False Prophets

Great post, Victor, Frubals on your head!

Mich pretty much said it in a nutshell...You WILL know them by their fruits. This to me means they will follow Biblical teachings to the letter and they will glorify God if they are in fact a true prophet. If they claim anything that is NOT in Biblical teachings is going to prove itself to be from a false prophet. In this they will come up against other Christians in a critical manner...Christians will know and accept a true prophet because they will recognize them in some sense....false prophets will come up against a lot of controversy and their followers will always find themselves trying to explain their ways related to this prophet's teachings because the teachings will go against scripture in one way or another.


False prophets will try to come close to scripture as well to decieve as many as possible so it IS important to KNOW the Bible in it's truest form and not some form that has been twisted well-meaningly. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

Deut 13:1 said:

Such as...?

Click to expand...

Well, I can think of two examples offhand.

Jonah was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh, and to announce that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4). This was not a "conditional" prophesy. It wasn't a case of "unless they repent." It was just a straightforward statement of what was to happen. However, when the people repented, God chose to spare them. Jonah's reaction to God's changing His mind was to be "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1), presumably because it made him look bad in people's eyes. I don't think this means he was a false prophet. The book of Jonah is still part of God's word.

In Ezekiel, we find yet another example. In chapters 26 through 28, we read that Tyre was to be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Tyre's wealth would go to Babylon (Ezek. 26:12). While Nebuchadnezzar's army did seize Tyre, the seige was not as severe as had been prophesied, since it resulted in a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder. Tyre was eventually destroyed, but not during the Babylonian siege. The Babylonian army definitely did not get the riches of Tyre as had been prophesied.

Victor said:

From American Catholic:

<-----snip------->
The primary role of a biblical prophet was quite simple: to serve as a mouthpiece for God. To these frequently beleaguered persons fell the unenviable task of being Israel’s conscience, of reminding the straying Israelites of their covenant obligations, of recalling for a forgetful people the real implications of being God’s chosen people.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Study/SFS/0-86716-392-5_prophets.asp

Click to expand...

I agree, Victor. The primary role of a biblical prophet was to serve as a mouthpiece for God. In Matthew 23:34, Jesus said, "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city..." He is obviously speaking of something that is to take place in the future, since He is telling the people that they will kill the prophets He sends. When do you believe the role of a prophet changed to be something other than a mouthpiece for God?

Comments from anyone would be most welcome, of course. Strangely, the peanut gallery is oddly silent -- except in their role as cheer leaders. Oh well, one must do what one does best.

jeffrey said:

Throughout the bible, it talks about 'false prophets' and teachers. Are they among us today? What makes a false prophet? If their predictions turn out wrong, does that make them false?

Click to expand...

If they say something that is not in accord with the written word then I would argue that they are outside the bounds of what God would consider a true prophet of God. Personally I don't think we have modern prophets nor do we need any in light of the fact that we have the whole word of God--the Bible

TheGreaterGame said:

If they say something that is not in accord with the written word then I would argue that they are outside the bounds of what God would consider a true prophet of God. Personally I don't think we have modern prophets nor do we need any in light of the fact that we have the whole word of God--the Bible

Click to expand...

Well, GG, maybe you'll be so kind as to address the question I asked in my last post. (Unless you don't know the answer either.)

Katzpur said:

Well, GG, maybe you'll be so kind as to address the question I asked in my last post. (Unless you don't know the answer either.)

Click to expand...

Which one?

TheGreaterGame said:

Which one?

Click to expand...

This one:

The primary role of a biblical prophet was to serve as a mouthpiece for God. In Matthew 23:34, Jesus said, "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city..." He is obviously speaking of something that is to take place in the future, since He is telling the people that they will kill the prophets He sends. When do you believe the role of a prophet changed to be something other than a mouthpiece for God?

If we no longer need prophets, why did Jesus say He intended to send prophets? Or maybe He wasn't aware that, with the Bible, you'd have "the whole word of God."

Katzpur said:

When do you believe the role of a prophet changed to be something other than a mouthpiece for God?

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure why you are asking me this after you just agreed with me?
But as far as your understanding of Matthew 23:34, I think it's a direct correlation to the account in Luke 11:49-51. Which further explains that it's talking about a prophecy in the OT and was most likely talking about the apostles.

~Victor

You know, Victor, I never thought of it in that way, but that makes a whole lot of sense! Frubals to you here shortly.

Katzpur said:

If we no longer need prophets, why did Jesus say He intended to send prophets? Or maybe He wasn't aware that, with the Bible, you'd have "the whole word of God."

Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense.

I can't think of anywhere where Jesus said he would only send prophets for a set length of time and then send no more.
And I agree with your oblique reference to the fact that the Jesus never thought the Bible would become the whole word of God.
If he were to send other Prophets, as he said he would, this could not be the case.

As to the thought, mentioned by Standing-on-on-foot,

As I recall, there are two criteria in the OT: that the prophet does make accurate prophecies and that he's consistent with the Torah and G-d's rules and so on

Click to expand...

I do not believe a prophecy has to be consistent with any thing, except Gods will.
There would be little point in simply expanding on previous messages.
I think the whole point of Messages from God to be either:
Your are straying and get back on the path.
Or to cover new concepts that were not appropriate or even meaningful to previous Generations.

The Idea of a prophet being the predictor of the future I find unbelievable.
For a prophet to be the means of God Communicating with us, I find totally reasonable.

Terry_______________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

Victor said:

I'm not really sure why you are asking me this after you just agreed with me?

Click to expand...

I said I agreed with you that a prophet is God's mouthpiece.

But as far as your understanding of Matthew 23:34, I think it's a direct correlation to the account in Luke 11:49-51. Which further explains that it's talking about a prophecy in the OT and was most likely talking about the apostles.

Click to expand...

How could Jesus have possibly have been talking about Old Testament prophets when He said, "You will kill the prophets I send"?

You still haven't answered my question: If, in Old Testament times, the word "prophet" referred to someone called by God to act as His mouthpiece, when did the meaning of the word change? When Jesus said that the prophets He would send would be killed, was He using the word "prophet" to mean something different that it had meant for the previous 4000 years? If so, where does He explain the new meaning of the word?

fromthe heart said:

Mich pretty much said it in a nutshell...You WILL know them by their fruits.

Click to expand...

I agree.

This to me means they will follow Biblical teachings to the letter and they will glorify God if they are in fact a true prophet.

Click to expand...

Did the Biblical prophets "follow Biblical teachings to the letter"? I think not, since they didn't have "the Bible" to fall back on. The Biblical prophets revealed God's will to us and consequently, we have the Bible. When Noah spoke, did he follow Moses' words "to the letter"? Of course not. Moses hadn't even been born yet. When Moses spoke, did he follow Noah's words "to the letter"? No, he didn't. He didn't contradict Noah, but spoke as God revealed His word to him, adding to the teachings of times past.

If they claim anything that is NOT in Biblical teachings is going to prove itself to be from a false prophet.

Click to expand...

Why? Did Jesus call prophets without intending to say anything to them? When John the Beloved received the book of Revelation, the Bible didn't even exist. The "scriptures" at that time were exclusively the Old Testament writings. Does that mean John was a false prophet?

false prophets will come up against a lot of controversy and their followers will always find themselves trying to explain their ways related to this prophet's teachings because the teachings will go against scripture in one way or another.

Click to expand...

In addition to being the Savior and Redeemer of the world, Jesus is also referred to in the scriptures as being a "prophet." If He didn't stir up controversy, who did? His teachings most definitely went against what were, at that time, "the scriptures." By your reasoning, He could be called the greatest "false prophet" to have ever lived. Controversy has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is true or not.

False prophets will try to come close to scripture as well to decieve as many as possible so it IS important to KNOW the Bible in it's truest form and not some form that has been twisted well-meaningly. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

Click to expand...

And what is it's truest form?

Hello Everyone,

To give some thought on some of your postings. Yes the Bible is the whole Word of G-d, at least where we are concerned, G-d does not need to have any more books written to give us His plan for redemption. If any other Prophet rises up, he must be in subjection with what was already written by the Prophets of Old. Did not Paul write: "And the spirits (or mind) of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets." (1Cor. 14:32).

G-d has given us one and only one way to try the teachers and prophets that rise up today, and that is by His Word. Isaiah wrote, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20). G-d expects us to try all teachers that rise up by His law and testimony. If they speak anything against it they are false Prophets.

Katzpur said:

I said I agreed with you that a prophet is God's mouthpiece.

How could Jesus have possibly have been talking about Old Testament prophets when He said, "You will kill the prophets I send"?

Click to expand...

I didn't say he's talking about OT prophets. He's talking about the apostles that were killed.

Katzpur said:

You still haven't answered my question: If, in Old Testament times, the word "prophet" referred to someone called by God to act as His mouthpiece, when did the meaning of the word change? When Jesus said that the prophets He would send would be killed, was He using the word "prophet" to mean something different that it had meant for the previous 4000 years? If so, where does He explain the new meaning of the word?

Click to expand...

What new meaning? I thought we agreed with the meaning. Which is why quite frankly I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet. With what people had in their possesion as a resource [Only the Bible for some. The Bible and Church for others]. How could they possibly confirm doctrines that LDS subcribe to? Most people weren't waiting for Joseph Smith Katzpur. The only way to identify true prophet from false prophet is by measuring him/her with the tools they had.