Prophets: Who was the last known prophet?

[Busheses]

Can anybody tell me if there is any way to determine who the last prophet was or either if there are any alive prophets recognized by any of the christian religions?

Also, is Muhammad considered a prophet by any of the christian religions?

[mossrose]

The last prophet would have been the apostle John, who was given the book of Revelation.

I do not know if Mohammed is considered a prophet by any "Christian" religions. What do you mean by "Christian religions"? That can be a very relative term.

To a believer in Jesus Christ, no, Mohammed is not a prophet. I am talking here about an evangelical, fundamentalist, Bible-believing follower of Christ. I am not talking about a Mormon, or a JW or any other "religion" that calls itself "Christian", and usually can be found touting "we believe the Bible AND our book".

[Mikeb]

The last Prophet? W. B. Yeats, T. S. Elliot, J. R. R. Tolken, Good question? Take your pick.. Just listen to them, they are everywhere. Hard to say, did prophets really stop their prophicies or did people just stop listening to them? Decide law was easier to deal with than a living, onboard God?

[Paul]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344420#post344420)
Busheses:

Can anybody tell me if there is any way to determine who the last prophet was or either if there are any alive prophets recognized by any of the christian religions?

Also, is Muhammad considered a prophet by any of the christian religions?

He is not considered a true or righteous prophet by the Catholic Church or in the Catholic tradition.

In the Catholic tradition the following distinctions are made wrt to prophets:

1. False prophets

Pretty self-explanatory. They are prophets who teach or prophecy falsehoods.

2. True prophets

These are prophets who prophecy truth. Some true prophets may be called "false prophets" in colloquial speech -- I explain this below.

3. Righteous prophets

Righteous prophets are prophets who prophecy truth and do so righteously. So not all true prophets are righteous prophets; but, all righteous prophets are true prophets. An example of true but unrighteous prophet (at least in this circumstance) would be the high priest who was partly responsible for Jesus' death (so he certainly wasn't righteous):

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.

This is from John. The italiced text clearly indicates that he prophesied truth -- so he was a "true prophet" (but again this is a techinical term ... colloquial we wouldn't speak this way) but certainly not a righteous prophet since as the scripture says he and others "made plans to put Him to death."

This is just one of many examples. The point is there are: false prophets who prophecy falsehood, true prophets who prophecy truth (animals are numbered among them btw!) and righteous prophets who are prophecy truth with righteousness.

There are some aspects of Islam which are true -- but Mohammeds denial of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc would all be false prophecies and make him a false prophet.

So that's the Catholic understanding. I would add my personal opinion to it, but you didn't ask for it :) As for other "christian" ecclesial communities -- I think all that hold to the Trinity or the deity of Christ would consider Mohammed to be false prophet. I don't know of any communites which describe themselves as "christian" and present Mohammed as a true or righteous prophet.

[hospitaller]

C.S. Lewis anyone?

People tend to see prophets as predictors of the future, whereas their true role was one of pointing out to contemporary society the error its ways and subsequent positive guidance. The last prophet I know of personally was my friend Barney (R.I.P.), a prophet of Revelation 11.18, his message that the time was coming "for destroying the destroyers of the earth.", on the back of his coat was written "No Ozone Layer - No World", and he knew no compromise on this.

[mossrose]

I'm afraid that isn't much of a prophecy, hospitaller, unless Barney made it during the early part of the last century, or earlier.

And, did he claim to get to get the message from God? If he did, then he is a false prophet, because, as it says in Revelation 22:18-19:


18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book

You neither add too nor take away from the revealed Word of God. Revelation is at the end of the NT, which is at the end of the revealed Word. Any "new"revelation, which prophecy would be, is unnacceptable.

If Barney didn't claim to get the message from God, then he is also a false prophet, and prophets were only allowed one mistake before they were stoned to death (that's how they were known to be false).

So, as far as I am concerned, I stand on my statement that the apostle John was the last prophet........unless you believe in the tribulation, which I do. Then the 2 witnesses that are talked about in Revelation as coming during the tribulation years are the VERY last 2 prophets. But John is the last one until that time.

No new revelation from God. No men or angels or so-called mediums giving us new messages from God. Zero, zilch, nada, nyet.

I think all meteorologists should be stoned, by the way. I don't know of one of them that has a 100% prediction rate.

I'm just kidding!!

[hospitaller]

From my original post:

"People tend to see prophets as predictors of the future, whereas their true role was one of pointing out to contemporary society the error its ways and subsequent positive guidance."

It is this regard I refer to him as a prophet, not in that he predicted anything.

[themuzicman]

Prophets to Israel would be Jesus.

Prophets in general are placed in the church for its edification, even today.

Remember, however, that a Christian/Jewish prophet isn't there to predict the future as much as they are to speak the truth of God that his hearers need to hear.

Michael

[mossrose]

Ok, I agree with your definitions of "prophet", Muz, and hospitaller, as far as they go. But, I will bet that Busheses isn't asking about that particular definition. I think he is asking about the predicting the future ones.

Bushes? Am I right?

And, Michael, the prophets in Scripture that were speaking the truth from God to get the people going in the right direction were, firstly, carefully giving ONLY God's message, not their own, which allows me to stand on my previous statements.

Secondly, they were a lot of times predicting the future to the people that they were contemporaries of. The dire warnings of consequence if the people didn't shape up, and the prophecies of the birth and life and death of Jesus were all there. And some of their predictions are still to come to pass.

So, I understand what you are both saying, and I agree. But, in context with what I think Busheses is asking, how do you thinK?

[themuzicman]

:nc: :offtopic: :hijacked: :nospam: :salute:

(Maybe in another thread where we can debate)

[geebob]

Calling authors like CS Lewis or T S Eliot a prophet is calling them ones in a derived sense. These men may have had a unique insight into the mind of God, but it is not the same mystical and unique connection that the prophets of israel had and I would assume that is what Busheses is talking about.

[nomad]

how long did agabus live? he was a prophet, in the same time as john... not as well known though. i am not sure if we can say for sure john was the last prophet...

[geebob]

quite honestly, I don't see why we couldn't say that we have prophets today. A former pastor's wife for at our church for instance had prophetic dreams.

Of course these prophets would still be slightly different though as they would not speak to the whole church as some of the prophets of scripture did.

[themuzicman]

Many of the OT prophets didn't even speak to the whole of Israel, but to the northern kingdom or southern kingdom.

Either way, it seems to me that a prophet speaks for God into whatever situation God wishes them to.

Michael

[Busheses]

Today @ 10:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346013#post346013)
mossrose:

Ok, I agree with your definitions of "prophet", Muz, and hospitaller, as far as they go. But, I will bet that Busheses isn't asking about that particular definition. I think he is asking about the predicting the future ones.

Bushes? Am I right?

And, Michael, the prophets in Scripture that were speaking the truth from God to get the people going in the right direction were, firstly, carefully giving ONLY God's message, not their own, which allows me to stand on my previous statements.

Secondly, they were a lot of times predicting the future to the people that they were contemporaries of. The dire warnings of consequence if the people didn't shape up, and the prophecies of the birth and life and death of Jesus were all there. And some of their predictions are still to come to pass.

So, I understand what you are both saying, and I agree. But, in context with what I think Busheses is asking, how do you thinK?

No, I actually am talking about those who deliver the word of God. This would of course include talking about the past, present and future but most definitely, it would be a message from God rather than just telling us what they "see" in the future.

The reason I asked the original question is because it peaked my interested that I have no idea what the "requirements" (for lack of a better word) are in order to be considered a prophet (not that I am thinking about becoming one. That would be blasphemy), but also because it would be interesting to see how the church would be able to determine when the messiah returns. How are we going to be able to tell the false prophets from the real one?

[mossrose]

Then I humbly apologize for not only misunderstanding, but for hijacking, going off topic, and otherwise debating where I should not be debating.

:slinkoff: :stupid2:

[themuzicman]

The OT standard of whether one was a prophet or not was whether what they said came true. :shocked:

Michael

[Busheses]

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346135#post346135)
mossrose:

Then I humbly apologize for not only misunderstanding, but for hijacking, going off topic, and otherwise debating where I should not be debating.

:slinkoff: :stupid2:

LOL. Not at all. Your comment allowed me and everybody else to narrow the question to the point where it needed to be. Therefore you are being extremely helpful.

[mossrose]

:awww: Thanks Busheses.......I do tend to get carried away sometimes. That's why I have to moderate myself in the Family Psyche Ward (formerly known as "Home Ec"). I am always thinking "debate this point, it needs it", and then I get into trouble.

And thanks, Michael, for so gently getting me back on track......

[HerodionRomulus]

IMHO
A prohet must not conflict with accepted doctrine, in the OT, if it led people away from YHWH to other gods, then it was a false prophet or prophecy.

If it is a prediction of future events, then it must come true. That means it must happen within the lifetime of the audience.
Agabus, as previously mentioned predicted a widespread famine. This happened in a few years as Luke notes, under the rule of Claudius.
If it is predicting something centuries away, then how can it be proven?

As to modern prophets, IMHO, I repeat IMHO, Pope John XXIII was an authentic prophet. In his XMas sermon of '59 he called for the renewal of the church, to let the wind blow in and revitalize. In a few short years, the Charismatic movement was in full swing, first in the RCC, then in other denominations.

btw I am not a RCC.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Hmm, Deuteronomy 13:1-6 discusses the miracle-working false prophet.


All this word which I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. If there arise in your midst a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto you, saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them'; you shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is putting you to proof, to know whether you do love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. After the Lord your God shall you walk, and Him shall you fear, and His commandments shall you keep, and unto His voice shall you hearken, and Him shall you serve, and unto Him shall you cleave. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he has spoken perversion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to draw you aside out of the way which the Lord your God commanded you to walk in. So shall you put away the evil from your midst."

Thus, we see that not every miracle is necessarily from God. (Pharoah's magicians could duplicate some of the plagues yet that hardly made them either divine or agents of God.) Our Sages comment on the juxtaposition of 13:1 ("All this word which I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it") to the rest of the above-cited passage; at first glance, 13:1 would not appear to be relevant to the rest of the passage. But it is, it is very relevant. The miracle-working false prophet will use the miracles that he/she performs to support his/her claims to either add to, or subtract from, the Torah. But we are bidden to ignore him/her because "the Lord your God is putting you to proof..."

Deuteronomy 18:15-22 also discusses prophecy and prophets and how to tell a true prophet from a false one. Our Sages comment on 18:22 in which God bids us not to fear the false prophet. At first glance, this would seem redundant, since one need never fear falsehood. But our Sages teach us that God is telling us that even though a false prophet may be very charismatic and may have many enthusiastic-to-fanatical followers, we still must not be afraid of him/her. We cling to the Torah of Moses our Teacher and do not need to fear such a one.

(In Judaism, miracles are no proof of faith. A faith that relies on miracles as "proof" is a weak reed.)

We believe that prophecy ceased with Malachi & will be resumed when the Messiah comes (very soon!).

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[HerodionRomulus]

Yesterday @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349883#post349883)
stillsmallvoice:
We believe that prophecy ceased with Malachi & will be resumed when the Messiah comes (very soon!).

Be well!

ssv :hi:

What about John the Baptist. You don't consider him a valid prophet?

May G'Kwon bless you in Valen's name. "Yes" :wink: :lol:

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

HerodionRomulus asked:


What about John the Baptist. You don't consider him a valid prophet?

No offense (God forbid!) but certainly not!


...G'Kwon...Valen

Prophets? Now yer talkin'!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I should add a word about the bat kol.

I borrow the following from The Encyclopedia Judaica.

A bat kol [literally "daughter of a voice"] is a heavenly voice that reveals God’s will, choice or judgement to man.

Our Sages tell us that the bat kol was heard in the Biblical period; the Talmud says that the bat kol – inter alia – declared Tamar’s innocence, that Samuel had not abused his position for personal gain & that King Solomon’s judgement with the two hookers & their babies was correct. (The foregoing is a representative, not exhaustive, list.)

While we believe that active prophecy ceased with Malachi, our Sages say that after that, the bat kol remained the sole means of direct communication between God and man, until it too stopped (in the 4th-5th centuries CE). (We believe that both active prophecy and the bat kol will be reestablished when the Messiah comes; may this be very soon!)

Deuteronomy 30:12-14 tells us that the Torah, “is not in Heaven..." and that it, "is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it." There is a very famous account in the Talmud that the Sages of the Sanhedrin (sometime after the destruction of the Temple in CE 70 by the Romans) were debating a particularly fine point of Jewish law in which Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer were arguing different positions. The Sanhedrin had to vote & thus establish the normative Jewish law on this particular point. A bat kol declared that Rabbi Eliezer was right. However, Rabbi Joshua cited the above quote from Deuteronomy 30:12-14 to argue that the bat kol had no authority to decide such an issue of Jewish law and that authority had been given to the Sages to decide (see Deuteronomy 17:8-11). The vote went in favor of Rabbi Joshua’s view.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Paul]

stillsmallvoice,

do you agree that Elijah will literally return? (maybe we could discuss this in comparative religions or judaism)

[Solly]

Busheses, this thread is getting debatey, do you mind if I move it, or I'll have to start slapping folks

[spl_cadet]

Last prophet: Padre Pio as far as I know.

[Dave G]

I remember reading somewhere that one of the tests the early church had for a prophet (since God's spirit was poured out so more people were given the role of prophets) was if the person lived for more than 3 days on the community without working with their hands. I assume from this there were itinerant "prophets" going from church-group to church-group. It is also telling that the visible television prophets make their living off of donations and speak generalities that are impossible to prove or disprove.
That said, I try to remain conservative about prophecy, since its function seems (to me, I haven't experienced any real prophets) to be the edification of local churches mainly.

[Busheses]

Today @ 10:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351365#post351365)
Solly:



Either way works fine for me. Of course, if you move it, I would really appreciated to me informed as to where it will be moved to to follow up.

[Conductor42]

According to the Tanakh, Malachi was the last prophet.

[suffer for joy]

12-18-2003 @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=346128#post346128)
Busheses:
No, I actually am talking about those who deliver the word of God. This would of course include talking about the past, present and future but most definitely, it would be a message from God rather than just telling us what they "see" in the future.

If that is your definition, there is a prophet in my church. He only tells people what God tells him, he does not know everything. However I have seen him on dozens of occasions giving people a prophetic word from God for the edification of the church. Or giving them a word of 'knowledge' where they reveal something about the person's lives that is only known by the person and God. Indepth, detailed words at that.

I also know of prophets at other churches in my area but most of them are not officially recognized by their pastor and supported in their gifts because of the pastors belief's regarding them.

sfj

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Paul asked:


do you agree that Elijah will literally return? (maybe we could discuss this in comparative religions or judaism)

Our very great medieval Sage, Maimonedes (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Maimonides.html) writes:


"In the future, the King Messiah will stand up and restore the Davidic monarchy...build the Temple, gather the dispersed of Israel, and restore all the laws as they were in former times: offerings, sabbatical and jubilee years as they are commanded in the Torah. Anyone who does not believe in him or who does not await his coming is a heretic, not only against the other prophets, but against the Torah and Moses Our Teacher...Do not entertain the notion that King Messiah will have to do signs and wonders, make new things in the world or raise the dead...This is not so...If a king arises from the House of David, learned in the Torah and engaged in [its] precepts like David his father, both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, enjoins all Israel to follow it and hold fast to it, and fights God's wars, he may be presumed to be the Messiah. If he succeeds in building the Temple on its place and gathering the dispersed of Israel, he is certainly the Messiah, and he will repair the entire world so that it worships God together...If he does not succeed, or is killed, then know that he is not the one promised in the Torah...Do not entertain the notion that in the days of the Messiah, anything will be canceled from its way in the world or there will be new works of creation, but the world will continue as it always has...Our Sages said that the only difference between the current world and the days of the Messiah will be service to the kingship of Heaven...There are those among our Sages who say that Elijah will herald the coming of the Messiah...One must not [try to] calculate when this will take place; our Sages say: 'Blast the bones of those who so calculate;' they should wait and believe."

If Maimonedes says it, then I have to believe it!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Conductor42]

12-23-2003 @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=352704#post352704)
stillsmallvoice:

If Maimonedes says it, then I have to believe it!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

I don't want to start a debate on this subject.... but why do you have to believe it?

[kofh2u]

12-18-2003 @ 02:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344751#post344751)
Mikeb:

The last Prophet? W. B. Yeats, T. S. Elliot, J. R. R. Tolken, Good question? Take your pick.. Just listen to them, they are everywhere. Hard to say, did prophets really stop their prophicies or did people just stop listening to them? Decide law was easier to deal with than a living, onboard God?


Hahahhahahha....

Good point!

However, the last prophet, before the thousand year reign,... the only place where we are told not to expect any prophets.... that men will deny that they are a prophet... that is a good point of discussion.

That many will come in the name of Jesus before the end, seems confirmed in your view, too.

Muhammad did not come in the name of Christ, however.

Though many will argue this next point, the 1000 years, during the Dark Ages, were a time when all members of Western Civilization worshipped Christ.

Only the name Jesus ruled in the kingdom of the religion during those 1000 years. The fires of the burning stake answered back any claims of a prophet , and it well behoved such men, as you observe, men, prophets ALWAYS present in our society, disappeared for all those years. Right?

[bar Jonah]

Considering that Mohammed claimed 1) Jesus is not the messiah and 2) Jesus was never crucified, it is therefore impossible for a real Christian to consider Mohammed a prophet.

That said, I very much agree with Mossrose -- John the Revelator was the last prophet until the End, at which time there will be the two witnesses (who I believe shall be Enoch and Elijah, but I agree their identity is very debatable).

Prophets are only written about in relation to Israel, not with the Body of Christ apart from Israel. Prophecy relates to God's chosen nation. The Mystery, on the other hand, concerns the Body of Christ. This is a clear delineation in scripture -- prophecy for one, the Mystery for the other.

Prophets serve no purpose today. What will they prophecy? We have everything we need to know, in the Bible, including what is yet to come. Between the setting aside of Israel almost 2,000 years ago... and the future Tribulation (or whatever future eschatological events remain)... there is simply the time of the Gentiles. When the fullness of the Gentiles is complete, the end will come. That's it. What more do we need to know? No prophet can bring a new gospel. Paul made that clear in Galatians 1:6-9. Not even an angel, or Paul himself.

Do some people today fulfill a few of the roles that prophets did? Of course! Preachers and evangelists preach the word of God, and that is one part of what a prophet did back then. But in the fullest sense... no. There are no true prophets today. Israel is set aside until the End, at which time she will be grafted in again, as Paul explains in Romans.

[almost]

I attempt to answer only the first part of the questioner's first question.

May God's peace and blessings be upon all of the prophets, and their loved ones. May God show them his mercy in abundance on the last day, and may he elevate them to the highest ranks. Glory be to God that he sent light to all the worlds through his chosen prophets and may He make us all worthy of His guidance and His mercy. May He show us His mercy and may He make us a mercy to one and other. He is above all of that which He has created and His mercy is without bounds. From God we come and to God we return.

My advice to the questioner is to pray to the Guide of all mankind for guidance, and to read all the Books which are commonly claimed to be Books from God, and to pray to the Guide of all mankind for guidance to the truth, for He alone is the Truth and He alone is the source of truth and the Shower of the Way, the Opener, and the Remover of difficulties and Giver of Decisions. Pray with a sincere heart and journey endlessly for knowledge as much as He allows you; if you allow yourself to be guided by Him alone He will surely lead you to truth alone.

I believe there is a translation in English [by Laura Wragg? Cambridge press maybe] of the Gospel of Barnabus, the original text of which I understand is archived in the vatican. That may be of interest to the questioner.

May He guide us all to that which pleases Him. May He make our hearts merciful to one and other.

[bar Jonah]

The apocryphal "Gospel of Barnabas? :lol:

I thought you said to read all the books that are commonly claimed to be books of God. :hrm:

[kofh2u]

Yesterday @ 06:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354465#post354465)
RightIdea:

Considering that Mohammed claimed 1) Jesus is not the messiah and 2) Jesus was never crucified, it is therefore impossible for a real Christian to consider Mohammed a prophet.

That said, I very much agree with Mossrose -- John the Revelator was the last prophet until the End, at which time there will be the two witnesses (who I believe shall be Enoch and Elijah, but I agree their identity is very debatable).

Prophets are only written about in relation to Israel, not with the Body of Christ apart from Israel. Prophecy relates to God's chosen nation. The Mystery, on the other hand, concerns the Body of Christ. This is a clear delineation in scripture -- prophecy for one, the Mystery for the other.

Prophets serve no purpose today. What will they prophecy? We have everything we need to know, in the Bible, including what is yet to come. Between the setting aside of Israel almost 2,000 years ago... and the future Tribulation (or whatever future eschatological events remain)... there is simply the time of the Gentiles. When the fullness of the Gentiles is complete, the end will come. That's it. What more do we need to know? No prophet can bring a new gospel. Paul made that clear in Galatians 1:6-9. Not even an angel, or Paul himself.

Do some people today fulfill a few of the roles that prophets did? Of course! Preachers and evangelists preach the word of God, and that is one part of what a prophet did back then. But in the fullest sense... no. There are no true prophets today. Israel is set aside until the End, at which time she will be grafted in again, as Paul explains in Romans.


Most of what you state above seems wise to me. Yet, you make such a mgood argument bthat no more prophets seem sensible as an instrument of God, but you finish with then reference bto the two predicted and even guess at who they might be. How do you resolve your apparent self contradictipn?

[kofh2u]

Yesterday @ 06:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354465#post354465)
RightIdea:

Considering that Mohammed claimed 1) Jesus is not the messiah and 2) Jesus was never crucified, it is therefore impossible for a real Christian to consider Mohammed a prophet.

That said, I very much agree with Mossrose -- John the Revelator was the last prophet until the End, at which time there will be the two witnesses (who I believe shall be Enoch and Elijah, but I agree their identity is very debatable).

Prophets are only written about in relation to Israel, not with the Body of Christ apart from Israel. Prophecy relates to God's chosen nation. The Mystery, on the other hand, concerns the Body of Christ. This is a clear delineation in scripture -- prophecy for one, the Mystery for the other.

Prophets serve no purpose today. What will they prophecy? We have everything we need to know, in the Bible, including what is yet to come. Between the setting aside of Israel almost 2,000 years ago... and the future Tribulation (or whatever future eschatological events remain)... there is simply the time of the Gentiles. When the fullness of the Gentiles is complete, the end will come. That's it. What more do we need to know? No prophet can bring a new gospel. Paul made that clear in Galatians 1:6-9. Not even an angel, or Paul himself.

Do some people today fulfill a few of the roles that prophets did? Of course! Preachers and evangelists preach the word of God, and that is one part of what a prophet did back then. But in the fullest sense... no. There are no true prophets today. Israel is set aside until the End, at which time she will be grafted in again, as Paul explains in Romans.


Most of what you state above seems wise to me. Yet, you make such a good argument that no more prophets seem sensible as an instrument of God, but you finish with the reference to the two predicted and even guess at who they might be. How do you resolve your apparent self contradictipn?

[phoenix]

on the definition of the word prophet...

does one have to be able to prohecize the future, to see the future? prophets in the old testament prophecized jesus, for example.

or can a prophet be anyone whose writings, actions, thoughts, beingness, are influenced by God? if not a prophet, what's the word for such a person? an extreme example would be enoch who was "with God" for hundreds of years but, as far as i know, did not himself prophecize anything (unless the book of enoch was written by enoch). it is said that through meditation and prayer, one can attain this communion state with God and let God's will influence your life.

[bar Jonah]

kofh2u:
Most of what you state above seems wise to me. Yet, you make such a mgood argument bthat no more prophets seem sensible as an instrument of God, but you finish with then reference bto the two predicted and even guess at who they might be. How do you resolve your apparent self contradictipn?
Good question with a good answer.

As I said, prophets are used only in relation (directly or indirectly) to Israel. God is not working with Israel right now.

But when the Tribulation comes, this is when God will remove us, the Body of Christ... and return to working with Israel again. Which is why the two witnesses appear only then.

[kofh2u]

Today @ 05:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355736#post355736)
RightIdea:


Good question with a good answer.

As I said, prophets are used only in relation (directly or indirectly) to Israel. God is not working with Israel right now.

But when the Tribulation comes, this is when God will remove us, the Body of Christ... and return to working with Israel again. Which is why the two witnesses appear only then.


Another wise observation!

Though I differ with part of what you said, that you delineate the difference between what scripture actually says, the two "witnesses," as opposed to two "prophets" is an important understanding to be considered.


THE ONE THOUSAND YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST

Recognizing that not everyone would agree, I first see that the only...ONLY... ever to date... 1000 year period of unfettered "rule" or sway over the people of our Weatern Culture was during those 1000 years of the Dark Ages... to this moment,... this is the ONLY clear correspondence between the words of Revelation and history.

Now, recognizing that the Fig Tree is in bloom, Israel having been officially recognized by the whole world through the UN grant of soverneigyin 1948,... I assume all will agree that we ARE in the end times.

Consequentally, the possiblitiy of ANOTHER 1000 year period is null.

The only period of 1000 years, a time when we could argue that Christ reigned, and no other name for the Gods of the Pagans was permitted,... a 1000 year reign, as it were,...
...this makes the Pope Appollyon or Abaddon. Rev 9:11

With this understanding, then, we can identify the End of the Age and the emergence from the bottomless pit of the Beast, as the beginning of The Renaissance.

Therein, the commerce of Mammon, along with the False Prophet of technology, emerged and is with us to this day.

From this one basic postulate concerning the 1000 years, which one might accept or deny, what follows is a "Theory" of Revelation based upon that ONE supposition,... the 1000 years.

Everything else then must fit historically perfectly in order to present a proof" or Revelation.

[Mikeb]

Right Idea,

As you said,

"Prophets serve no purpose today. What will they prophecy? We have everything we need to know, in the Bible, including what is yet to come. Between the setting aside of Israel almost 2,000 years ago... and the future Tribulation (or whatever future eschatological events remain)... there is simply the time of the Gentiles. When the fullness of the Gentiles is complete, the end will come. That's it. What more do we need to know? No prophet can bring a new gospel. Paul made that clear in Galatians 1:6-9. Not even an angel, or Paul himself."

I find this attitude, common among Christians, somewhat comical and very, very sad. We know everything, have all the info.. what else can be revealed.

I'm thinking this is pretty much the same attitude the Jewish religion displayed during the first century, you know, the attitude that allowed them to miss the first comming. I think the current attitude of Christians likely has or will cause them to miss the second comming. Sure "every eye will see", but who knows what they will call it. If it doesn't meet their little predefined, preconcieved little forms, I'm sure they'll call it evil, or false, or some such..

[bar Jonah]

Except that you are confusing the 7-year Tribulation (the final week of Daniel's prophecy of weeks) with the concept of a millenial reign of Christ on Earth. Not to mention that attributing such a period of ignorance, institutionalized murder and rape, and general religious apostasy to the reign of Christ leaves me absolutely incredulous. How can you possibly think that Christ's earthly reign would resemble that even in the slightest?

[almost]

Glory be to God!

May He guide us all , may He make us all worthy of His mercy, and may he make us a mercy, a help, and a support to one and other. May He make our hearts tolerant and compassionate.

The questioner may find it of interest to go to the link below.

Also, I believe there is a English translation available by Laura Wragg of the Gospel of Barnabus [Cambridge press possibly]; I understand this is a translation of the original text which is preserved in the vatican library. I understand authenticity is disputed but I find it interesting none the less to note that the name of Muhammed is clearly mentioned in a script, the AGE of which is proven to be hundreds of years before he came to the earth.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=44018&dgn=4

[almost]

Every messenger of God was also a prophet of God , may God give them peace, but not every prophet of God was a messenger of God.

Definition of a prophet would be someone blessed by God with knowledge of the past and the future. We should seek refuge with God from being mislead by those who may claim to be prophets and who are false.

We can debate till God decress the end of time about how to determine who was the last prophet and how to distinguish true from false, but it seems we are pretty much all agreed that we are in the last days and God alone knows how much time there is for us. Perhaps it's time for us to remember that God is as close to each of us as He is to a saint, and as He is to a mustard seed. We are not with Him. He is with us. We cannot escape Him, we cannot run from Him, and we cannot find refuge anywhere but with Him. He will protect us from that which is false and save us from error. Believe in Him and pray to Him - He is the Power and the Glory, the Truth, and the Shower of the Way to those who put their trust in Him. We should pray and make this earth a place of worship. There is only one God, Glory be to Him. May He save us all from that which is false and may He guide our hearts and our souls to certainty of faith.

[kofh2u]

Yesterday @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355937#post355937)
RightIdea:

Except that you are confusing the 7-year Tribulation (the final week of Daniel's prophecy of weeks) with the concept of a millenial reign of Christ on Earth. Not to mention that attributing such a period of ignorance, institutionalized murder and rape, and general religious apostasy to the reign of Christ leaves me absolutely incredulous. How can you possibly think that Christ's earthly reign would resemble that even in the slightest?



Rightidea...

I must ASSUME that the post above was response to my previous one?


In regard to a historical perspective, the millennium seems clearly analogous with the one thousand year reign Christ under a universal christianization of Western Culture during that oeriod called the DARK AGES.

I dispute your inference that this was "a period of ignorance, institutionalized murder and rape."

REMEMBER: The Dark Ages are DARK because we know little to nothing about what went on, except that the whole "christian" community existed null and void of paganism and the previous hedonism and sexual license found in the worship of other nmes in Heaven found listed in the myths of our cultures.

I agree that at the end of this DARK AGE, there WAS a satanic return to the Rapes and crimes" to which you refer. That period is called the Late Middle Age."


The Renaissance is the historical title of that moment when the 1000 years ended, and the Beast of commericalism and utility of Mammonism, money and trade, resurfaced. The False Prophet of technological advancements, and the approach of that apostasy of Nihilism and power of the Will emerged in what historians call the Age of Enlightenment . All this emphasizes my hypothesis.

[HRG_new]

I don't know who was the last prophet, but I can name one successful prophet of the 20th century. His name was Brian Josephson.

He made an unambigous and quantitative prediction about the behavior of junctions between superconductors (for which he got the Nobel Prize), before anyone had thought to investigate this field experimentally.

The fulfillment of his prophecy can be objectively tested (by everyone, if he spends some money on cryogenics). It was fulfilled quantitatively.

This sets quite a standard for prophecies, doesn't it ?

(BTW, there was an earlier prophecy which predicted the gyromagnetic moment of the electron. It was quantitatively fulfilled up to the experimental accuracy - 14 decimals )

Regards,
HRG.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I said:


If Maimonedes says it, then I have to believe it!

Yoshiah_ap asked:


I don't want to start a debate on this subject.... but why do you have to believe it?

OK, you got me. I was exaggerating, but only a little. Maimonedes was a very, very wise & learned man, far more wise & learned than I. Should I not defer to his teachings in matters that he understands & has delved into far better/more than I?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Sakarja]

Almost wrote:

Also, I believe there is a English translation available by Laura Wragg of the Gospel of Barnabus [Cambridge press possibly]; I understand this is a translation of the original text which is preserved in the vatican library. I understand authenticity is disputed but I find it interesting none the less to note that the name of Muhammed is clearly mentioned in a script, the AGE of which is proven to be hundreds of years before he came to the earth.

Dear almost,

No. Actually it can be proven that the gospel of Barnabas is a forgery from the medieval times, and many moslems also agree. (that is, it was written well after Muhammed). It reflects many medieval ideas. For example the depiction that the gospel gives of nine heavens seems to be borrowed from the work of the medieval poet Dante, who wrote about nine heavens.
Another such idea is the jubilee year issue. The jubilee year was a celebration of the Jews that was to be celebrated every 50 years. And that's how faithful Jews always did. But somewhere in the 14th century a pope declared that Christians should celebrate it every 100th year. However the next pope changed it back to every 50 years. The Gospel of Barnabas says that the jubilee year "now comes" every 100th year, so its from the period of that one pope.

There are also no ancient copies or quotes from the document. I understand that the earliest copies date from the 15th century. There's zero evidence for an earlier date. You can find a lot more info about it from http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm

Rightidea wrote:

Considering that Mohammed claimed 1) Jesus is not the messiah and 2) Jesus was never crucified, it is therefore impossible for a real Christian to consider Mohammed a prophet.
Good post RightIdea but you made a slit at point 1. Actually the Quran does call Jesus the Messiah, it just doesn't seem to understand what the name implies. However it does say that Jesus is not the Son of God. (the aforementioned Gospel of Barnabas calls Jesus Christ but then has him deny that he is the Messiah, and calls Muhammed the Messiah. Weird huh? :lol: )

[Busheses]

I am sure most of posters here will agree with me that it is almost imposible to compare the time frame that the bible provides with earthly history. I believe one of the reasons God did not provide more information for us regarding the future was because He knew our hearts and He knew we would be trying to "read" the future which in turn would distract us from what the real purpose was, that being worshipping Him and His name.

Thanks for all your responses.

[bar Jonah]

Busheses:

I am sure most of posters here will agree with me that it is almost imposible to compare the time frame that the bible provides with earthly history.
Yes, everyone knows that the majority vote "decides" what is fact and what is fiction.

Fallacy of majority. :ahem:

[HerodionRomulus]

Today @ 01:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358294#post358294)
RightIdea:


Yes, everyone knows that the majority vote "decides" what is fact and what is fiction.

Fallacy of majority. :ahem:


That's right. Just because most Christian churches teach hatred of homosexuals and most Americans oppose equal rights for gays doesn't make it right.

:rant:

[bar Jonah]

HerodionRomulus:
That's right. Just because most Christian churches teach hatred of homosexuals and most Americans oppose equal rights for gays doesn't make it right.

:rant:
Exactly. :thumb:

The fact that God clearly says so in His infallible word is what teaches us moral absolutes (and not hatred of homosexuals or even opposing equal rights, btw). But certainly not majority opinion.

As with all things absolute -- Opinion is irrelevant.

[spl_cadet]

HerodionRomulus:

That's right. Just because most Christian churches teach hatred of homosexuals and most Americans oppose equal rights for gays doesn't make it right.

:rant:

Since when is the condemnation of an act hatred of a group that performs it?

[bar Jonah]

It's not. :ahem:

On the contrary, that is an act of love.

[HerodionRomulus]

Love is not striving to mistreat people, love is not seeking to keep as lesser-rights citizens those who do not conform to your religious opinion.

One reason the colonies in the US were founded was to escape relgious conformity, yet now the opinion of some is mandated upon others.

We don't need more hatred and Inquisitions. Have you ever bothered to really comprehend I Cor 13? or do you just do whatever some clown in a gown and pointy hat orders you to do?

[Jaltus]

Careful, people, this is close to getting off topic and beyond the bounds of this forum.

[centuri0n]

12-17-2003 @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344420#post344420)
Busheses:

Can anybody tell me if there is any way to determine who the last prophet was or either if there are any alive prophets recognized by any of the christian religions?

There are plenty of people alive today who call themselves "christians" and "prophets". I suggest that they be held up to the standard of determining false prophets in the OT to see if their claims hold any water.

The last Prophet in Christianity was either Micah or John the Baptist. Technically, John might have been the last human High Priest.


Also, is Muhammad considered a prophet by any of the christian religions?

Muhammed was not a Christian. I don't think any "Christian" religions recognize him as a prophet.