Agabus A Prophet After Jesus

[Anijen]

Okay I have been visiting the CC board and I am about ready to throw in the towel because logical argument escapes them. What the accuse LDS is circular and I can find the same in the Bible, but they wont accept that. Its alright for them to accuse LDS but on boy they cant take it when I say the same for those in the Bible...

Anyway who is this Prophet Agabus and after reading (Acts 11:27-28 and 21:10)he seems like the real deal. So why do the EVs say there is no Prophet after Jesus when it goes against what the Bible says in many verses?

Anijen

[Stormin' Mormon]

Okay I have been visiting the CC board and I am about ready to throw in the towel because logical argument escapes them. What the accuse LDS is circular and I can find the same in the Bible, but they wont accept that. Its alright for them to accuse LDS but on boy they cant take it when I say the same for those in the Bible...

Anyway who is this Prophet Agabus and after reading (Acts 21:10)he seems like the real deal. So why do the EVs say there is no Prophet after Jesus when it goes against what the Bible says in many verses?

Anijen

I noticed the same thing on my mission and used good ole Agabus as a counter-example any time I ran into that argument. I never got a straight answer.

[Joseph Antley]

Why not just use John the Apostle as an example? Isn't he a little more well-known than Agabus?

[jwhitlock]

Well, if a prophet hasn't appeared in your church, and you don't have the authority, and there's been an apostacy...

Then, in order to justify yourself, no one else can claim to have prophets.

Because, in the end, acknowledging that a prophet has come again destroys your craft.

It's a vicious cycle, because you end up fighting against the Church of God in order to justify your own belief system.

Unfortunately for them, and of great joy to us, "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev 19:10).

And those of us in the Church do indeed have such a testimony.

[captain-jack]

Something I find intriguing is if Linus took over in Rome, but the book of Revalation was given to John. It was because Linus didn't hold the correct the authority, thus the beginning of the apostasy. You can't inherit the keys, but it seems some believe so in all sects.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Why not just use John the Apostle as an example? Isn't he a little more well-known than Agabus?

John is called an Apostle and a Revelator, but I don't recall the term "prophet" being used to describe him. Naturally, LDS believe he functioned as a prophet because he received authoritative revelation, but if we are speaking with a non-LDS crowd, they may not buy that definition. Agabus, on the other hand, is called a "prophet" and his prophecies come true.

[AndyOne]

In the Bible, aren't there many examples of the priesthood leadership being different from the prophets? Even when the high priests were righteous?

[Sentinus]

Okay I have been visiting the CC board and I am about ready to throw in the towel because logical argument escapes them. What the accuse LDS is circular and I can find the same in the Bible, but they wont accept that. Its alright for them to accuse LDS but on boy they cant take it when I say the same for those in the Bible...

Anyway who is this Prophet Agabus and after reading (Acts 11:27-28 and 21:10)he seems like the real deal. So why do the EVs say there is no Prophet after Jesus when it goes against what the Bible says in many verses?

Anijen

I hope you are not reffering to me (Jeremiah) I rather respected you and your posts there.

Anyway, I will take a stab here, and maybe offer some insight. I do not speak for any denomination as I do not subscribe to any specific group (I see no reason to anyway).

The problem here is in defining terms.

LDS see a prophet as a title of Authority and in an Old Testament light so to speak.

I and most "Non LDS" I know see that after Christ yes there were prophets, but not necessarily Ones that lead the/a church. In the 2 instances Agabus is mentioned he is reporting to Paul/Saul. Not as a leader of a church, but as a man with a gift of "Prophecy". So since he had this gift and it was clearly of "The Spirit" as it is mentioned to be. He was a "Prophet".

I and any who are worthy can be "called" to act in "Prophetic" ways and if they are moved by The Holy Spirit to speak and if what they speak is of God then they too are "Prophets". It is my opinion that by this definition there are literally 1000's of Prophets on the Earth acting in one way or another to serve Jesus Christ in their locale. In fact when Agabus is mentioned in the verses you mentioned he is not mentioned as "The Prophet" he is listed as "one of The Prophets."

"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." (Acts 11:25-30 KJV)

So clearly there were MULTIPLE Prophets and not just one to guide and direct the church. In fact Prophets weren't even "ranked" (for lack of a better word I don't subscribe to a Heirarchy) as they as a group reported to those that were the Senior most Apostles.

In Ephesians 4:11 we read:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

Notice the plurality. Again my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

Bump* for Anijen, does this help?

Regards,

Jeremiah

[MormonMason]

John is called an Apostle and a Revelator, but I don't recall the term "prophet" being used to describe him. Naturally, LDS believe he functioned as a prophet because he received authoritative revelation, but if we are speaking with a non-LDS crowd, they may not buy that definition. Agabus, on the other hand, is called a "prophet" and his prophecies come true.

Revelation 10:11. A person who prophesies is a prophet. Doesn't matter that he wasn't specifically called one by someone else in the Bible.

[Anijen]

Bump* for Anijen, does this help?

Regards,

Jeremiah

Thanks that does help me understand the EV perspective. I have just heard that there is no Prophets after Jesus so when I read of one I say hey wait a sec... So Prophets are okay but not in an "authority leadership position" is this how I read you? And am I to gather that would be the same for Apostles, Deacons, Bishops etc? If so what are the values of these offices then?

As far as the CC board I am thankful for your respect and I feel likewise and no its not pointed at you. I just don't see any headway for example you see one thing and I see it another way. I am not great at the debate thing and feel like its wasted time (on my part). I feel debate is good for those who can do it intellectually I fail here and ether want to choke someone or just give up and choking and giving up is not right so I continue to be at best a mediocre defender...

I know when I read the Old and New Testament it validates and strengthens my belief in my religion and the Book of Mormon. I see little tidbits of light that shine really bright like the Agabus verses and Matthew 15:24 and John 10:16 just make sense. How Jesus told the thief "today you will see me in Paradise" but when he appeared to Mary at the tomb he had not yet ascended to his Father. Again the bible strengthens the Book of Mormon and vice-verse. For now I wont throw in the towel at the CC board and Ill hang a little longer.

Anijen

[Stargazer]

The problem here is in defining terms.

LDS see a prophet as a title of Authority and in an Old Testament light so to speak.

I and most "Non LDS" I know see that after Christ yes there were prophets, but not necessarily Ones that lead the/a church. In the 2 instances Agabus is mentioned he is reporting to Paul/Saul. Not as a leader of a church, but as a man with a gift of "Prophecy". So since he had this gift and it was clearly of "The Spirit" as it is mentioned to be. He was a "Prophet".

I and any who are worthy can be "called" to act in "Prophetic" ways and if they are moved by The Holy Spirit to speak and if what they speak is of God then they too are "Prophets". It is my opinion that by this definition there are literally 1000's of Prophets on the Earth acting in one way or another to serve Jesus Christ in their locale. In fact when Agabus is mentioned in the verses you mentioned he is not mentioned as "The Prophet" he is listed as "one of The Prophets."

"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." (Acts 11:25-30 KJV)

So clearly there were MULTIPLE Prophets and not just one to guide and direct the church. In fact Prophets weren't even "ranked" (for lack of a better word I don't subscribe to a Heirarchy) as they as a group reported to those that were the Senior most Apostles.

In Ephesians 4:11 we read:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

Notice the plurality. Again my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

Sentinus

Very well pointed out, Sentinus! I think you make a very good case for prophet in the sense of someone with the spirit of prophecy and not necessarily a presiding authority. In fact, I buy the whole argument.

And it reminded me of some instances in the OT, particularly around the time of Saul, where King Saul was chillin' with "the prophets", and got down with them good old boys and prophesied with them.

9. And it was [so], that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.

10. And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

11. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What [is] this [that] is come unto the son of Kish? [is] Saul also among the prophets?

In fact, from this and other instances in the OT where prophets are spoken of as if they were in some sort of discrete group or organization, it is clear that there may be some sort of ecclesiastical organization involved, although I have never read what kind it might have been. A priesthood office? An ad-hoc group? Apparently not necessarily related to the levitical order, either. Well, its a fascinating subject, for sure.

[Sargon]

The problem here is in defining terms.

LDS see a prophet as a title of Authority and in an Old Testament light so to speak.

I and most "Non LDS" I know see that after Christ yes there were prophets, but not necessarily Ones that lead the/a church. In the 2 instances Agabus is mentioned he is reporting to Paul/Saul. Not as a leader of a church, but as a man with a gift of "Prophecy". So since he had this gift and it was clearly of "The Spirit" as it is mentioned to be. He was a "Prophet".

Well you have your definitions skewed. LDS define a prophet as anyone with a testimony of Jesus Christ. We also refer to one of those prophets specifically as THE prophet, the one who presides over all the others.

The OT and the NT both follow this pattern. Moses was the presiding prophet in his days, Elijah in his days, and Peter in his days. The NT simply does not teach that prophets in any definition of the term were to cease.

Sargon

[Hammer]

In the Bible, aren't there many examples of the priesthood leadership being different from the prophets? Even when the high priests were righteous?

Would you like to note some? Just to give me an idea of the direction you are heading?

[Zakuska]

Don't forget these verses...

1 Cor. 14: 32

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Eph. 3: 5

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Prophets... present tense in the church while Paul (WAY after Jesus) was alive.

I think the idea comes from a miss interpretation of the following verse...

Luke 16: 16

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

[Sentinus]

Well you have your definitions skewed. LDS define a prophet as anyone with a testimony of Jesus Christ. We also refer to one of those prophets specifically as THE prophet, the one who presides over all the others.

The OT and the NT both follow this pattern. Moses was the presiding prophet in his days, Elijah in his days, and Peter in his days. The NT simply does not teach that prophets in any definition of the term were to cease.

Sargon

Interesting when I was LDS I had never been taught this. I had been told that I could receive revelation and prophecy for my family if moved upon. When I suggested that meant that I and others were then "Prophets" as you have said, I was told that there is only one PROPHET and that I was confusing Prophecy and revelation. Could you please show me in ANY LDS source material that teaches what you have said. (CFR I guess)

Also please show me any verse where Peter is reffered to as a Prophet Or The Prophet. (CFR)

I understand that in the New Testament that a Prophet is one who has a gift of Prophecy and there were many who held this gift of the Spirit. While I am sure Peter would have had this spiritual gift he is not considered "The Prophet" by anyone that I know of. I believe you are adding your LDS interpretation to the story.

"The NT simply does not teach that prophets in any definition of the term were to cease."

I never said that it did, I am saying that their is a shift in the meaning of the word from OT to NT. I suggested in my last post that I believed that there are probably 1000's of prophets on the Earth today. What I am suggesting is that there is no need for one man to be "THE PROPHET." This structure does not seem to exist in the NT. While Peter is reffered to as "the Rock" that He (Jesus) would build upon, I don't believe that this is literal. A rock can be meant to mean foundation, (how many foundations does your house have?) I know of no Non LDS "Christian" church that doesn't recognise him as this person, many find that he was/is this rock. Can you show me anywhere in the NT it is taught that there should always be one man in authority on the Earth?

Jesus Christ guides and directs his church on the Earth today, this I know. I however believe he is not limited by mans denominations. In the "Non LDS" Christian world, while there appears to be "contention" there really is unity in purpose. All who follow Jesus Christ are in his church and he is at the head. We as his believers need no mediator to receive his guidance, we can get it ourselves. None of the Spiritual gifts that are mentioned in Acts have been removed from the Earth they are used/exercised daily by his followers. I see no difference in Gordon B Hinckley, than any other righteous minister. Both are paid clergy to guide and direct an organization of men in running their interpretation of scripture and religion. Heck he has even asked that he not be reffered to as "Prophet" he prefers "President". So while I respect your right to believe and worship how and where you please, I kindly disagree, not from a position of ignorance (LDS 15 years) But from a position of personal revelation. I look foward to your response to my questions, and refferences where I have asked for them.

Regards,

Jeremiah

[Sargon]

Interesting when I was LDS I had never been taught this. I had been told that I could receive revelation and prophecy for my family if moved upon. When I suggested that meant that I and others were then "Prophets" as you have said, I was told that there is only one PROPHET and that I was confusing Prophecy and revelation.

In my opinion, you were told wrong. Prophecy and revelation are not the same thing, though they are intimately linked. Different subject however.

Could you please show me in ANY LDS source material that teaches what you have said. (CFR I guess)

Official LDS materials include the holy bible, which teaches this principle quite clearly in the book of Revelation. Therefore, it is LDS doctrine that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy".

I am saying that their is a shift in the meaning of the word from OT to NT.

Why do you say that?

I understand that in the New Testament that a Prophet is one who has a gift of Prophecy and there were many who held this gift of the Spirit. While I am sure Peter would have had this spiritual gift he is not considered "The Prophet" by anyone that I know of. I believe you are adding your LDS interpretation to the story.

Yes, I unashamedly am giving you an LDS interpretation. I believe the scriptures clearly indicate that Peter was the leader of the prophets. Is the point of the thread to debate about whether or not it does, or to indentify how LDS interpret Peter's role?

Can you show me anywhere in the NT it is taught that there should always be one man in authority on the Earth?

Without citing actual verses, you and I probably agree that the NT teaches that Jesus ordained and sent out prophets and apostles. The book of Acts clearly demonstrates that there was a body of leaders who presided over the church, to which even Paul deferred. The scriptures are also clear that Peter was the leader of this group. Is there anyway you can disagree with this? The only way to interpret a divinely authorized moving away from this structure is to alter the way in which 'apostle' is used. The NT clearly is referring to a small group of leaders when it refers to 'apostles', yet modern day protestant theologians usually broaden that definition to include just about anyone who considers themselves 'sent' by God.

Just a few short responses to your final statements:

Jesus Christ guides and directs his church on the Earth today, this I know. I however believe he is not limited by mans denominations.

Jesus isn't limited, but man is limited to Jesus' denomination. Christ definantly established a particular denomination, and belonging to that denomination is quite important.

We as his believers need no mediator to receive his guidance, we can get it ourselves.

Except that isn't how it worked in the ancient church. The revelation to spread the gospel to all the world was given to one man who was the recognized and ordained authority, Peter. Certainly you have the right to recieve revelation, but to preside and guide the church as a whole is the role of one man at a time. That is what I believe that particular example teaches.

I see no difference in Gordon B Hinckley, than any other righteous minister.

Hence your apostacy.

Sincerely,

Sargon

[Sentinus]

Thanks that does help me understand the EV perspective. Just to clarify I am not an "Ev" I have just heard that there is no Prophets after Jesus so when I read of one I say hey wait a sec... So Prophets are okay but not in an "authority leadership position" is this how I read you? Not exactly I am saying that prophecy is a gift of the spirit and that it is not limited to an authority position. NOR does one in "authority" have to be a prophet. And am I to gather that would be the same for Apostles, Deacons, Bishops etc? If so what are the values of these offices then? IMO The value in these "offices" is in the understanding and acting within what one believes they mean. Is a righteous man/woman in a remote part of the Earth with no structured church any less able to be led and guided by Jesus Christ? The titles are nice and ok if you have enough believers in any area to need to organise, yet the Authority is not in the title, the authority is in Christ. Understand?

As far as the CC board I am thankful for your respect and I feel likewise and no its not pointed at you. I just don't see any headway for example you see one thing and I see it another way. I am not great at the debate thing and feel like its wasted time (on my part). I feel debate is good for those who can do it intellectually I fail here and ether want to choke someone or just give up and choking and giving up is not right so I continue to be at best a mediocre defender... I guess we look at message boards a little differently, I am not here to debate. I am here to learn, and see how different people interpret the same thing. I have changed many of my beliefs about LDS from reading and Posting here. I have also changed many of my previous beliefs regarding "Mainstream" Christianity. I personally feel that way too much time is spent on "debating" when the number of Good moral people I have met "Both sides" could be so much more powerful working together. My best friends are still TBM, I participate in local functions, my last Bishop still solicits my opinions and holds me in high respect. I am not "anti" LDS I am "anti ignorance", hence why I discuss the topic with those that are LDS. I have found that very few are as knowledgable as those that post here, In fact when dicussing my problems within the LDS faith with people I reffer them here. You would be surprised the number of LDS that have called me and apologised for doubting me after reading people Defend these things They never knew. There is common ground, I just find that the LDS faith is wrong for me and my family, and I believe that some of what it teaches is not Biblical, (I find the same problems in other Religions as well.) I hope this helps, you understand me a little better.

I know when I read the Old and New Testament it validates and strengthens my belief in my religion and the Book of Mormon. I see little tidbits of light that shine really bright like the Agabus verses and Matthew 15:24 and John 10:16 just make sense. How Jesus told the thief "today you will see me in Paradise" but when he appeared to Mary at the tomb he had not yet ascended to his Father. Again the bible strengthens the Book of Mormon and vice-verse. For now I wont throw in the towel at the CC board and Ill hang a little longer. I just don't see these things in the same light that you do.

Anijen

I responded above in red.

Regards,

Jeremiah

[Sentinus]

In my opinion, you were told wrong. Prophecy and revelation are not the same thing, though they are intimately linked. Different subject however. As long as you recognise what you believe is only opinion I have no problem.

Official LDS materials include the holy bible, which teaches this principle quite clearly in the book of Revelation. Therefore, it is LDS doctrine that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". Good reference can you show me Chapter and verse, so I can see it in context. Additionally my stake president would have argued "that the gift of Prophecy does not a Prophet make." I made a similar comment to what you quoted, only what sparked our conversation was a question I had regarding my Blessing. I guess you interpret it differently than he did. It would be nice if LDS could simply agree on doctrine within their own sect. Funny this same type of "contention" is used to show problems within "Christianity".

Why do you say that?

I see OT Prophets leading and guiding large groups of the people of Israel, Moses, Elijah etc. However in the NT, Prophets are listed as a group and there are quite a few of them and only one mentioned by name after Christ. The Role of "Prophet" had changed. To me this clear.

Yes, I unashamedly am giving you an LDS interpretation. I believe the scriptures clearly indicate that Peter was the leader of the prophets. Is the point of the thread to debate about whether or not it does, or to indentify how LDS interpret Peter's role? Both really IMO, I already know how LDS define his role, Care to provide a refference on that I can actually look up? I would really love to see what scriptures you believe show this. After my own personal study I believe that the LDS interpretation is not correct, however I am open to the Idea that I am wrong. Maybe your explanation will help me see other errors I have come to have.

Without citing actual verses, you and I probably agree that the NT teaches that Jesus ordained and sent out prophets and apostles. The book of Acts clearly demonstrates that there was a body of leaders who presided over the church, to which even Paul deferred. The scriptures are also clear that Peter was the leader of this group. Is there anyway you can disagree with this? The only way to interpret a divinely authorized moving away from this structure is to alter the way in which 'apostle' is used. The NT clearly is referring to a small group of leaders when it refers to 'apostles', yet modern day protestant theologians usually broaden that definition to include just about anyone who considers themselves 'sent' by God. I would say lets eliminate opinion and interpretation, could you please use the scriptures to verify your beliefs/position. In my initial post I quoted MANY scriptures to sustain my point you as of yet have offered none, in any posts in this thread.

Just a few short responses to your final statements:

Jesus isn't limited, but man is limited to Jesus' denomination. Christ definantly established a particular denomination, and belonging to that denomination is quite important. I disagree could you please offer scripture to verify this point.. PLEASE. I would love to see where you derive this belief.

Except that isn't how it worked in the ancient church. The revelation to spread the gospel to all the world was given to one man who was the recognized and ordained authority, Peter. Certainly you have the right to recieve revelation, but to preside and guide the church as a whole is the role of one man at a time. That is what I believe that particular example teaches. Again I can respect your beliefs, but I would love to see how you come to this determination. Can you please offer scriptures to verify these beliefs? Additionally I would like to add that it is not my intent to cfr you to death, I just want to learn from a source that we can both agree on, and find some common ground. Is it not your boards rule to provide them when asked?

Hence your apostacy.

I would hope that as one who is LDS it would be your goal to act as a missionary and help teach and expound your beliefs in a manner Christ would approve of. Inferring that I am an "Apostate" is just rude. I am not actively fighting against your beliefs, I am however here trying to learn, if you are not interested in this please feel free to ignore my posts.

Sincerely,

Sargon

I responded above in red. I look foward to your responses and refferences.

Regards,

Jeremiah

[Sargon]

Sorry Sentinus, I have a full plate today so I will not be able to respond as you want me to just yet.

Sargon

[Sentinus]

Sorry Sentinus, I have a full plate today so I will not be able to respond as you want me to just yet.

Sargon

Understood, please if you could do so when you do have time, your efforts will be much appreciated. Hope all is well for you.

Regards,

Jeremiah