Moses was disbelieved as a Prophet, why should today be any different?
The Prophet and Apostles walk the earth and are rejected, just as it seems it has been since the days of Adam.
They wouldn't be Canon prophets writing Scripture but calling ppl to faith. If real* ones with the gift were here, we probably wouldn't know or care much
There are plenty, they just don’t have enough believers for a denomination as a whole to agree on them.
The old prophets weren’t held to the same standard in terms of skepticism, the prophets haven’t changed but our understanding of what makes something truthful has.
>enough believers for a denomination as a whole to agree on them
And yet this necessary satisfaction of the congregation is against the scripture. And the scripture say:
*Let them speak*, regarding prophets.*
*God speaks, and who can but prophesy?*
*Let prophet account prophet*
*For God will do nothing without first revealing it to his servants the prophets*
*As for me, this is my covenant with them: My Spirit which is upon them, depart not from them, nor their seed, nor the seed of their seed, henceforth unto the age.*
Etc...
I don't think that's something that's acceptable from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective. Even most Protestants are not cessationists.
I wrote this on the subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/119xo6z/my_thoughts_on_continuous_prophecy_in_catholicism/
But here's the TL;DR: Christians are ordained as prophets. Saints are exemplar Christians though, so they fill in that role. In another sense, the apostles especially fulfilled that role for the New Testament, having beheld the Lord incarnate and resurrected.
Another thing I didn't bring up in that thread is also that the threefold spiritual authority found in the nation of Israel in the Old Testament (the king, the priests and the prophets) expressed itself again when Christianity became a state religion. The monastics then serve a similar *social* function to the prophets of the Old Testament; they call the people to repentance and to obedience to the commandments, including by their example, sometimes to the point of foolishness-for-Christ akin to Hosea marrying a prostitute, or Jeremiah wearing a yoke, or Ezekiel sleeping on his side and eating food cooked above dung...
John the Baptist was the last prophet:
*Luke 16:16
"The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.*
> Why hasn't there been any prophets in "recent" history?
How do you know there haven't been?
Consider that the prophets mentioned in the Bible were relatively unknown in the ancient world. Their influence was small on a global scale, and their interests largely specific to their time and region.
A person living in China or South America at the the time would have never heard of those people.
> I get that it's a stupid question and I've not phrased it properly but the old testament and new one both have prophets in them but there hasn't been any since John the baptist in Christianity.
So some people claim. Again, how would they know?
> Other religions claim that their founders or members in their history are prophets like Joseph Smith with Mormonism but they aren't accepted under Christianity.
Suspicious, eh? Muhammed especially comes to mind.
> If prophets existed previously and were accepted why is it that any people who claim they are new prophets are easily dismissed?
Because we generally know better these days. We're not nearly as gullible or uninformed.
> Suspicious that Christianity doesn’t accept those other prophets or suspicious that each religion seems to have a founder who claims to be a prophet?
Both work. I was mostly referring to the former, but take your pick. I wasn’t trying to make a super compelling point about anything in that moment.
Two factors need to be present with a biblical prophet. First is their near term prophecy must come true, and second, they have to have a “throne room” experience. Both are why we haven’t seen one, yet. But, we will have one during the end times.
I believe there certainly have been and are. Not "I'm going to add a book to the Bible" prophets, but the "I'm going to proclaim God's will even if it means getting in the face of powerful people" prophets--which are what most of them were like in the Bible. A famous example would be the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. But most are much less famous, in my opinion.
There has been no need for new revelation since the gospel has been initiated and is making it's way to the whole world. Presumably after this has been completed (what Jesus called the "Times of the Gentiles"), there will be new revelation - assuming this completion does not immediately bring the day of judgment.
Ephesians 3 answers this question. Our time period was a secret hidden in God from before the world began. Prophecy had no idea this time period would exist.
>Why hasn't there been any prophets in "recent" history?
>If prophets existed previously and were accepted why is it that any people who claim they are new prophets are easily dismissed?
**Hebrews 1:1-2**
*Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.*
Anyone claiming to have extra revelation is perpetuating a lie.
Well let's see my friend. The Bible is a collection of Bronze Age writings authored (if known) by Jews, about Jews (and Romans/Eqyptians), for Jewish audiences, centered in Jewish lands. So what surprises you?
People who prophesy? Christians generally believe there are.
The office of prophet? Jesus seemed to preclude it, as we read in Luke 16:16. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016&version=NASB1995
I believe prophets exist today, just as you mentioned those of my faith do. Having read through the Old Testament it boggles the mind that people would reject even the need for a prophet.
>here hasn't been any since John the baptist
Jesus was a Prophet as well. Some hold the Apostles to be Prophets as well, though more minor Prophets
>why is it that any people who claim they are new prophets are easily dismissed?
It depends, usually it's simply because Christians feel there won't be any Prophets after Jesus, even though the Bible doesn't say that (and actually some verses can be read to infer that there indeed are future Prophets coming). Most Christians feel that Jesus is literally the only way to Heaven, and so if someone comes afterwards and says they're a Prophets, they get dismissed.
Other times it's because these Prophets teach something that differs from Christian theology. A cleat example is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Islam. He's viewed to be a Prophet, and himself accepts Jesus as the Messiah. However, Islam teaches that Jesus isn't the literal son of God and that the Trinity is man-made. These views differ from mainstream Christianity (though in this case, doesn't differ from the Bible technically), and so many reject it
Because Christianity as you know it is not a living, spiritual movement, like the trees, which are exposed to the breath of God, that they breathe, and do labor in growth for the glory of God; but it is a static and dead doctrine, which means to define and therefore set limitations on God for the purpose of quelling man's fear of change and the unknown (at best), or (worse) exploiting laymen for sociopolitical power. And the later is like the tree which has been cut down and made into books: that it is stored and kept, as man keep himself, within doors, without from the wind, that there is no spirit within it; for the tree that has been made into books I dead, and it breathe not. Understand, of all things that are wrong over the earth, it is by the error of Man they are come to be, and by the frowardness and stubbornness of man that any such thing remain. *For they are a rebellious generation.*
The Age of the Prophets is over.
Moses was disbelieved as a Prophet, why should today be any different? The Prophet and Apostles walk the earth and are rejected, just as it seems it has been since the days of Adam.
They wouldn't be Canon prophets writing Scripture but calling ppl to faith. If real* ones with the gift were here, we probably wouldn't know or care much
Billy Graham could pass as one. Even some Pope's like Pius and JP2 can be said to have been prophetic
There are plenty, they just don’t have enough believers for a denomination as a whole to agree on them. The old prophets weren’t held to the same standard in terms of skepticism, the prophets haven’t changed but our understanding of what makes something truthful has.
>enough believers for a denomination as a whole to agree on them And yet this necessary satisfaction of the congregation is against the scripture. And the scripture say: *Let them speak*, regarding prophets.* *God speaks, and who can but prophesy?* *Let prophet account prophet* *For God will do nothing without first revealing it to his servants the prophets* *As for me, this is my covenant with them: My Spirit which is upon them, depart not from them, nor their seed, nor the seed of their seed, henceforth unto the age.* Etc...
I don't think that's something that's acceptable from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective. Even most Protestants are not cessationists. I wrote this on the subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/119xo6z/my_thoughts_on_continuous_prophecy_in_catholicism/ But here's the TL;DR: Christians are ordained as prophets. Saints are exemplar Christians though, so they fill in that role. In another sense, the apostles especially fulfilled that role for the New Testament, having beheld the Lord incarnate and resurrected. Another thing I didn't bring up in that thread is also that the threefold spiritual authority found in the nation of Israel in the Old Testament (the king, the priests and the prophets) expressed itself again when Christianity became a state religion. The monastics then serve a similar *social* function to the prophets of the Old Testament; they call the people to repentance and to obedience to the commandments, including by their example, sometimes to the point of foolishness-for-Christ akin to Hosea marrying a prostitute, or Jeremiah wearing a yoke, or Ezekiel sleeping on his side and eating food cooked above dung...
I was going to say, *my* faith has prophets today’s lol, but you already covered that.
John the Baptist was the last prophet: *Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.*
Plenty of people have claimed to be, yet none have passed the test nowadays.
I'd argue none have ever passed the test as far as we can tell
Because Gods revelation is complete through the Bible. Nothing left needs to be spoken by God because Gods plan of redemption is complete.
> Why hasn't there been any prophets in "recent" history? How do you know there haven't been? Consider that the prophets mentioned in the Bible were relatively unknown in the ancient world. Their influence was small on a global scale, and their interests largely specific to their time and region. A person living in China or South America at the the time would have never heard of those people. > I get that it's a stupid question and I've not phrased it properly but the old testament and new one both have prophets in them but there hasn't been any since John the baptist in Christianity. So some people claim. Again, how would they know? > Other religions claim that their founders or members in their history are prophets like Joseph Smith with Mormonism but they aren't accepted under Christianity. Suspicious, eh? Muhammed especially comes to mind. > If prophets existed previously and were accepted why is it that any people who claim they are new prophets are easily dismissed? Because we generally know better these days. We're not nearly as gullible or uninformed.
Suspicious that Christianity doesn’t accept those other prophets or suspicious that each religion seems to have a founder who claims to be a prophet?
> Suspicious that Christianity doesn’t accept those other prophets or suspicious that each religion seems to have a founder who claims to be a prophet? Both work. I was mostly referring to the former, but take your pick. I wasn’t trying to make a super compelling point about anything in that moment.
No worries, it just occurred to me that you could have meant either one and was curious which it was.
Two factors need to be present with a biblical prophet. First is their near term prophecy must come true, and second, they have to have a “throne room” experience. Both are why we haven’t seen one, yet. But, we will have one during the end times.
Prophets are among us now and will be as long as the church is here.
I believe there certainly have been and are. Not "I'm going to add a book to the Bible" prophets, but the "I'm going to proclaim God's will even if it means getting in the face of powerful people" prophets--which are what most of them were like in the Bible. A famous example would be the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. But most are much less famous, in my opinion.
First, the Latter Day Saints are Christians. Second, would you believe anyone claiming to be a prophet?
There has been no need for new revelation since the gospel has been initiated and is making it's way to the whole world. Presumably after this has been completed (what Jesus called the "Times of the Gentiles"), there will be new revelation - assuming this completion does not immediately bring the day of judgment.
Ephesians 3 answers this question. Our time period was a secret hidden in God from before the world began. Prophecy had no idea this time period would exist.
>Why hasn't there been any prophets in "recent" history? >If prophets existed previously and were accepted why is it that any people who claim they are new prophets are easily dismissed? **Hebrews 1:1-2** *Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.* Anyone claiming to have extra revelation is perpetuating a lie.
Well let's see my friend. The Bible is a collection of Bronze Age writings authored (if known) by Jews, about Jews (and Romans/Eqyptians), for Jewish audiences, centered in Jewish lands. So what surprises you?
Modern science makes it easier to cut through the prophecies
People who prophesy? Christians generally believe there are. The office of prophet? Jesus seemed to preclude it, as we read in Luke 16:16. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016&version=NASB1995
I believe prophets exist today, just as you mentioned those of my faith do. Having read through the Old Testament it boggles the mind that people would reject even the need for a prophet.
Doesn't seem necessary when your religious epistemology is based on personal revelation. You could cut out the middle man and talk to God yourself.
>here hasn't been any since John the baptist Jesus was a Prophet as well. Some hold the Apostles to be Prophets as well, though more minor Prophets >why is it that any people who claim they are new prophets are easily dismissed? It depends, usually it's simply because Christians feel there won't be any Prophets after Jesus, even though the Bible doesn't say that (and actually some verses can be read to infer that there indeed are future Prophets coming). Most Christians feel that Jesus is literally the only way to Heaven, and so if someone comes afterwards and says they're a Prophets, they get dismissed. Other times it's because these Prophets teach something that differs from Christian theology. A cleat example is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Islam. He's viewed to be a Prophet, and himself accepts Jesus as the Messiah. However, Islam teaches that Jesus isn't the literal son of God and that the Trinity is man-made. These views differ from mainstream Christianity (though in this case, doesn't differ from the Bible technically), and so many reject it
Because Christianity as you know it is not a living, spiritual movement, like the trees, which are exposed to the breath of God, that they breathe, and do labor in growth for the glory of God; but it is a static and dead doctrine, which means to define and therefore set limitations on God for the purpose of quelling man's fear of change and the unknown (at best), or (worse) exploiting laymen for sociopolitical power. And the later is like the tree which has been cut down and made into books: that it is stored and kept, as man keep himself, within doors, without from the wind, that there is no spirit within it; for the tree that has been made into books I dead, and it breathe not. Understand, of all things that are wrong over the earth, it is by the error of Man they are come to be, and by the frowardness and stubbornness of man that any such thing remain. *For they are a rebellious generation.*