Thursday, April 19, 2007

The Bible States that Prophets would and did exist After Christ.

I was watching a movie about Jeremiah, last night. It showed the Jews rejecting him as a prophet, claiming that God hadn't spoken to him. Yet he knew that God had, and couldn't deny it. I couldn't help but feel the parallel to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and even my own experiences with this. I have heard claims that God doesn't talk to people anymore. I have only heard of one Biblical verse remotely excuseable in being used to support this claim.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:1-2.

This Scripture is interpreted by them thus - God who before spoke through prophets isn't going to do that anymore because he has now spoken to us by his son, and he said all that needs saying to mankind.

Interestingly people professing this interpretation still read the words of those very same past prophets that they profess to be unnecessary, as only Christ's words would be relevant, if we are to believe such an interpretation. Also they read Paul, Peter, and all those other, supposedly, unnecessary people that wrote after Christ's death. Or are they admitting that revelation is needed to understand what Christ was meaning?

However I don't see this text as saying that at all. To me Paul is saying how blessed we are to have the words of the son himself, rather than just prophets. To me the text says it plainly. I would interpret it thus - God who had only spoken to people through prophets prior to Christ had then spoken to them by his Son himself. That is all it has said: Nothing about no prophets or revelation in the future.

Some use Rev 22:18 where it states not to add to this book to support the idea of a lack of continued revelation, as it would become Scripture. However that is spoken in ignorance of the fact that the book being spoken of was the book just written - the book of Revelation (which John wrote). In fact that book was written before the books of John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John, which he wrote 2 years later. Also Deut 4:2 says the same of adding to the first 5 books of Moses, yet we have 61 more in the Bible alone. Then Prov 30:6 gives the same warning, yet on went the books thereafter. All understood that this meant not to add or take bits out of the writings of these individual prophets or apostles. It had no reference to books written thereafter.

Not only doesn't the Bible declare any end of prophets and revelation, but it declares the continuance of such after Christ's death many times. Some try to excuse this by proposing that the meaning of the word "prophet" was different for them. However the same word is used to describe the OT prophets such as Isaiah etc. Or are they proposing that the word suddenly changed meaning at the death of Christ: A prophet before Christ receiving prophecy yet one after not doing so? I would also ask, can we have a prophet not receiving prophecy? The Scriptures plainly speak of the continuation of prophets.

"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch." (Acts 11:27)

"And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)

"And as we tarried there many days. there came down from Jedaea a certain prophet, named Agabus." (Acts 21:10)

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph 2:20)

This verse is even saying that Christ built his church with apostles and prophets in it.

"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Eph 3:5)

Note here that apostles and prophets are there to reveal things NOT before revealed; for the church, from the Spirit. This plainly isn't an explaining of Christ's words, as some may propose.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, propets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." (Eph 4:11)

Again we see these as being officers within his church organisation.

And what of the gift of prophecy promised to the faithful in 1 Cor 12:10?

"He that receiveth a propet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." (Matt 10:41)

What an odd statement to make if there never were to be prophets after him!

"Beware of false prophets, with come to you in sheeps's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits, Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
(Matt 7:15-20)

Here Christ has given us direction as to how to recognise false prophets from true ones. If there never were to be any prophets after his death why would it be necessary for him to give such instruction?

6 comments:

Secret Rapture said...

My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions! The Secret Rapture soon, by my hand!
Read My Inaugural Address
My Site=http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman

Doug Towers said...

secret rapture

If there was to be a rapture God certainly has kept it secret. So your title would be appropriate.

But the Bible tells me concerning the days before Christ comes that the days would be shortened for the elects' sake. If all the elect are gone then what elect will there be for the time to be shortened for? Or are we to believe that God will take up some elect only? And if we are to believe that some after the claimed rapture will be converted, who is converting them, since all the elect are supposed to be gone?

And where does it say in the Bible, or anywhere in Scripture for that matter, that the talk of one taken and one left is years before Christ's coming? This is an invented doctrine, based on ignorance rather than Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Doug Says:

Some use Rev 22:18 where it states not to add to this book to support the idea of a lack of continued revelation, as it would become Scripture. However that is spoken in ignorance of the fact that the book being spoken of was the book just written - the book of Revelation (which John wrote). In fact that book was written before the books of John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John, which he wrote 2 years later. Also Deut 4:2 says the same of adding to the first 5 books of Moses, yet we have 61 more in the Bible alone. Then Prov 30:6 gives the same warning, yet on went the books thereafter. All understood that this meant not to add or take bits out of the writings of these individual prophets or apostles. It had no reference to books written thereafter.

The warning is not to add or take away from the Bible. This warning refers to the whole Bible, not just this part or that part. Wake up and smell the coffee bro...You either think God's word is True from cover to cover or you don't! The Bible is not debatable, God gave us everything that we need to know in His word. If the Bible doesn't talk of it then it shouldn't matter! Feed the warning!!

Doug Towers said...

anonymous

The Bible isn't a book. The word "Bible" comes from the Greek "Biblia" meaning a library or collection of books. This collection of 66 individual books are bound in to one cover for our convenience.

John the Apostle states that we only have a very small portion of the words that Christ spoke and the works he did. Do you really believe that Christ spoke all those other words and yet we wouldn't be better off if we knew any of them????

I'd also like you to prove to me from the Bible that God said he would only produce 66 books. I've read the Bible many times and seen no such claim. Or is this just a bit more of the leaven Christ warns us against. You stated -

"If the Bible doesn't talk of it then it shouldn't matter!"

If that is true then the same should equally apply to God telling us there are only to be 66 books and that they will be compiled in a works called The Bible. It isn't stated in the Bible so the doctrine doesn't matter. How do you work that one out?

Anonymous said...

I'm not concerned with what you think God's Word should mean or say to have you believe it 100%. I'm just saying I look at God's Word at being 100% complete and everything that I need too know is in that book! Get off the rabbit trails! Why do you waste a life on things that just don't matter, we will never know 100% of everything in this life, that is why God is God!

Doug Towers said...

anonamous

You've stated
"I'm not concerned with what you think God's Word should mean or say to have you believe it 100%."

I haven't quoted myself, only John and others of the Bible. And I have challened YOU to prove YOUR opinion that those 66 books are an end to God's words for man.

Now as to what is important for us to know, I think you ought to get God's opinion on that one, not your ministers. Because all ministers I spoke to as a Protestant growing up, admitted not receiving any revelation from God at all.