On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:58:23 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1 Cor 12:28,29 "GOD has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets,
'Apostles', above, are those
JC discipled per se (i.e. not Agabus)
'Prophets', above, are the ancient
authoritative authors from whose revelatory words both he and, e.g.,
the Ap. Paul taught
Agabus' prophecy (e.g.) in Acts 21
only reiterated (in vs. 11) the same message that the Ap. Paul
had received from a loose group of disciples (in vs.
4)
That is not a pattern (or
construct) of biblical 'revelation'
Therefore, even though termed
'a prophet' by Luke, Agabus' message is not prophecy except,
perhaps, in a very limited, non revelatory sense--give it some thought
(and read
on:)
Explicitly, acc to
Luke, these foregoing disciples in Acts 21:4, as well as
Agabus, in 21:11, related only one message which Luke has
traced back to the HS, in both cases
That partic message resulted from
their (joint) illumination by the HS
[FTR, an illumination which (obviously)
Luke himself possessed, and confirmed; but even though he, Luke, was
'illumined', he never presented himself as a prophet (wrote
neither in OT prophetic style nor termed himself 'a prophet' in
the limited sense, above)]
This means that, to
Luke, revelation, as he wrote Acts 21 (sic), and
illumination by the HS in Acts 21 are two different
theological ideas
OOH, Luke is saying that 'Agabus was
illumined (too) but not a revelator per se'
OTH, from Lk 1:1ff., Acts 1:1ff., in
continuity with Acts 21, he is saying that 'Agabus and certain
disciples are illumined by the HS (too) acc to my revelatory
writing.."O, Theophilus.." ' (isn't that
you, JT?:)
Interestingly, if you press a
little further, even beyond Luke, the actual (revelatory) Prophets from
whom JC and the Apostles, inc Luke, taught/preached,
were illumined-revelators
As you know they were often slaughtered
for lack of legal rights/appeals in the ancient regimes where they
spoke up for, like Agabus did in Rome--but unlike Agabus, they were incorporated
into the biblical 'revelatory' stream which certain Prophets and Apostles
like Luke essentially co-authored with/for the HS, via (special, peculiar)
illumination
Agabus had no particular prophetic
authority like these Prophets, above, had; e.g., even though the
message Agabus presented was from the HS, the Ap. Paul basically ignored it
(Acts 21)
By contrast, however, e.g., when the
Prophet Nathan confronted King David (in the books of Samuel) the King did what
he was told, usually w/o question
This (contrasting picture of
authorities) means, in part, that the Prophets (from whom JC and the Apostles
taught) and the Apostles (JCs appointed authorities, partic the Ap.
Paul) are the
only authorities on which the Church has been established by
God JC the HS
JC himself adhered to this revelatory
'construct'
This is why I say the Pope and the
cultists are off the Biblical chart, removed from the mind of
Christ
Despite what they say, it is (e.g.,
Luke's, not Agabus':) Apostolic authority that these guys grab at; and, this is
precisely why I argue that (certain cultists here) are not NT
Christians--no more so than the Pope, et. al.; they don't understand or really
even care about understanding the NT which Luke/Paul, et. al. wrote acc to the
HS..
..even unlike the OT, the NT presents the Holy
Spirit as the primary instigator of the biblical events
recorded..
..try this brief but enlightening
exercise:
Re-read the first four chapters of Luke
where the Holy Spirit alone is responsible, in at least four explicit
refs, for instigating all that happened in/around Bethlehem back then;
then re-read Acts 21
Isn't it the same HS at work,
throughout, acc to Luke?
