Dualing Prophecies

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

So were you LITERALLY baptized with the formula in Matt.: 28:19?
How did that work out for you?

Are you saying we cannot take the word PROPHETESS verbatim as true because we don't take Matthew 28:19 verbatim in invocation during baptism? Invocation is not the same as a plain fact of what title Anna held.

Bad form. That is twisting scripture before people would dare adjust their views.

WOW!

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Are you saying we cannot take the word PROPHETESS verbatim as true because we don't take Matthew 28:19 verbatim in invocation during baptism? Invocation is not the same as a plain fact of what title Anna held.
Bad form. That is twisting scripture before people would dare adjust their views.
WOW!

Content and context, Brother!

You seem to be implying women in the MINISTRY . . . I submit that ANY
doctrine (content) should be followed by context (witnesses).

WOW! right back at you, Beloved.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Content and context, Brother!

You seem to be implying women in the MINISTRY . . . I submit that ANY
doctrine (content) should be followed by context (witnesses).

WOW! right back at you, Beloved.

I imply nothing, lol. Why do you analyze any implications? I just stated a fact. Anna was entitled prophetess. What's that mean to you?

Context is everything as always. But the context is she was prophetess. There's not other context to consider.

Matt 28:19 is nothing similar to the issue of the wording of Anna's title. No way.

My point was you said the daughters in Acts were called prophets. You referred to entitlement. I said Anna was entitled a prophetess, which is a female prophet. A specific title.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I imply nothing, lol. (3) Why do you analyze any implications? I just stated a fact. Anna was entitled prophetess. What's that mean to you?
Context is everything as always. But the context is she was prophetess. There's not other context to consider.
(4) Matt 28:19 is nothing similar to the issue of the wording of Anna's title. No way.
(1) My point was you said the daughters in Acts were called prophets. (2) You referred to entitlement. I said Anna was entitled a prophetess, which is a female prophet. A specific title.

Let's start at the beginning

(1) I never called Philip's daughters "prophets", although I did
acknowledge that they prophesied;

(2) Neither you nor I used the word ""entitlement" or "entitled";
and I don't know or care to know the meaning of the word in this
particular situation;

(3) the previous posts established the context, that you decided
not to apply. But let us now apply the scriptures:
(a) To Simon was "...revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." Not all
men, but certain men, have been types and figures of the Christ; but
most mature elders, are only types and figures of the MINISTRY;
(b) women have NEVER been types/and or figures neither of the
Lord nor of the MINISTRY: a virtuous woman is a type and figure of
the CHURCH!

(4) True. But I was just using your logic . . . which I assume I was
"entitled" to use to point out that context is acceptable as long as it did
not conflict with nor contradict doctrine!

It's content and context, Beloved.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Let's start at the beginning

(1) I never called Philip's daughters "prophets", although I did
acknowledge that they prophesied;

I know. I thought you were the one who said they were not prophets. They were not numbered amongst the prophets.

(2) Neither you nor I used the word ""entitlement" or "entitled";
and I don't know or care to know the meaning of the word in this
particular situation;

I just use it because that is what it prophetess is. A title.

(3) the previous posts established the context, that you decided
not to apply. But let us now apply the scriptures:
(a) To Simon was "...revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." Not all
men, but certain men, have been types and figures of the Christ; but
most mature elders, are only types and figures of the MINISTRY;
(b) women have NEVER been types/and or figures neither of the
Lord nor of the MINISTRY: a virtuous woman is a type and figure of
the CHURCH!

What has that got to do with the issue at hand? No one was a type of Jesus there in that context. Simon simply would not die before he saw Jesus arrive. Do you see a type in that? I don't. Bot sure of your point.

(4) True. But I was just using your logic . . . which I assume I was
"entitled" to use to point out that context is acceptable as long as it did
not conflict with nor contradict doctrine!

It's content and context, Beloved.

My logic does not apply to Matt 28:19. Whatever logic applies to Matt 28 :19 would render all the bible useless. Because if we cannot trust a title given in the bible for someone because we do not use the words of Matt 28:19 in baptism, then what other words are useless in the rest of the Bible.

So, I see no logic in equating what i said with Matt 28:19 and your thoughts on baptism.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I know. I thought you were the one who said they were not prophets. They were not numbered amongst the prophets.

(2) Neither you nor I used the word ""entitlement" or "entitled";
and I don't know or care to know the meaning of the word in this
particular situation;

I just use it because that is what it prophetess is. A title.
What has that got to do with the issue at hand? No one was a type of Jesus there in that context. Simon simply would not die before he saw Jesus arrive. Do you see a type in that? I don't. Bot sure of your point.
My logic does not apply to Matt 28:19. Whatever logic applies to Matt 28 :19 would render all the bible useless. Because if we cannot trust a title given in the bible for someone because we do not use the words of Matt 28:19 in baptism, then what other words are useless in the rest of the Bible.

So, I see no logic in equating what i said with Matt 28:19 and your thoughts on baptism.

Of course you don't...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Of course you don't...

Can't answer? By the way, unkind twist of what I said..... "beloved".

Why do you make me your enemy worthy enough to mock and attack just because I disagreed with you?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Can't answer? By the way, unkind twist of what I said..... "beloved".
Why do you make me your enemy worthy enough to mock and attack just because I disagreed with you?

Did I disagree with you?

Do you feel mocked and attacked because you feel that I disagreed?
Brother, it's not about the title(s), it's about a weak brother or sister
in the faith being diverted from the "...simplicity of the gospel." It
can very well be done by a scripture that's not explained.

Cool down, Brother

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Did I disagree with you?

Do you feel mocked and attacked because you feel that I disagreed?

No. I feel mocked because you highlighted part of a sentence to make it look like I stated I do not see logic. I am not offended. Just wondered why you would mock me. It's not about people. Disagreements are fine. But personal attacks are not.

Here is what you did with emboldening my words:

Of course you don't...

If you did not mean to say , "I see no logic..." as if I do not know what logic is, then you should not have highlighted that part alone.

Brother, it's not about the title(s), it's about a weak brother or sister
in the faith being diverted from the "...simplicity of the gospel." It
can very well be done by a scripture that's not explained.

Cool down, Brother

I am cool about it all. Not upset. Just wondering why you mocked me just because we disagreed.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No. I feel mocked because you highlighted part of a sentence to make it look like I stated I do not see logic. I am not offended. Just wondered why you would mock me. It's not about people. Disagreements are fine. But personal attacks are not.
Here is what you did with emboldening my words:
If you did not mean to say , "I see no logic..." as if I do not know what logic is, then you should not have highlighted that part alone.
I am cool about it all. Not upset. Just wondering why you mocked me just because we disagreed.

Brother, Brother, Brother . . .

You stated, "I see no logic . . . ": and I agreed! You admittedly did not see
the lack of context in the content in LK 2:36, and MATT 28:19. I'll say it once
more: the content is there; the context is not. Or where is the context,
without an interpretation, of MATT 28:19?

As for Anna, "...a prophetess...": you mentioned her from another post: to
which I had to reply, giving that "...some who are weak in the faith..."
might have construed that to mean she could have been part of today's
MINISTRY (I deliberately wrote that in caps to differentiate the apostolic
Ministry to the Church of the Lord, and the ministry of the Church to the
world).

Beloved, I would never want to offend you, or anyone else on this forum:
and would certainly NEVER mock you. I hope I have explained my post a
little better, and I am truly sorry that you felt offended.

Jesus is Lord!