acts 3:25 KJV

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Trustman,

You are the one who seems to mixing things up. The JEWS (like you) THOUGHT that the covenant was their exclusive preserve but they were wrong. Paul said so in Galatians 3 but even if that confuses you listen to Peter teach his fellow Jews in the above verse. Please read it slowly. You will understand it.

Peter says; you my fellow Jews are the CHILDREN of the covenant which God had with Abraham. . . So that ALL the nations of the earth will be blessed through his SEED.

I want you to notice his language. He didn't say the JEWS had a covenant with God THROUGH Abraham. He said God had a covenant with Abraham and the JEWS (like the rest of the world) are the products; offspring; offshoot; children of that covenant. And Peter said this was possible through Abraham's SEED. Good.

Now, Paul told us in Galatians 3 that the seed God was referring to was CHRIST and not ISRAEL or Isaac or whoever. So the underlying questions will be:

1. Is Christ present or Past?
2. Does that covenant still exist?

The answer to the above posers shows us why without a doubt that the Abrahamic covenant still exists and that is because the SEED is what was produced from the covenant. That seed was Christ and nothing else.

Isaac and Israel are what you call Abraham's fleshly seed or children of the flesh while (in thist context), Christ is that spiritual seed. Why is this important? It is because it shows us what circumcision really is, which is a fleshly way of identifying with the promise of the blessings which came though Christ, same way Isaac and by that Israel, were just a fleshly way of saying Abraham's seed. They were NOT what God was referring to. God was referring to Christ and Christ is the WHOLE BODY of the Church including Gentiles AND NOT ONLY JEWS.

So the verse about Paul saying if you are circumcised Christ will not benefit you, should be studied IN CONTEXT. He was saying if you get circumcised because you feel that it adds to your salvation then Christ will not benefit you. Why? Because salvation is not a mixture of law and grace. It is by grace only (recall that the Christian jews were insisting on circumcision According to the LAW of Moses).

Sorry if the post is too lengthy.

If you had taken my post point by point maybe response would have been better.

Remember again where we started, before we veer off. 

First, is the issue of whether physical circumcision is still required today. 
Second, I asked a question which still remains unanswered till now.

I noted that some things said to be 'forever' are no longer required today. But you said :
"I have answered something similar to vooks. The law said throughout your generations like the Aaronic priesthood etc. They came with the law and went with the law. Abraham's covenant came pre-law, thus

Am I right in saying that you are stating that because circumcision pre-existed the law it is still required today, at least as a means of 'identifying' with the Promise?
So while some areas of the law could be done away with not so circumcision?

Am I right in saying that you have no response to question?

Trustman,

1. Circumcision is not required by anyone.

2. What you quoted from Leviticus said Levites would forever be priests through out their generations. I said 2 things in response:

a) This was according to the law, and the law has been abolished. That is why we know it is no longer binding.

b) God already knew the law will not be everlasting but that verse may confuse you until you read Hebrews amd what I have been saying. God was only saying that verse for e.g, that ONLY the Levites will forever be the priests in THIER GENERATIONS. What Generation? The Generation or Era of the Law. That's what Paul explaines in Hebrews 7.

From the foregoing, I wasn't saying that circumcision remains in tact ONLY because it is pre-law. I said it has not been dismissed because 1) It is pre-law 2) the covenant it marks still exists 3) there is NO NT verse saying it has been dismissed (neither can there be).

Also, my post to you above was to show you that is erroneous to claim that Abrahams covenant with God was for ONLY ISRAEL. I hope it didn't pass you by.

My broda,
I know that James had no business sending unsaved Jews to Peter. What I meant was, Peter just saw them and panicked and as such he was the ONLY person at fault not the messengers.
It is difficult to fathom James sending Peter some mean staunch circumcision guys right after Acts 15 Council. Peter feared the guys from James would report back in Jerusalem and word would reach the bad guys. He is the only guy who withdrew. This is why the rebuke was directed at him.

Who is Mr. Sura?

mbaemeka:
Galatians 2:12 KJV

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.



the certain that came from James were "of the circumcision". If you read the preceding verses you would have seen how Paul said while he ministered to Gentile Christians, Peter on the other hand ministered to Jewish Christians. It follows logically that "of the circumcision" referred to NO ONE ELSE but Jewish Christians.

If you would not see it, then let it rest.

BTW, you are bullying Mr. Sura o. . .

mbaemeka:
Trustman,

1. Circumcision is not required by anyone.

2. What you quoted from Leviticus said Levites would forever be priests through out their generations. I said 2 things in response:

a) This was according to the law, and the law has been abolished. That is why we know it is no longer binding.

b) God already knew the law will not be everlasting but that verse may confuse you until you read Hebrews amd what I have been saying. God was only saying that verse for e.g, that ONLY the Levites will forever be the priests in THIER GENERATIONS. What Generation? The Generation or Era of the Law. That's what Paul explaines in Hebrews 7.

From the foregoing, I wasn't saying that circumcision remains in tact ONLY because it is pre-law. I said it has not been dismissed because 1) It is pre-law 2) the covenant it marks still exists 3) there is NO NT verse saying it has been dismissed (neither can there be).

Also, my post to you above was to show you that is erroneous to claim that Abrahams covenant with God was for ONLY ISRAEL. I hope it didn't pass you by.

How do you reconcile:

1. Circumcision is not required by anyone.

With:

I wasn't saying that circumcision remains in tact ONLY because it is pre-law. I said it has not been dismissed because 1) It is pre-law 2) the covenant it marks still exists 3) there is NO NT verse saying it has been dismissed (neither can there be).

?

I believe the point in this is the word everlasting can be qualified. We are not advocating for an eternal Levitical priesthood, just saying the word everlasting may be qualified

Here is another usage of the word.
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV)
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If this is the case, the covenant with Abraham though reckoned as everlasting,it is quite possible that it is no longer in place and we should not merely resort to the usage of the word 'everlasting' there to defend the permanence of the covenant anymore than we can for Levitical Priesthood and Atonement

Sorry trustman and mbaemeka if I missed the context

mbaemeka:
Trustman
2. What you quoted from Leviticus said Levites would forever be priests through out their generations. I said 2 things in response:

a) This was according to the law, and the law has been abolished. That is why we know it is no longer binding.

b) God already knew the law will not be everlasting but that verse may confuse you until you read Hebrews amd what I have been saying. God was only saying that verse for e.g, that ONLY the Levites will forever be the priests in THIER GENERATIONS. What Generation? The Generation or Era of the Law. That's what Paul explaines in Hebrews 7.

vooks:
I believe the point in this is the word everlasting can be qualified. We are not advocating for an eternal Levitical priesthood, just saying the word everlasting may be qualified

Here is another usage of the word.
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV)
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If this is the case, the covenant with Abraham though reckoned as everlasting,it is quite possible that it is no longer in place and we should not merely resort to the usage of the word 'everlasting' there to defend the permanence of the covenant anymore than we can for Levitical Priesthood and Atonement

Sorry trustman and mbaemeka if I missed the context

I believe on my part it's ok, Vooks. At the end of the day it is for us all to have a better grasp of the whole thing. 

I'm really trying to understand Mbaemeka's position. 

On the one hand he seem to advocate that circumcision is no longer required. 
But on the other hand he appears to be emphasizing that because it is pre-law, the covenant it 'marks' still exists, and there is no NT verse abrogating it, then it has not been 'dismissed'. 

If it has not been dismissed, what does that mean? That it is still operational? That it is merely optional? That in fact it is still necessary, in which case it is in essence still required - perhaps to have the 'full benefit' of the covenant? If so, which covenant? Is it the same as the better one of which Jesus is the guarantor (Hebrews 7 & eight) or a different covenant? Which covenant is the Christian under? 

The questions can go on and on I suppose but let's await his clarifications.

Galatians 2:14 KJV

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

vooks:
My broda,
I know that James had no business sending unsaved Jews to Peter. What I meant was, Peter just saw them and panicked and as such he was the ONLY person at fault not the messengers.
It is difficult to fathom James sending Peter some mean staunch circumcision guys right after Acts 15 Council. Peter feared the guys from James would report back in Jerusalem and word would reach the bad guys. He is the only guy who withdrew. This is why the rebuke was directed at him.
Who is Mr. Sura?

Peter was as guilty as the rest of them. Paul spoke directly to Peter because he expected more from him. Besides, James may not necessarily have sent them with those intentions. But that they came from James' church made them 'men from James' (even though they obdurately held unto the circumcision-for-salvation theology. Something James had agreed together with the rest, was now unnecessary)


BTW, Sura is the renowned cessationist on that other thread.

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]

How do you reconcile:


With:

?

What it means is; Nobody is mandated to get circumcised physically if they are already circumcised in the spirit BUT it doesn't mean that if they choose to do it, they are wrong or amiss. Just like Tithing. So it is therefore wrong for anyone to claim that circumcision has been dismissed EXCEPT they mean it in the context of salvation.

trustman:
I believe on my part it's ok, Vooks. At the end of the day it is for us all to have a better grasp of the whole thing. 

I'm really trying to understand Mbaemeka's position. 

On the one hand he seem to advocate that circumcision is no longer required. 
But on the other hand he appears to be emphasizing that because it is pre-law, the covenant it 'marks' still exists, and there is no NT verse abrogating it, then it has not been 'dismissed'. 

If it has not been dismissed, what does that mean? That it is still operational? That it is merely optional? That in fact it is still necessary, in which case it is in essence still required - perhaps to have the 'full benefit' of the covenant? If so, which covenant? Is it the same as the better one of which Jesus is the guarantor (Hebrews 7 & eight) or a different covenant? Which covenant is the Christian under? 

The questions can go on and on I suppose but let's await his clarifications.  

The closest comparison I can proffer on mbaemeka's behalf for you are the "Use by" and "Best before" dates on food packaging labels
- one ceases to be safe to consume on date stamped, the other though safe to consume, it however declines in quality from the date stamped

vooks:
I believe the point in this is the word everlasting can be qualified. We are not advocating for an eternal Levitical priesthood, just saying the word everlasting may be qualified

Here is another usage of the word.
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV)
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If this is the case, the covenant with Abraham though reckoned as everlasting,it is quite possible that it is no longer in place and we should not merely resort to the usage of the word 'everlasting' there to defend the permanence of the covenant anymore than we can for Levitical Priesthood and Atonement

Sorry trustman and mbaemeka if I missed the context

I understand you perfectly but you do not seem to understand me as well. In this verse you quoted again God said the duty of Aaron and other Levitical priests after him to offer sacrifices for the sins of the whole of Israel will be everlasting ACCORDING TO THEIR GENERATION (S) {OF THE LAW OF MOSES}. In other words, it was everlasting as long as the LAW WAS INTACT- because the law created such statute(s). This is totally different from the covenant God had with Abraham because God said the covenant was everlasting according to himself. In other words, God swore by himself to himself (as there was no law binding him to neither was there a higher authority than him) that as long as he exists the covenant with Abraham concerning Christ and his church will be everlasting Hebrews 6:13. So there was nothing that could annul it. Absolutely nothing.

Not the law that came 430 years after the promise nor the NT because the Abrahamic covenant gave birth to the NT.

Hope you understand.

trustman:


I believe on my part it's ok, Vooks. At the end of the day it is for us all to have a better grasp of the whole thing. 

I'm really trying to understand Mbaemeka's position. 

On the one hand he seem to advocate that circumcision is no longer required. 
But on the other hand he appears to be emphasizing that because it is pre-law, the covenant it 'marks' still exists, and there is no NT verse abrogating it, then it has not been 'dismissed'. 

If it has not been dismissed, what does that mean? That it is still operational? That it is merely optional? That in fact it is still necessary, in which case it is in essence still required - perhaps to have the 'full benefit' of the covenant? If so, which covenant? Is it the same as the better one of which Jesus is the guarantor (Hebrews 7 & eight) or a different covenant? Which covenant is the Christian under? 

The questions can go on and on I suppose but let's await his clarifications.  

BBG gave a good analogy and I believe I have also done something similar above. If one is married to a woman, they are already married so the need for a ring is optional. Yes in the spiritual sense even Angels and demons know such a person is married but a beautiful spinster may not. So the ring on your finger should be like a mark to identify with the married folks. That's another way to look at it.

Also, like I said before; the Abrahamic and New covenants are interlinked and are away from the OLD. So the Christian is a product of the NT.

Let me try.
1. You agree that 'everlasting' can be qualified,and the Levitical Priesthood and Atonement proves that.
2. You reject any suggestion of the 'everlasting' in Abrahamic covenant being qualified.

To support your position on 1 & 2, you have to step outside the verses mentioning 'everlasting'. You only need to look to Hebrews to dismiss the argument that Levitical Priesthood and Atonement are permanent.

What I ask is, is it in order to test the permanence of Abrahamic covenant by looking at other scriptures? This is not too much to ask. But before we do that, we may want to ask ourselves exactly what the contents of the covenant are,whether they were recorded as permanent/everlasting, whether this is the case, and whether we can explain the absence, if at all,of some components of the covenant as result of the covenant ceasing.

mbaemeka:


I understand you perfectly but you do not seem to understand me as well. In this verse you quoted again God said the duty of Aaron and other Levitical priests after him to offer sacrifices for the sins of the whole of Israel will be everlasting ACCORDING TO THEIR GENERATION (S) {OF THE LAW OF MOSES}. In other words, it was everlasting as long as the LAW WAS INTACT- because the law created such statute(s). This is totally different from the covenant God had with Abraham because God said the covenant was everlasting according to himself. In other words, God swore by himself to himself (as there was no law binding him to neither was there a higher authority than him) that as long as he exists the covenant with Abraham concerning Christ and his church will be everlasting Hebrews 6:13. So there was nothing that could annul it. Absolutely nothing.

Not the law that came 430 years after the promise nor the NT because the Abrahamic covenant gave birth to the NT.

Hope you understand.

mbaemeka:



What it means is; Nobody is mandated to get circumcised physically if they are already circumcised in the spirit BUT it doesn't mean that if they choose to do it, they are wrong or amiss. Just like Tithing. So it is therefore wrong for anyone to claim that circumcision has been dismissed EXCEPT they mean it in the context of salvation.

In other words, you are saying that physical circumcision is no longer mandatory for the Christian just as tithing is no longer mandatory for the Christian. Both are therefore optional for the Christian.

mbaemeka:
What it means is; Nobody is mandated to get circumcised physically if they are already circumcised in the spirit BUT it doesn't mean that if they choose to do it, they are wrong or amiss.
Just like Tithing. So it is therefore wrong for anyone to claim that circumcision has been dismissed EXCEPT they mean it in the context of salvation.

trustman:
In other words, you are saying that physical circumcision is no longer mandatory for the Christian just as tithing is no longer mandatory for the Christian.
Both are therefore optional for the Christian.

I dont think mbaemeka disagrees that heart circumcision superseded physical circumcision,
just as giving with a cheerful heart & without compulsion superseded paying tithe or tithe giving
I think mbaemeka agrees that physical circumcision & paying tithe or tithe giving albeit no longer mandatory for the Christian, can be optional
- though unnecessary, nothing stops the Christian having physical circumcision or paying tithe (i.e. giving tithe)

BabaGnoni:

I dont think mbaemeka disagrees that heart circumcision superseded physical circumcision,
just as giving with a cheerful heart & without compulsion superseded paying tithe or tithe giving
I think mbaemeka agrees that physical circumcision & paying tithe or tithe giving albeit no longer mandatory for the Christian, can be optional
- though unnecessary, nothing stops the Christian having physical circumcision or paying tithe (i.e. giving tithe)

Thank you.

vooks:
Let me try.
1. You agree that 'everlasting' can be qualified,and the Levitical Priesthood and Atonement proves that.
2. You reject any suggestion of the 'everlasting' in Abrahamic covenant being qualified.

To support your position on 1 & 2, you have to step outside the verses mentioning 'everlasting'. You only need to look to Hebrews to dismiss the argument that Levitical Priesthood and Atonement are permanent.

What I ask is, is it in order to test the permanence of Abrahamic covenant by looking at other scriptures? This is not too much to ask. But before we do that, we may want to ask ourselves exactly what the contents of the covenant are,whether they were recorded as permanent/everlasting, whether this is the case, and whether we can explain the absence, if at all,of some components of the covenant as result of the covenant ceasing.

Everlasting is determined by the one who has existed from Everlasting (past) to Everlasting (future)- God and by his word (fot they are one and the same). So yes, for one to understand what God meant as everlasting in any aspect that it was used, we have to compare scripture with scripture. This is why the book of Hebrews for instance, is very useful. Without the book, the Jews would have held unto their 'everlasting Levitical priesthood' and they would have been right, but Paul showed us why that priesthood (like all the statutes of the OT) wasn't 'everlasting' outside the law.

Now when he came to the Abrahamic covenant, he didn't tell us it was abrogated. Instead he said God swore that it would always be and God proved it by making his son, the savior to come as part of the blessings or the promise.

In a synopsis, the covenant brought all the blessings of Abraham to us. Wealth, health, security, fecundity, wisdom, etc. It is also brought the saviour, forgiveness and remission of sins, righteousness, non-imputation for sins etc. All these things Abraham nominally enjoyed until Jesus came to consummate it for us. So now we have the full package by the Holy spirit (which is something Abraham didn't have). That's why our covenant is far better than the OT and why we received the blessings he and co waited for Hebrews 11.

mbaemeka,
Please sheath your sword,claws and fangs and let's chat. I need your thoughts. No fight, just exchanging opinions.

I saw Hagin struggle to distinguish between prophesying and 'office of the prophet'
Is there a difference between these? I thought a teacher is somebody who teaches, a prophet one who prophesies and so forth.

Btw, you need to pray hard, this 147 years KJV may be yours

vooks:
mbaemeka,
Please sheath your sword,claws and fangs let's chat. I need your thoughts. No fight, just exchanging opinions.

I saw Hagin struggle to distinguish between prophesying and 'office of the prophet'
Is there a difference between these? I thought a teacher is somebody who teaches, a prophet one who prophesies and so forth.

Sure, no qualms.

Yes, there is a difference between Prophesying and the office or the ministry of a Prophet. According to the scriptures, 'Telling forth' and 'Foretelling' are essentially the meanings of the word 'Prophesy' but both roles do not belong to everyone. How do I mean?

In 1 Corinthians 14 vs 29 he talked about the Office of a prophet and in vs 31 he spoke about the use of prophecy which he then said was available to everyone. He could say this because of the following:

1. In the Ministry gift or office of a prophet, one who occupies such a role MUST be called of God and his primary role is to FORETELL the mind of God. Such a person will be able to see things in the future or PAST (things that God shows him/her) and he might be obligated to tell the people. For example, Agabus was told about Paul's impending arrest in Jerusalem and the famine. Agabus functioned in that office of a prophet.

Let me also add here that scriptures tell us the office is for exhortation, edification and comforting the brethren so whenever a prophet sees something in the realm of the spirit (by the agency of God), it is all in a bid to exhort, edify and comfort the brethren. Which is similar to what Agabus did. The office of the prophet is not star-gazing, fortune telling etc. The prophet only sees or says what God has shown and allowed him/her to foretell. So if God says "there would be a bombing in this place, do not go there", the prophet simply foretells it so that none of the brethren or their loved ones will be there.

2. In the use of the gift of prophecy, this is still for edification, exhortation and comforting thr brethren as the office but it differs from it in the sense that IT IS NOT a revelation from God. It is just the Christian (whoever it is) 'telling forth' God's word based on faith (Romans 12:6). Even those who are Prophets I.e they are called into the office can still operate this forth-telling gift without a revelation. All that matters is that it should be word-based and meet the conditions above - exhortation, bla bla. An example can be, I could meet a fellow Christian who maybe going through one challenge or the other and I can say "God's word says he will never leave us nor forsake us, so I prophesy to you that whatever you are going through now, God is with you and it would all pan out for your good".

Now, I didn't hear anything directly from God, neither did I see any vision or revelation. But I am just telling forth the word of God in faith (I.e without doubting) so as to comfort the brother. I am using the gift of prophecy without necessarily being a Prophet and it is valid according to the word of God.

So if I tell someone "it is well with you!" Or I say to a barren woman " You would give birth to a child" I am just prophesying by faith to comfort her. I may not have heard such words from God. Paul says it is still not wrong since it is word based.

Sorry if it is too long. If you havr further questions and I have the answers to them I will attempt them.

BabaGnoni:




I dont think mbaemeka disagrees that heart circumcision superseded physical circumcision,
just as giving with a cheerful heart & without compulsion superseded paying tithe or tithe giving
I think mbaemeka agrees that physical circumcision & paying tithe or tithe giving albeit no longer mandatory for the Christian, can be optional
- though unnecessary, nothing stops the Christian having physical circumcision or paying tithe (i.e. giving tithe)

I hear you!
Given where we have been through with this matter it's statements
Mbaemeka made like:

So what is the import of circumcision? As we have said before a) to carnally identify with the Abrahamic covenant b) to keep it (Genesis 17:10). Notice that God said to Abraham "between you and thy seed" in Genesis, and Paul making reference to that verse said the seed in question was Christ and not even the Physical Jews. So even if circumcision doesn't make me saved or seal my salvation as it were, it makes me 'conscious' that I am a child of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Also notice how I used the words 'carnal', conscious etc. It is because the significance of circumcision is now fleshly.

and:

4. Nonsense again. God said it would be everlasting. Everlasting means even now. Paul said it is beneficial to you ONLY if you are obedient to all the laws or saved. You on the other say it was useful but not anymore. Please why was it useful before? If you can answer this,you will see the ccontradictions in your argument.

that made one go all these routes.

I guess i'll rest my case on this matter, for now.

vooks:
mbaemeka,
Please sheath your sword,claws and fangs and let's chat. I need your thoughts. No fight, just exchanging opinions.

I saw Hagin struggle to distinguish between prophesying and 'office of the prophet'
Is there a difference between these?
I thought a teacher is somebody who teaches, a prophet one who prophesies and so forth.

vooks, c'mon now, stop slacking, you can do better than that (i.e. "a teacher is somebody who teaches, prophet one who prophesies'')

Differences could be similar to, just because I cook (i.e. cooking), doesn't necessarily make me a chef (i.e. put on the title or take on the position of chef authority)
- one fills positions but one dont necessarily assume or take on the office or title
Simply, a teacher explains, a prophet proclaims

trustman:


I hear you!
Given where we have been through with this matter it's statements
Mbaemeka made like:


and:


that made one go all these routes.

I guess i'll rest my case on this matter, for now.

Notice the terms 'unnecessary' and 'dismissed'. I was saying the latter was wrong.

trustman:
I hear you!

Given where we have been through with this matter it's statements
Mbaemeka made like:

and:

that made one go all these routes.

I guess i'll rest my case on this matter, for now.

No problemo!

Taking the scenic routes, can't be that bad, at least you get to see the impressive sights & beautiful natural scenery LOL

BabaGnoni:

No problemo!

Taking the scenic routes, can't be that bad, at least you get to see the impressive sights & beautiful natural scenery LOL

Lol!

In 1 Cor 14:23-33, Paul equates a prophet to one who prophesies

[b]1 Cor 14:23-33
(KJV) 23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.[/b]

BabaGnoni:

vooks, c'mon now, stop slacking, you can do better than that (i.e. "a teacher is somebody who teaches, prophet one who prophesies'')

Differences could be similar to, just because I cook (i.e. cooking), doesn't necessarily make me a chef (i.e. put on the title or take on the position of chef authority)
- one fills positions but one dont necessarily assume or take on the office or title
Simply, a teacher explains, a prophet proclaims

Thank you my broda,
My reason for asking is because in both NT and OT, a person who prophesies is called a prophet. Look at these verses;
[b]1 Cor 14:23-33 (KJV)
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.[/b]

So while one who prophesies is called a prophet, am yet to see one prophesying not being deemed a prophet.
To me, the office of the prophet is romanticized,idealized and ultimately it elevates the gift to more than is warranted
I just can't see the distinction between the 'gift' and 'office'

mbaemeka:


Sure, no qualms.

Yes, there is a difference between Prophesying and the office or the ministry of a Prophet. According to the scriptures, 'Telling forth' and 'Foretelling' are essentially the meanings of the word 'Prophesy' but both roles do not belong to everyone. How do I mean?

In 1 Corinthians 14 vs 29 he talked about the Office of a prophet and in vs 31 he spoke about the use of prophecy which he then said was available to everyone. He could say this because of the following:

1. In the Ministry gift or office of a prophet, one who occupies such a role MUST be called of God and his primary role is to FORETELL the mind of God. Such a person will be able to see things in the future or PAST (things that God shows him/her) and he might be obligated to tell the people. For example, Agabus was told about Paul's impending arrest in Jerusalem and the famine. Agabus functioned in that office of a prophet.

Let me also add here that scriptures tell us the office is for exhortation, edification and comforting the brethren so whenever a prophet sees something in the realm of the spirit (by the agency of God), it is all in a bid to exhort, edify and comfort the brethren. Which is similar to what Agabus did. The office of the prophet is not star-gazing, fortune telling etc. The prophet only sees or says what God has shown and allowed him/her to foretell. So if God says "there would be a bombing in this place, do not go there", the prophet simply foretells it so that none of the brethren or their loved ones will be there.

2. In the use of the gift of prophecy, this is still for edification, exhortation and comforting thr brethren as the office but it differs from it in the sense that IT IS NOT a revelation from God. It is just the Christian (whoever it is) 'telling forth' God's word based on faith (Romans 12:6). Even those who are Prophets I.e they are called into the office can still operate this forth-telling gift without a revelation. All that matters is that it should be word-based and meet the conditions above - exhortation, bla bla. An example can be, I could meet a fellow Christian who maybe going through one challenge or the other and I can say "God's word says he will never leave us nor forsake us, so I prophesy to you that whatever you are going through now, God is with you and it would all pan out for your good".

Now, I didn't hear anything directly from God, neither did I see any vision or revelation. But I am just telling forth the word of God in faith (I.e without doubting) so as to comfort the brother. I am using the gift of prophecy without necessarily being a Prophet and it is valid according to the word of God.

So if I tell someone "it is well with you!" Or I say to a barren woman " You would give birth to a child" I am just prophesying by faith to comfort her. I may not have heard such words from God. Paul says it is still not wrong since it is word based.

Sorry if it is too long. If you havr further questions and I have the answers to them I will attempt them.