Why Don't We Need Prophets Anymore?

[angellous_evangellous]

To me a prophet is someone who receives divine revelation. All they need to do to be a prophet is write down that revelation.

So writing is critical?

No place for oral, musical, or any other type of prophetic acts? Miracles?

EDIT: Honestly I think some acts in history have been prophetic - like some military victories, scientific discoveries, and even good receipies and sexual positions (some prophets are popular and some aren't ).:beach:

IMO, God is interested in being active in every part of our lives.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

How can you tell the difference between a prophet and a madman?

Hehe. Well divine revelation like that given to miriam and aaron is not given by the direction communication to God. Moses on the other had spoke directly to God he beheld the spirt of the Lord directly as can be found in Exodus. Moses was a madman he heard things that were not of this reality, that no else could see or hear. Now the message is what seperates the undeniable truth from the ludacris. Not the mental state of the messenger. It can obviously be argued that he was not insane, but isn't God restricted to the rules of his creation while he is in it? He can manipulate those rules, but cannot break them, IMO. That being said God mostly likely saw that this man had a pure heart and gave him auditory hallucinations.

Of course I am a little biased.

 

[cardero]

I guess I have a different understanding of a prophet, then. To me it has more to do with delivering a message of some sort that can move humanity to the next level. Predicting the future is, at most, a side issue.

Is the future mutable from God's pov, sitting outside of time?

Actually they are very similar. Though the role of mail person (messenger) is usually assigned to the prophet (in itself an absurd premise) the message usually “foretells” what is expected of humankind. Whether humankind fulfills this expectancy is never guaranteed. With the advent of free will (or the presumption that free will exists) this decision to listen, follow, evolve into the kind of person that GOD wills us to be, is never certain. GOD is very aware of time (past, present and future). What this knowledge of "GOD time" entails for humans is an interesting concept and probably deserves a thread of its own.

And example of this would be the Biblical prophesy that explains the last days.

“In the Last Days, nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom; there will be shortages of food, earthquakes in one place after another, increase a lawlessness, men becoming faint out of fear. There will be disobedience to parents. We will be lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God; we will be lovers of money and will display a form of Godly devotion that will prove to be false, not to mention lead to ruination of the earth.”

Now according to some religions these are the signs that will bring fourth God’s Kingdom on earth. If everyone should not commit or complete these signs (read: behave) then there would be no reason to bring God’s prophesy of an earthly kingdom to conclusion. You have not only changed the future but you have also thwarted God’s plan or prophesy. The Bible becomes ineffectual as a way to predict the future and renders the Biblical authors inadequate. How can humans correct such a misunderstanding? They can start by making sure this prophesy becomes fulfilled, which is what I believe we are experiencing today.

 

[Quiddity]

Actually they are very similar. Though the role of mail person (messenger) is usually assigned to the prophet (in itself an absurd premise) the message usually “foretells” what is expected of humankind.

What do you mean by "what is expected"?

The Jews more often the not were reminded of morality that ALREADY WAS REVEALED. The prophets simply reminded them of past convenants with God.

 

[cardero]

How can you tell the difference between a prophet and a madman?

A prophet spells it P-R-O-P-H-E-T
A madman spells it P-R-O-F-I-T

 

[lunamoth]

One version is a person who just predicts the future. In the religious context, I think this too narrow and not a very useful definition.

A second version is an otherwise normal individual who has the gift of prophecy. To me, this is more like someone who's very good at listening to the HS, and might be called "inspired." They do not speak with the authority of God, even though they are tapped into the HS. (This is what you're referring to, yes, Sojourner?)

A third version is people like the Biblical "minor prophets." They get a message from God more directly than us mere individuals who have the gift of prophesy. They speak with authority, but they call people back to a religion that already exists.

A fourth version is people that start entire new religions, like Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster, Muhammad, and Baha'u'llah. Like the minor prophets, they appear to be different than just a person who has the gift of prophesy. They do NOT call people back to an existing religion -- they build upon an existing one. They also speak with authority, but unlike minor prophets, they have the authority to overturn social laws* that have outlived their usefulness, and add new social laws that are needed for the times.

*Social law: laws such as marriage and divorce laws, inheritance laws, dietary laws, details on how and when to pray, etc.

*Universal law: Core laws that demand honesty, loving your neighbor, treating others well, that are present in all religions.

I like your four different 'levels' of prophet Booko, but I might suggest that the levels have more to do with the degree of penetration of insight and the scope of vision that is given, rather than to degrees of authority.

So, keeping in mind that the Source of each of the insights a prophet as is the same One:

Your first level prophet who 'sees' the future has actually just penetrated with insight into one or a small slice of reality. The future manifestation of a particular event is as clear to her as the present day facts. Her prophecy may be recognized by a few if she shares it, but really it is only in hindsight that we look back as see her as a prophet.

Your second level prophet I would actually put as first because it is all of us who 'listen.' Our prophecies are typically to illuminate our own paths and we test them within the paradigm of our religion and values. There are also some who are given prophecies to lift and build the community that they are in. I would include those who call for things like social justice in their churches and communities to be this kind of prophet.

Your third level, which I guess is like Isaiah, has insight from God with deeper penetration into what IS and further ranging ramification: you folks have ignored God's advice to treat each other with care, you have taken what has not belonged to you. As long as the world continues to operate this way, you are going to end up suffering because of this. The only way out is going to be a radical change in how you do things, the way of the Suffering Servant.

Your fourth level is the most radical of all. It is an example of what can only be understood as God among us, manifested for example as a cloud with a voice, or the human embodiment of Love. It is the awakening of humanity to a whole new way of thinking: the way out the minor prophets told us was needed. The veil is ripped open.

These are not hard and fast catagories, but they represent the Divine breaking through to us as individuals, as communities, as peoples, and the world.

 

[BruceDLimber]

It is only rarely, and at a later period, that prophecy is called nebû'ah, a cognate of nabî'; more ordinarily we find hazôn, vision, or word of God, oracle (ne um) of Yahweh, etc.

Hi, Victor!

In fact, there are two different Arabic words commonly translated into English as "prophet!"

The first is indeed "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet (such as Jeremiah or Micah).

The second is Ras'ul, which means a major Divine Messenger such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah.

And we Baha'is stress the difference between the two, in that only the latter have the right to found new religions (actually, new stages in the ever-evolving Faith of God) and alter/abolish earlier Divine Laws .

Regards,

Bruce

 

[cardero]

What do you mean by "what is expected"?

The Jews more often the not were reminded of morality that ALREADY WAS REVEALED. The prophets simply reminded them of past convenants with God.

Sometimes, as Booko pointed out, prophets show up at appropriate times to redefine what is expected of humans from God. This may be defined as a new understanding (the proper spiritual food at the proper time). These terms or expectancies from God can be familiar or totally reevaluated depending on what agenda the prophet has for humankind.

Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

 

[Quiddity]

Hi, Victor!

In fact, there are two different Arabic words commonly translated into English as "prophet!"

The first is indeed "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet (such as Jeremiah or Micah).

The second is Ras'ul, which means a major Divine Messenger such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah.

And we Baha'is stress the difference between the two, in that only the latter have the right to found new religions (actually, new stages in the ever-evolving Faith of God) and alter/abolish earlier Divine Laws .

Regards,

Bruce

How do you defferiniate between the two? The message?

 

[BruceDLimber]

How do you defferiniate between the two? The message?

Hi again!

Briefly, the Divine Messenger ("Ras'ul") founds an entirely new religion, with its own scriptures and teachings. Examples are the various great religions, such as: Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith.

Regular prophets ("nabi") don't reveal a new religion, but are rather members of an existing one which they promote, sometimes providing prophecies of a new religion yet to come. As I'd mentioned earlier, Jeremiah and Micah are examples.

The distinction tends to be considerable, in our experience! . . .

Many regards!

Bruce

 

[Booko]

If someone goes a step further and claims to be a prophet, similar to that Maitreya guy in another recent thread, i automatically distrust them. I don't think people can be a permanent prophet, and thus everything they say comes straight from God - such a thing would be open to obvious abuse.

I agree, but would point out that one should be able to look at the life of any supposed prophet to see if it's actually being abused. The vast majority of the self-proclaimed ones don't seem to fit the bill. Either the message is off, or his personal behaviour is unethical, or their asking cash for their message from God, all that stuff makes me very suspicious.

 

[Booko]

How can you tell the difference between a prophet and a madman?

By their fruits shall ye know them.

 

[Booko]

What do you mean by "what is expected"?

The Jews more often the not were reminded of morality that ALREADY WAS REVEALED. The prophets simply reminded them of past convenants with God.

Truly.

And in my own religion for example, there is no eschatology. Prophecy is not so much of a big deal for us. Looking backward, maybe, but not forward.

 

[Booko]

Your third level, which I guess is like Isaiah, has insight from God with deeper penetration into what IS and further ranging ramification: you folks have ignored God's advice to treat each other with care, you have taken what has not belonged to you. As long as the world continues to operate this way, you are going to end up suffering because of this. The only way out is going to be a radical change in how you do things, the way of the Suffering Servant.

Your fourth level is the most radical of all. It is an example of what can only be understood as God among us, manifested for example as a cloud with a voice, or the human embodiment of Love. It is the awakening of humanity to a whole new way of thinking: the way out the minor prophets told us was needed. The veil is ripped open.

Yes, I agree. You didn't give an example for the fouth level, but definitely Christ would be there. He was definitely radical for his times (even for ours, really) and definitely gave humanity a jump start.

These are not hard and fast catagories, but they represent the Divine breaking through to us as individuals, as communities, as peoples, and the world.[/quote]

 

[Katzpur]

People still do get revelations from God. God does still guide the Church.

Yes, but sometimes people get conflicting revelations and, when that happens, nobody knows who is to speak for the Church as a whole. How is the right decision to be reached?

We now have the Holy Spirit to guide us. Isn't that enough? Can the H.S. not guide people to prophesy, even if they're not "official" -- as James said?

If two "prophets" are both speaking to us, and neither one is "official," how can we know which one is the "false prophet"?

We HAVE the greatest prophet...Jesus Christ...who is the same TODAY within his believers as He was yesterday and will be forever.

But why did Jesus ordain prophets before He died if He had no intention of continuing to speak to them? And why did He specifically warn against "false prophets"? If there were to be no more "true prophets," why didn't He simply warn against "prophets" period?

As promised, He sent us the Holy Spirit to guide, comfort and teach us.

Yes, He did. But somehow, we as Christians don't all seem to be picking up the same message from the Holy Spirit. If we were, you, Victor, Lunamoth, Sojourner, Joeboonda and I would all share the same beliefs. While it's true that we all believe Jesus Christ to be our Savior (which is obviously the most important thing), there are many things on which we don't agree. It's easy to say that God doesn't care, but it sure seems logical to me that He would want us all to know the truth about Him, about our relationship to Him, and what we must do (if anything ) to return to His presence someday.

 

[James the Persian]

Yes, but sometimes people get conflicting revelations and, when that happens, nobody knows who is to speak for the Church as a whole. How is the right decision to be reached?

Well, I can't speak for any other Church, but the answer from an Orthodox point of view is pretty much right there in your question. The Church as a whole speaks for the Church as a whole. We have no head, no master, but Christ. We don't need one. History shows that, despite 2000 years of strife and conflicting 'revelations' from heretics, the Orthodox Church has remained almost unchanged (as an example, the Liturgy I use every Sunday is almost unchanged from the 5th century and it is based quite closely on even earlier Liturgies). The Church simply does not change easily because every new 'revelation' is compared to the concensus of the Church both geographically and historically. If it contradicts then it is wrong and is rejected. This has stood us extremely well. Despite having no single head, being divided into local churches each with their own bishops and only relatively rarely even having Ecumenical Councils or Pan-Orthodox Synods, I can go into any Orthodox Church from the US to Russia or from Antioch to Australia and guarantee that the same faith, without variation, is taught in all and not only that but that the vast majority of the faithful hold to it absolutely. I often see fewer commonly held beliefs in the more centralised faiths. That to my mind is a minor miracle and is sufficient evidence for me to believe that Christ is with us when we gather in His name and not confined to speaking through any given individual.

James

 

[sojourner]

If two "prophets" are both speaking to us, and neither one is "official," how can we know which one is the "false prophet"?

Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Is the prophecy grounded in scirptural truth? Is it complimentary to the Tradition? Is it reasonable?

How can you be certain that an "official" prophet is not "off his rocker?"

 

[lunamoth]

If two "prophets" are both speaking to us, and neither one is "official," how can we know which one is the "false prophet"?

Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Is the prophecy grounded in scirptural truth? Is it complimentary to the Tradition? Is it reasonable?

How can you be certain that an "official" prophet is not "off his rocker?"

Which is the 'true' prophet? Well, the one who turns out to be correct. We can't 'know' ahead of time, but we can listen with an open heart and an open mind, and use these tools Sojourner indicated in our discernment. We are each ultimately responsible for our own understandings and actions.

Lest this be viewed as too 'radical,' I think that this is actually what does go on during what James explained for the EO Church. The Holy Spirit guides us individually and as community. It's like sailing into the wind: we tack left and right, but the overall direction is maintained.

2 c,
luna

 

[lunamoth]

Hello darkness, my old friend,
I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence.
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone,
'Neath the halo of a street lamp,
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence.
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence.
"Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets
are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls."
And whisper'd in the sounds of silence.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, I can't speak for any other Church, but the answer from an Orthodox point of view is pretty much right there in your question. The Church as a whole speaks for the Church as a whole. We have no head, no master, but Christ. We don't need one. History shows that, despite 2000 years of strife and conflicting 'revelations' from heretics, the Orthodox Church has remained almost unchanged (as an example, the Liturgy I use every Sunday is almost unchanged from the 5th century and it is based quite closely on even earlier Liturgies). The Church simply does not change easily because every new 'revelation' is compared to the concensus of the Church both geographically and historically. If it contradicts then it is wrong and is rejected. This has stood us extremely well. Despite having no single head, being divided into local churches each with their own bishops and only relatively rarely even having Ecumenical Councils or Pan-Orthodox Synods, I can go into any Orthodox Church from the US to Russia or from Antioch to Australia and guarantee that the same faith, without variation, is taught in all and not only that but that the vast majority of the faithful hold to it absolutely. I often see fewer commonly held beliefs in the more centralised faiths. That to my mind is a minor miracle and is sufficient evidence for me to believe that Christ is with us when we gather in His name and not confined to speaking through any given individual.

James

Okay, but just as an example, let's go back to the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. Weren't all of those in attendance equally entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Why the degree of contention at that Council? I'm not saying I think Arius was right in his thinking, because I don't. But he wasn't the only one who held his point of view. What reason (other than that you think Arius was wrong) can you give me for the outcome of that council? The participants debated, argued, and voted, and in the end, the majority ruled. A different group of participants, the Nicene Creed might have read much differently than it does. Who, after all, writes history? Certainly not the losers.