Micromanaging the Saints

[Dravin]

Is it your point, then, that apostles are not prophets, seers and revelators and that Paul did not speak through divine inspiration and that his writings are not canonical scripture?

No, it was just my assumption that when people make comments about "the" prophet they are speaking about the President of the Church. I do though upon rereading notice they said "a" prophet not "the" prophet. If they did indeed mean a prophet then your point is valid. Though if one wants to be pedantic* you don't need to go through the trouble of quoting Paul. As per the definition provided in the Bible Dictionary:

In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10.

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, you could have just quoted me (or yourself).

Only wear paisley ties.

* Not saying calling Paul a prophet is pedantic, quoting me because I fit a definition of prophet would be so.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Dravin

[BenRaines]

We sustain, as LDS members, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. No reason to believe that the ancient Apostles were any different.

Ben Raines

[lattelady]

Biblically, you have no basis or proof for making that assertion. You are welcome to say that he was a prophet, but under the guidelines of "prophet" some have posted from dictionaries and Bible dictionaries, you run a dangerous risk of just about ANYONE claiming that they are a Prophet, and then who are you to say otherwise? Paul didn't function as a prophet, any more than you or I do--even though he was called by God. What is your scriptural basis for calling him a prophet?

[Maxel]

Are you not the one that called me insincere or lacking candor? What is the word for it when one person accuses someone else of doing what they themselves do?

Wow. Calm down. I said the example was disingenuous- because I remember your thread about how many of the writings of Paul weren't actually written by him. That's what I meant.

Sure - you can talk about what Paul woulda, shoulda, coulda meant but let's just take what he actually DID say, not what he might have said but didn't.

Okay, let's do just that.

1 Corinthians 7:1" 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

The entire chapter is written in response to a question- a question that we don't know. The entire chapter's context is missing. Context is everything.

He said that it's good for man to be celibate and that man had a spouse because of immoralities. There is no mention of missionaries. Paul was not addressing missionaries. You are simply imposing your modern idea of the LDS youth missionary program on the first century Jesus movement which had so such program.

Actually, I'm using the chapter headings written by Bruce R. McConkie- another prophet of the Lord- as a guide. And I'm thinking a better analogy would be the missionary efforts of the early Church, in the days of Joseph Smith- men married only a few days being called on missions; men as young as 14 being called on missions- a missionary program far less regulated than today's. I could see one of the original apostles of this dispensation advising a young man who feels he's going to be called on a mission not to get married- it's hard leaving a wife and children behind.

Your point, however, was that when a prophet says jump, one should jump and here you are arguing your way out of your own claim.

The issue at hand is understanding what is truly meant by the scripture. You and I believe the Bible comes to us in an imperfect format, and that modern revelation was needed to clarify certain points of doctrine that had been skewed. I doubt Paul's letters were ever intended to act as the rules or guiding doctrines of the Church: in fact, he states a few times in 1 Cor 7 that what he's saying is not by way of commandment. Edited September 19, 2009 by Maxel

[ferretrunner]

I tend to enjoy the respectful conversations. Where I get annoyed is when we start insulting/ bashing each other.

I have really struggled with my testimony over the past few years, including being inactive for several years. I am taking the missionary lessons again as I would if I were an investigator. I find the discussions helpful. One of the areas that I struggle with is the "inflexibility" of the Church. Going to the meetings, everyone dresses alike- it seems the women in RS all teach the same things about being someone's wife and/or mother and how to nurture someone else. Not that this is bad but there's more to being a woman than those roles. I never felt I "fit in." I tend to be more moderate/ liberal than conservative- again I don't "fit in." Long story short, reading people's varying opinions allows me to see that I'm not expected to turn off my brain and just "go with the flow." Perhaps there is room for someone like me who is "different" in the Church. Perhaps I don't have to agree with everything to have a testimony.

Just my .02 on the discussion. we all have them! :)

[Snow]

Snow,

I continue to ask you for proof from scripture that anyone besides YOU considers the apostle Paul to be a prophet.

Are you for real?

It's a simple matter of mathematics.

Prophet = A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

and

Paul = A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

therefor

Paul = prophet.

Moreover, Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary says that a prophet is:

-one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration, especially concerning future events, and in particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation

-of men filled with the Spirit of God, who by God's authority and command in words of weight pleads the cause of God and urges salvation of men

-of prophets that appeared in the apostolic age among Christians

they are associated with the apostles

-they discerned and did what is best for the Christian cause, foretelling certain future events.

-in the religious assemblies of the Christians, they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate, their hearers

I am also going to assume that you have not read the Book of Acts because you seem utterly unaware that Acts presents Paul as a prophet. It seems like you could get yourself education on Paul, among others, roles as prophet,

In Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God's People (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 1, 2006) David L Woodall says: "That Luke protrays Paul as a prophet is widely acknowledged. (see, for example: Prophet, Paul As", in Gerald F Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarstiy Press, 1993)

If you want to check some online material, you can look up:

E. Earle Ellis, "The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts," W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. pp.55-67.

Paul: Prophet or Apostle? Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D.

“Paul as Prophet in the Acts of the Apostles” by Jeffrey T. Riddle Pastor, Jefferson Park Baptist Church Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting San Antonio, Texas, November 17, 2004

I kinda doubt that you have the stomach to dig in with any serious bible scholarship. Most people these days want simple one-liners as watered-down text proof. If you lack the discipline to really understand the topic and wish for something simple, you might try actually reading Acts, and may want to start with chapters 13, 15, 11, but don't leave out 1, 2, 6, 8, 20, 25, 27)

[lattelady]

Snow,

I am for real. I do read the Bible. I have the stomach to dig in; it didn't take much digging at all to see, quite at face value, Paul's title--how HE referred to himself. He also mentions over and over in each of the texts that the title/role/authority he has is God-given and comes by the "will of God." It's the role of apostle. Strangely, he never refers to himself as a prophet in the books that he wrote. Nor was he speaking prophetically when he penned the words you quoted. I will take on typical Snow-form and again ask YOU for a Biblical basis or proof that Paul was a prophet. So far, you've come up with nothing but quotes from other people, definitions from the dictionary and some insults to my intelligence. But when you show me proof from the Bible that Paul was called a prophet, you will have made your point. And since you are so convinced that you are right, as you typically tell others in this forum, it shouldn't be that hard to do.

[hordak]

I guess I'm confused on how posting an opinion on a board is considered 'micromanaging'?

No one here has any ability at all to enforce any opinion they may hold. Some may argue that they are right to the exclusion of others, but so what? Why take it so personally? And if you've ever had the privilege of being micromanaged at work, you'll know that this forum is far from it...

I don't take it personally. And your right posting on the board isn't micromanging, the question was way do people want to be micromanaged.

I have found in my years in the church that some people take offense when they are taught correct doctrine because it conflicts with their view of how things should be. We all need to have a sense of humility in hearing other's opinions to see if we are somehow lacking in being as obedient as our HF wants us to be.

So when you say 'micromanaging' it makes no sense...

Again we aren't talking doctrine here. The doctrine is usually pretty clear, (I.E. tithing is 10% of interest) it's the gross vs net, tithing on food stamps, taxes, gifts, WIC etc. that people turn into "clash of the GA quotes" "my Bishop vs your Stake president" stuff.

Point is to encourage people to ask God himself. To get revelation and clarification on things that are not docterine.

Besides IIUC Priesthood authority works much like our legal system. The US Supreme court/ Prophet speaks to the whole nation/church and Stake President / Circuit courts hold jurisdiction over a smaller portion of the nation. Bishops / State Courts even smaller segments. So while Bishop Smiths council for his ward members on issue x might be right for them it doesn't mean it's right member in a different ward. Just like California's laws aren't right for Utah and visa versa.

[Snow]

No, it was just my assumption that when people make comments about "the" prophet they are speaking about the President of the Church. I do though upon rereading notice they said "a" prophet not "the" prophet. If they did indeed mean a prophet then your point is valid. Though if one wants to be pedantic* you don't need to go through the trouble of quoting Paul. As per the definition provided in the Bible Dictionary:

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, you could have just quoted me (or yourself).

* Not saying calling Paul a prophet is pedantic, quoting me because I fit a definition of prophet would be so.

But of course we both know that Maxel was not speaking "a prophet" in the context of one who has a testimony of Jesus Christ - rather he spoke of a prophet as one is is duly called to lead the saints and speaks the will of God through divine inspiration.

[Moksha]

)

There is no other figure in mainstream Christianity who has more shaped Christian belief and theology than Paul. Paul meets every applicable definition of the word prophet.

I thought they were all granted the titles of Prophets, Seers and Revelators as part of the job description of an Apostle.

[Lorenzo]

.. nothing but quotes from other people, definitions from the dictionary and some insults to my intelligence. .......

I get concerned, actually, when I see some quotes. Do you know what happens? People quote someone for their evidence. But who is it they quote? Most of the time I don't know. Somone writes a book and in some peoples' minds that makes him an authority. It doesn't. Sometimes it helps to give a bit of background to someone we quote, even C.S.Lewis we could introduce as "former atheist turned Christian, author of the quintessential Christian classic Mere Christianity, Professor of Renaissance and Medieval Literature at Cambridge." That let's us know that he has some background in literature, history, and is well-regarded in the broader Christian community. Even at that, I suspect some people who are quoted, even if they are illustrious professors, lack such an authoritative spirit for a number of possible reasons.

The second thing that bothers me is that when someone quotes a writer in support of a claim, in my mind that should mean the poster accepts the rest of what the writer wrote. I find few people who argue religion who are willing to do that. There are many writers who have said one or two statements that totally support the gospel, but along with those one or two, they also write a dozen or more that are totally off-base.

It's probably just me. I'm probably being too strict in who I consider an authority, reliable, credible, and all that. My standards are few in number: maybe: Bible, Book of Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Gospel Principles, all the talks of the General Authorities that are published in the official church magazine The Ensign, St. Augustine's City of God, the Koran, Eusebius, and a couple more. Therefore, I am immune to micromanaagement.

[Snow]

Snow,

I am for real. I do read the Bible. I have the stomach to dig in; it didn't take much digging at all to see, quite at face value, Paul's title--how HE referred to himself. He also mentions over and over in each of the texts that the title/role/authority he has is God-given and comes by the "will of God." It's the role of apostle. Strangely, he never refers to himself as a prophet in the books that he wrote. Nor was he speaking prophetically when he penned the words you quoted. I will take on typical Snow-form and again ask YOU for a Biblical basis or proof that Paul was a prophet. So far, you've come up with nothing but quotes from other people, definitions from the dictionary and some insults to my intelligence. But when you show me proof from the Bible that Paul was called a prophet, you will have made your point. And since you are so convinced that you are right, as you typically tell others in this forum, it shouldn't be that hard to do.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You should know that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. You are claiming that Paul is not a prophet. Let's examine your argument:

1. Paul is not a prophet because he is an apostle. The necessary and underlying proposition is that being an apostle excludes one from being a prophet. You offer zero support for you proposition. You merely assert it - that is, you made it up. You imagine it.

The scholar E. C. Selwyn holds that “apostles” were “prophets on circuit” in contrast to “prophets in session. (Cf. E. C. Selwyn, The Christian Prophets (London, 1900), pp. 24 f.; Saint Luke the Prophet (London, 1900), pp. 35, 27-32.).

You have also failed to interact or respond to the reference I gave in Acts that specially says that Paul is a prophet and a teacher while he was at Antioch.

I suppose that you are also going to maintain that Judas and Silas were not prophet? Do you? If so, how do you reconcile your position with the scriptures? Is the Bible in error on the matter and if so, why is your opinion superior to that of the Bible?

2. You maintain that Paul is not a prophet because he does not refer to himself as a prophet. What is your evidence or argument that in order to be a prophet, one must call one's self a prophet. None. Again - you just made it up. You conjured it up out of your imagination.

Moreover, you have utterly failed to interact with my mathematical proposition that one who meets the definition of a prophet is in fact a prophet - as is and as does Paul. You have failed to show how the definitions are in error or how Paul does not meet the definitions.

...and by the way... it's not your intelligence I question, rather I question your familiarity with the Bible and wonder if you can possibly be serious.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

I thought they were all granted the titles of Prophets, Seers and Revelators as part of the job description of an Apostle.

That are. We in the Church of Jesus Christ understand that that apostles are also prophets, seers and revelators but the poster in question, who must not be LDS, thinks that being an apostle excludes one from being a prophet and does not seem to even understand what a prophet is and how Paul meets the criteria perfectly.

I was writing a post on the matter which crashed so I'll have to redo it but essentially the characteristics of the classical OT prophet are:

1. A prophet is commission of God

2. A prophet is a messenger of God.

3. A prophet is a miracle worker.

4. A prophet prophesies - predicts the future.

5. A prophet is an iconoclast whose message is rejected by the people.

Paul matches the criteria perfectly - even more so than the other Christian prophets named in the New Testament.

[Snow]

It's probably just me. I'm probably being too strict in who I consider an authority, reliable, credible, and all that. My standards are few in number: maybe: Bible, Book of Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Gospel Principles, all the talks of the General Authorities that are published in the official church magazine The Ensign, St. Augustine's City of God, the Koran, Eusebius, and a couple more. Therefore, I am immune to micromanaagement.

Wow.

Eusebius is notoriously unreliable and even dishonest or at minimum obsequious to Constantine. Moreover Augstine is way out of step with revealed theology which you point to in your other references as is the Koran.

[lattelady]

Snow,

Your "tsk" is misplaced. If he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof, then the burden clearly would rest on your shoulders because you made the original claim that Paul was a prophet. Remember?

Your supposed reference in Acts to Paul being a prophet is one that you are bending to fit your need. Since you never provided an actual reference, I'm left to assume that you are referring to Acts 13:1? If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. But this verse says, "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul."

Saul, we know also to be called Paul. If you're claiming that this obviously means that he was a prophet and a teacher, it doesn't. It means that in that group of people, there were prophets, and there were teachers. In that group, Paul was a teacher. If you've studied him at all, you're aware of his history--that he was a teacher of the Law before his conversion. You shouldn't try to twist scripture to fit your arguments.

The burden of proof still rests with you. Nowhere in scripture does he call himself a prophet, nor does anyone else call him one. In fact, if you look at that passage (Acts 13 where he teaches others, he refers to OTHER prophets (don't you think he'd refer to his own prophet-ship if he were one?)--he knows he's an apostle. In the Church, there is a clear distinction of roles (at least the Biblical definition of the church). 1 Corinthians 12:27,28 "Now you are the Body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets,,..."

[Snow]

Snow,

Your "tsk" is misplaced. If he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof, then the burden clearly would rest on your shoulders because you made the original claim that Paul was a prophet. Remember?

I hate it when a poster can't argue honestly.

I said that Paul was a prophet - something which every LDS poster on this website accepts and easily understands, and I have provided support for that contention by giving numerous accepted definitions of a prophet that Paul meets and also by listing 5 classical OT criteria for being a prophet - which Paul also meets - which I will further post about later - as I posted the write-up I was working on crashed. Additionally I cited 4 scholarly opinions that agree with me that all contain extensive reasoning behind them. You have yet to rebut any of it.

YOU, however, also made a positive assertion. YOU claimed that he was not a prophet. You bear the burden to support your own claims. So far your only reasons for for saying that he was not a prophet are made up reasons - out of your own imagination and nothing else - another point you have yet to rebut.

Your supposed reference in Acts to Paul being a prophet is one that you are bending to fit your need. Since you never provided an actual reference, I'm left to assume that you are referring to Acts 13:1? If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. But this verse says, "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul."

Saul, we know also to be called Paul. If you're claiming that this obviously means that he was a prophet and a teacher, it doesn't. It means that in that group of people, there were prophets, and there were teachers. In that group, Paul was a teacher. If you've studied him at all, you're aware of his history--that he was a teacher of the Law before his conversion. You shouldn't try to twist scripture to fit your arguments.

Who is twisting scripture? Answer: You.

The passage says there were teachers and prophets and then lists them. I don't interpret it and I don't twist it. It says what it says. You on the other hand conveniently claim that it meant, in relationship to Paul, that he was one but not the other... and your reasoning is, get this, that there was once a time when he was a teacher but at that time, before being called of God in the manner that Old Testament prophets were called, that he wasn't a prophet.

See why I wonder if you can possibly be serious?

The burden of proof still rests with you.

Honesty please. YOU also have the burden of YOUR claim.

I have presented reasoning to support my claim and you have yet to rebut it.

Nowhere in scripture does he call himself a prophet, nor does anyone else call him one. In fact, if you look at that passage (Acts 13 where he teaches others, he refers to OTHER prophets (don't you think he'd refer to his own prophet-ship if he were one?)--he knows he's an apostle.

That is perhaps one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard and demonstrably fallacious:

1. Honesty or accuracy compels the correct that it is not known whether he ever called himself a prophet - all we know is that the New Testament does not record it.

2. You have yet to show a single shred of evidence that prophets are required to call themselves prophets - why? Because you just made it up.

3. Judas and Silas were prophets and there is zero record of them having called themselves prophets. By your reasoning, they weren't really prophets either.

In the Church, there is a clear distinction of roles (at least the Biblical definition of the church). 1 Corinthians 12:27,28 "Now you are the Body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets,,..."

That's even sillier than what you claimed earlier...

You didn't post the rest of the verse. Why? Obviously because if you had, it would show you how very wrong you were. Let's see the whole verse:

"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

Your made up contention is that because Paul was an apostle that he couldn't be a prophet because the bible distinguishes (chuckle) because appointments and that one excludes the other. So according to your logic (chuckle), apostles and prophets cannot be workers of miracles or having the gifts of healing or be able to help others or speak in tongues.

Would you like some proof that such is not the case or do you recognize the absurdity of your claim?

[BenRaines]

Points are being made. Lets keep it civil.

Ben Raines

[Dravin]

But of course we both know that Maxel was not speaking "a prophet" in the context of one who has a testimony of Jesus Christ - rather he spoke of a prophet as one is is duly called to lead the saints and speaks the will of God through divine inspiration.

Yes I know, that's why I didn't present the idea seriously. At least the smilie was meant to convey such, I may have failed to communicate my thoughts coherently enough, I run afoul of that disturbingly often.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Dravin

[Gatorman]

I said that Paul was a prophet - something which every LDS poster on this website accepts and easily understands...

Might want to be careful Snow. You are assuming facts not in evidence and things you can, under no circumstance, prove to be true.

[lattelady]

Snow, I'll keep my post pretty short. Your rabbit trails are unnecessary because I don't get too far into your post and I realize, you have yet to provide biblical proof to back up your claim that Paul was a prophet. You made the claim. You bear the burden of proof. Just as you accept nothing but canonized scripture as proof when others are trying to make a point, I'm still waiting for you to show me a verse from scripture that Paul was called as a prophet. The verse in Acts that you gave me shows me that there's a room full of prophets and teachers. I learned back in Bible school that rather than pull a verse out randomly to try and use it on its own, one needs to view it in light of all the scriptures given. When you do that with Paul, it's pretty easy to see that he's not one of the prophets in Acts 13, he's one of the teachers. Look at his ministry. It's not a prophetic one. It's a teaching one. (and yes, apostles can teach!).

So, I'm still waiting. You might want to stop taking all that time typing out definitions and quotes from other people, because all I really care about is biblical proof. Opinions are just that.

[Maxel]

I thought that Joseph Smith taught that Paul was an apostle of the Lord...? Trying to find a reference.

[Dravin]

I thought that Joseph Smith taught that Paul was an apostle of the Lord...? Trying to find a reference.

Doctrine and Covenants 18

That count?

Of course I don't think it affects any of the conversations going on much. I think everyone involved agrees Paul was an Apostle.

[Snow]

Snow, I'll keep my post pretty short. Your rabbit trails are unnecessary because I don't get too far into your post and I realize, you have yet to provide biblical proof to back up your claim that Paul was a prophet. You made the claim. You bear the burden of proof.

When are YOU going to meet your burder of proof to back up your claim. Obviously you cannot.

Why have you not rebutted the reasoning that I have already provided? Obviously you cannot.

Just as you accept nothing but canonized scripture as proof when others are trying to make a point,

That is false. I asked you before to post honestly and I now ask you again.

I'm still waiting for you to show me a verse from scripture that Paul was called as a prophet.

We both know that I did but your point - that unless a scripture explicitly says that one is a prophet, then one is not a prophet - is another of your made up imaginings. There is no criteria that calls for that and you know it - or else you would have posted it.

I call on you to provide proof of this contention of yours but we both know that you will not.

The verse in Acts that you gave me shows me that there's a room full of prophets and teachers. I learned back in Bible school that rather than pull a verse out randomly to try and use it on its own, one needs to view it in light of all the scriptures given. When you do that with Paul, it's pretty easy to see that he's not one of the prophets in Acts 13, he's one of the teachers.

So you claim but there is a reason that you merely assert it, instead of demonstrating it... because you cannot and we both know that you will not.

Look at his ministry. It's not a prophetic one. It's a teaching one. (and yes, apostles can teach!).

That is another claim that you merely assert because you cannot and will not - as we both know - demonstrate it.

MEET YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF instead of simply parroting back mine and rebut the material I have presented already instead of making up criteria out out of your own imagination.

[Snow]

Paul as a Prophet

There are at least five classical Old Testament characteristics of a prophet and the author of the book of acts portrays Paul has not only have those classical traits but also in a way that exceeds other New Testament prophets and even the Old Testament prophets:

The prophet is commissioned by God.

The prophet serves as God’s messenger.

The prophet is a miracle worker.

The prophet accurately predicts the future.

The prophet is an iconoclast whose message is rejected by a stubborn people.

See John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Judaism: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Paul’s Prophetic Commissioning:

In Act’s 9, 22 and 26, the author of Acts draws heavily on Old Testament call narratives to describe Paul’s call. The third call narrative has the most explicit prophetic imagery.

“In chap. 26, the emphasis is rather on Paul as the prophet (vv. 16-18), with allusions to the inaugural vision of Ezekiel (2:1,6) and Jeremiah (1:8); compare Isa 35:5; 42:7; 61:1. Moses and the prophets support his message about Christ (26:21); finally, he asks whether Agrippa believes the prophets (16:27). Thus one detects the Lucan effort to present Paul as one who continues the work of Jesus, the Prophet....” (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998) 144)

Paul as a massager of God:

In the OT a prophet is one who hears directly from God and then conveys the message to the people. In Acts Pual is one who is represented as one who regularly proclaims “the word of the Lord.” (see 13:5, 15:35-36; 16:32; 17:13; and 18:11) OT prophets also report visionary encounters with God and Paul also sees numerous visions and has numerous supernatural visitations (see chapters 9, 16, 18, 21, 23, 26 and 27. Paul is someone with whom God regularly communicates.

The passage in chapter 18 is especially significant because it has several prophetic echoes - for example the command “Do not be afraid” is part of the stock OT encouragement to prophet-leaders as is the assurance “I am with you.”

In Acts 15 the author of Acts describes the activities of two of Paul’s fellow prophets - Silas and Judas who exhorted the brethren and strengthened them - there are, for the author of Acts, two activities (exhorting and strengthening) closely associated with being a prophet and we find Paul doing the very same things (chapters 14, 15, 16, 20)

Paul, like the prophet Jesus Christ (Christ, like Paul, had multiple callings, namely prophet, priest and king) expounded scripture and opened hearts (chapter 17, 28). He was an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Like other prophets, for example Daniel (9:2,24) Paul reinterprets the scriptures of old to apply to contemporary circumstances.

Paul as a Miracle Worker:

A mark of OT prophets was the working of miracles. Paul worked miracles (chapters 13, 14, 18, 19) One miracle in which Paul takes part in chapter 20 is the raising of Eutychus and it stands out as a paradigm of prophetic activity - drawing on the story of Elijah’s raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 17 and Elisha’s raising of the Shunamite woman’s son in 2 Kings 4 both of which parallel Paul’s resuscitation of Eutychus.

4 Paul prophecies / predicts the future.

In Acts Paul is portrayed as taking on this prophetic role. He is given knowledge from the Lord that allows him to see the future - see 18, 20, 23 and 27.

Paul as an Iconoclast and Rejected Prophet:

Old Testaments prophets as iconoclasts not only rejected pagan idolatry but also critiqued the worship and theology of God’s own people. The author of Acts fits Paul into that profile. See 14, 16, 17, 28

The Paul of Acts is presented in a way that matches the OT prophetic profile. He received a prophetic call, he serves as God’s massager by exhorting and strengthening and instruction the believers, he performs miracles as did prophets of old and accurately and prophetically predicts future events and is an iconoclast who is rejected my many.

E.E. Ellis defines a Christian prophet: “The prophet is the Lord’s instrument, one among several means by which Jesus leads his church. As one who makes known the meaning of scripture, exhorts and strengthens the congregation and instructs the community by revelation of the future, the Christian prophet manifests in the power of the Spirit the character of the Lord, who is the prophet of the end-time. (Ellis, The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts, in Apostolic History and the Gospel - Exeter: Patenoster Press, 1970, p 67)

Paul not only is a prophet of the this kind, but he exceeds the other Christian prophets in the Acts narrative by fulfilling the dominant expectations for a classical OT prophet. (abstracted from Paul as Prophet in the Acts of the Apostles - Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Tx, Nov. 2004)

[Snow]

Might want to be careful Snow. You are assuming facts not in evidence and things you can, under no circumstance, prove to be true.

Fine - let it be on the record that you do not believe that apostles are prophets, seers and revelators. I stand corrected.