How to Find False Prophets Using Scripture

[Mitspa]

Why are you making a fool of yourself by twisting the Truth?

Just want to make sure this insult makes it to the next page!
" be sure your sins will find you out" lol

 

[Guest]

Good lesson for any who are trying to understand "false prophets"

Good look on that Mitspa! I would also like to add that atheists love to pick out scripture in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

 

[felix]

includes but is not limited to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.
TND an I already mentioned Peter earlier but there is more evidence that the NT quoted itself as Scripture.
When Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:18), he quoted a passage from Luke as Scripture (second quotation, cf. Luke 10:7. The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4)

That is not true because gospels and epistles/letters were not available even to early church. Most letters are addressed to specific people (gospel of Luke) and specific churches (Paul's, Peter's, John's letters). I also replied that Peter wasn't referring to Paul's letters as 'other scripture' but LXX in which 2/3 of verses had been quoted, which is also used/misused greatly which ultimately led to the Jewish canon 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ. While some churches shared their letters from apostles and disciples with other nearly churches for learning and understanding the gospel but those were never used as Scripture. It was not until the Christian canon was made when these letters were collected and canonized along with Old Testament 300 years after Christ's birth.

This doesn't mean what is written in these letters of NT aren't true but what is important to note is that they were never part of the Scripture used by Christ, His disciples and apostles. Revelation is different because it is mentioned directly by Christ Himself to write down and asked to read.

1 Timothy 5:18 reference to gospel of Luke is not actually a reference to that gospel but what Christ told and from witnessness still living when the letter was penned. I consider whatever Words used by Christ to be more authoritative and even above Scripture (not that He contradicts Scripture but ultimately, the authoritativeness of Scripture itself is from Him).

Hope I clarified you.

 

[Agape]

what is important to note is that they were never part of the Scripture used by Christ, His disciples and apostles.

Does your hermeneutics include the progressive revelation principle?
How would you expect Jesus to quote what was not written yet?

 

[Deborah13]

Yes, you asked the question but answered only one fruit and ignored all the rest that are works from fruit of the Spirit. Just to clarify, does fruits means what they 'do' or what they 'preach' (as urk is saying) with respect to Matt 7:15-20? Since my reply has some specific context attached, coming out of no where and replying to it which is not addressed to you will make me have the same assumption about the person to whom the post was originally made. So, it is better to go back a bit to get some context on that post to allow any misunderstandings.

If I remember correctly Urk was saying that if a person is preaching and they TALK about Jesus but never in the context of Jesus as Saviour, as to teach on salvation and how to be saved he (Urk) would decide this person was a false prophet. I certainly would agree with him if I got my context right in what he was saying.

 

[Mitspa]

Good look on that Mitspa! I would also like to add that atheists love to pick out scripture in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Yes and did you notice a few days ago this certain false teacher was beating others over the head with the law, then they changed their entire position to being completly free from the law, when they got challenged. Now it seems that we are going into a new doctrine, the scriptures cant be trusted and Pauls letters are the big issue. There are certain groups that so haye Pauls Gospel they are willing to go to any length to hide the gospel of Grace. Notice also that any scripture that might be used to make a charge of sin against a believer is sought out at all times.

This is the reason the Holy spirit mentions serveral times and in very clear terms that ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BY PAULS GOSPEL, that if any preach any other gospel , even an angel from heaven they are cursed and should be considered enemies of the Cross. The Holy Spirit knew and forwarned all men that these false teachers would arise. Only Pauls gospel is given the highest place in scripture. Above all scripture Pauls epistles are established, for this very reason? That grace cannot be challenged. Notice how our friend does not seem to have any knowlede of the grace that Paul preached.

 

[reba]

That is not true because gospels and epistles/letters were not available even to early church. Most letters are addressed to specific people (gospel of Luke) and specific churches (Paul's, Peter's, John's letters). I also replied that Peter wasn't referring to Paul's letters as 'other scripture' but LXX in which 2/3 of verses had been quoted, which is also used/misused greatly which ultimately led to the Jewish canon 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ. While some churches shared their letters from apostles and disciples with other nearly churches for learning and understanding the gospel but those were never used as Scripture. It was not until the Christian canon was made when these letters were collected and canonized along with Old Testament 300 years after Christ's birth.

This doesn't mean what is written in these letters of NT aren't true but what is important to note is that they were never part of the Scripture used by Christ, His disciples and apostles. Revelation is different because it is mentioned directly by Christ Himself to write down and asked to read.

1 Timothy 5:18 reference to gospel of Luke is not actually a reference to that gospel but what Christ told and from witnessness still living when the letter was penned. I consider whatever Words used by Christ to be more authoritative and even above Scripture (not that He contradicts Scripture but ultimately, the authoritativeness of Scripture itself is from Him).

Hope I clarified you.

As per the TOS, this forum recognizes the entire Bible as sacred Scripture. Please respect the Scripture

 

[felix]

Does your hermeneutics include the progressive revelation principle?
How would you expect Jesus to quote what was not written yet?

Yes for some people He uses progressive revelation and yet for some He reveals even though they don't understand them (e.g, Daniel and thunders of Revelation which John was not asked to write them down).

Christ wasn't quoting Paul's letters when He said 'laborer is worthy of his wages'. (how could you even think that?) It was Paul who quoted Christ's Words based on what he heard from direct witnesses who lived during his time.

 

[felix]

As per the TOS, this forum recognizes the entire Bible as sacred Scripture. Please respect the Scripture

Reba, you portray me as if I am not respecting Scripture which is not the case. I do respect New Testament and consider them to be truthful in all aspects preaching the gospel of Christ except they were never part of Scripture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That is not true because gospels and epistles/letters were not available even to early church. Most letters are addressed to specific people (gospel of Luke) and specific churches (Paul's, Peter's, John's letters).

This represents a very incorrect view of first-century history. Paul expected his writings to be distributed to other churches, just as he told the Colossians.

Colossians 4 NASB
16 When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.
​

... a also replied that Peter wasn't referring to Paul's letters as 'other scripture' but LXX in which 2/3 of verses had been quoted ...

You said it, so that makes it right? Hardly.

... which is also used/misused greatly which ultimately led to the Jewish canon 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ. While some churches shared their letters from apostles and disciples with other nearly churches for learning and understanding the gospel but those were never used as Scripture. It was not until the Christian canon was made when these letters were collected and canonized along with Old Testament 300 years after Christ's birth.

I beg do differ -- strongly! For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first century of the Christian church. Obviously, Peter's reference to Paul's writings as "Scrioture" (your refusal to acknlowledge it notwithstanding) is indication that the apostles very early on knew they were putting together the final works for the Word of God. Paul's allusion to the closing of the canon in 1 Corinthians 13 as being very close is another.

Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Again, Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books in 95 AD. Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books in 115 AD. In 108 AD, Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books. Later, about 185 AD, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books, and in 200 AD (approximately), Hippolytus recognized 22 books. The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. But many of these men's contemporaries recognized them as significant books.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. So you see, your belief that these books were not widely known is completely erroneous.

This doesn't mean what is written in these letters of NT aren't true but what is important to note is that they were never part of the Scripture used by Christ ...

That couldn't possibly be because they hadn't been written yet, could it?

... His disciples and apostles.

More utter nonsense as it is obvious Peter had read Paul's works and considered them inspired, and as we've seen, the first- and second-century churches were actively reading these works very early in the church's history.

Revelation is different because it is mentioned directly by Christ Himself to write down and asked to read.

So Christ's direct dictation is inspired but it isn't possible the work of the apostles is also? Does that really make sense to you?

Timothy 5:18 reference to gospel of Luke is not actually a reference to that gospel but what Christ told and from witnessness still living when the letter was penned.

I repeat ...

I consider whatever Words used by Christ to be more authoritative and even above Scripture (not that He contradicts Scripture but ultimately, the authoritativeness of Scripture itself is from Him).

That would certainly mean you have no agreement whatsoever with some of the greatest students of the Bible throughout history. How does that make yhou feel?

Hope I clarified you.

Well, you certainly clarified some things for me, yes, though not likely what you hoped to accomplish.

 

[felix]

If I remember correctly Urk was saying that if a person is preaching and they TALK about Jesus but never in the context of Jesus as Saviour, as to teach on salvation and how to be saved he (Urk) would decide this person was a false prophet. I certainly would agree with him if I got my context right in what he was saying.

But that is not what Christ told in Matt 7:15-20.

 

[Guest]

If I remember correctly Urk was saying that if a person is preaching and they TALK about Jesus but never in the context of Jesus as Saviour, as to teach on salvation and how to be saved he (Urk) would decide this person was a false prophet. I certainly would agree with him if I got my context right in what he was saying.

Yes Deborah, you are correct. What felix doesn't understand is that when I preach Jesus, I know the glory isn't mine, it's all his. The Holy Spirit and his Word that dwells inside of me teaching me how to discern truth.

 

[Mitspa]

Another lesson on false teachers. The points of a false teacher do not have to make biblical sense? satan "the accuser" only needs that a charge of sin be made against a believer. This is known as changing the spiritual meaning of a scripture into the legalistic letter. For Paul wrote that the "letter" of the new testament kills and condemns just as the law. I know many would have you believe that Paul was relating this only to the law, but any understanding of the Greek shows that CLEARLY paul was relating this truth to the new testament. Then he goes on to show how the 10 commandments did this same thing.
So just because some would use new testament scripture, does not mean they are not ministering death and condemnation.

So having made a charge against the believer, through satans agent, "false teacher" coming masked in righteousness. satan and or his spiritual accusing demons bring these scriptures back to the mind of the believer, over and over again. This is where the armor of God works against the fiery darts of the enemy.

Also a false teachers only needs to bring doubt and confusion upon certain issues of scripture. It does not have to make any biblical sense just put the element of confusion of doubt upon a truth, and then the spirits of confusion have that which they need to confuse the truth in a believers mind.

 

[Mitspa]

Why are you making a fool of yourself by twisting the Truth?

New page same old sin!

 

[Agape]

includes but is not limited to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.
TND an I already mentioned Peter earlier but there is more evidence that the NT quoted itself as Scripture.
When Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:18), he quoted a passage from Luke as Scripture (second quotation, cf. Luke 10:7. The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4)

Yes for some people He uses progressive revelation and yet for some He reveals even though they don't understand them (e.g, Daniel and thunders of Revelation which John was not asked to write them down).

Christ wasn't quoting Paul's letters when He said 'laborer is worthy of his wages'. (how could you even think that?) It was Paul who quoted Christ's Words based on what he heard from direct witnesses who lived during his time.

I did not say that Christ quoted Paul. I said that Paul quoted Luke.

Now, by "progressive revelation principle", I mean that we must take into consideration the then-current state of revelation to properly interpret scripture.
During Jesus' time, the New Testament had not been written yet. It makes sense that He did not quote it or call it "scripture".

 

[Guest]

Mitspa you're right, also to me it's quite easy to discern false prophets. When you have the Holy Spirit on your side, everything else falls into place. They reveal their sin to us as clear as sunshine. Deborah, don't forget that Felix denies eternal life also.

 

[Deborah13]

But that is not what Christ told in Matt 7:15-20.

Matt 7:15-20 does not name or list what these fruits are.

Gal. 5:22-23 says fruit of the Spirit

There is more than the lack fruit of the Spirit that will reveal a false prophet. Urk was speaking to the preaching the redemptive work of the cross which is foolishness to many that are false prophets.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

[Guest]

I chose urk because I irk people when I preach Salvation through Jesus Christ. I chose the urban dictionary spelling, urk.

Apparently I've done my job.

 

[Mitspa]

Seems like you guys have the false teacher nailed down pretty good. I am not as wealthy as my freinds Deb and reba, i must get up very early and labor by the grace of God. You know I had to put aside my carpentry work for a while, I am now making car parts, in a factory. It is not always easy work but I have learned much more about the grace of God? It is a real power that gives life and strength to the body. Nothing can stop the grace of God in all its many forms. I would not trade one ounce of Gods grace for all the religious honor of self-righteousness in the world.

 

[Deborah13]

Mitspa you're right, also to me it's quite easy to discern false prophets. When you have the Holy Spirit on your side, everything else falls into place. They reveal their sin to us as clear as sunshine. Deborah, don't forget that Felix denies eternal life also.

Oh yes I remember from the NT Warnings thread, I think it was that one.
I pretty much knew then he didn't like Paul's grace over there. Doesn't suit his philosophy.