Prophets prior to Jesus

[Harel13]

After Moses, there was no need for a direct revelation till the Messiah, but there were minor prophets who were promoting religion of Moses.

Okay, and were there minor prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay, and were there minor prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist?

My view on this, is same as Jews. Whatever Jewish Bible says.

 

[Harel13]

My view on this, is same as Jews. Whatever Jewish Bible says.

Well...you're view is like that of the Jewish Bible until the New Testament comes into town. Then it's on to that, right?

 

[Brickjectivity]

In Judaism, prophecy is believed to have ended after Malachi and is set to come back during the messianic era (never mind the reasons now).

From what I've gathered, Christians believe that prophecy never ended. Jesus, for example, is considered, among other things, a prophet. Maybe also John the Baptist, though I'm not sure. It's a big chunk of years between the time of Malachi and the time of Jesus (several hundred years). I was wondering, therefore, whether Christians can point to other individuals who lived before Jesus and had prophetic capabilities?

In the gospels (which are very important both to Roman Catholic and almost every other Christian group) it appears that Jesus has announced a new messianic era, assuming that these are accounts and not stories with ideas. I know you have read one or two of them. Do you concur on that?

In Luke in chapter 4 it records that Jesus goes to his hometown, reads chapter 61 from the Isaiah scroll (already in existence for 200+ years before Jesus) in his synagogue and announces it has been fulfilled then and there, in their hearing. To me this sounds like he is announcing that the messianic age has begun, whatever the messianic age is. I don't actually know what you think it is except that its really great and permanently good change to the world.

It is my understanding that ALL modern Jews believe Elijah will appear in or immediately preceding the messianic age. In Matthew (of the gospels) chapter 11 Jesus says that John the Baptist is Elijah "If you will accept it." I'm not sure why he adds 'If you will accept it'. Maybe that is an accusation, or maybe it means something else. Perhaps it provide information about Jewish beliefs such as the idea that they don't think its Elijah the individual who precedes the messianic age but only someone similar -- I don't know! Putting that aside, he appears to announce the beginning of the messianic age, assuming its what you are talking about.

 

[Harel13]

Do you concur on that?

Concur that he announced it or concur that it is happening?

It is my understanding that ALL modern Jews believe Elijah will appear in or immediately preceding the messianic age.

Those that are devout to a certain extent, at least.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Concur that he announced it or concur that it is happening?

That he announced it by the means quoted. I'm not asking about the validity of the announcement or whether its true or false. What I mean: if some dude did these things wouldn't that be equivalent to announcing a messianic age? It seems to me like it, but because I'm not *entirely* 100% certain what messianic age is... I'm pretty sure about it.

Those that are devout to a certain extent, at least.

Ok, so what if someone claimed that a particular individual was the Elijah whom you were expecting, but that you just might not be able to accept it? Would that be some kind of challenge of your integrity? It appears, though its just a quote from a gospel, that this is something Jesus says in his synagogue, as if they have either not brainpower or the moral fiber to accept what he's saying. Perhaps its not. Perhaps what he's saying is that they can take it or leave it or that he thinks Elijah might be reincarnated as someone else or that its merely his spirit which must return and not the man physically.

 

[Harel13]

That he announced it by the means quoted. I'm not asking about the validity of the announcement or whether its true or false. What I mean: if some dude did these things wouldn't that be equivalent to announcing a messianic age? It seems to me like it, but because I'm not *entirely* 100% certain what messianic age is... I'm pretty sure about it.

I see. Well, merely announcing that something is so doesn't necessarily make it so.

Ok, so what if someone claimed that a particular individual was the Elijah whom you were expecting, but that you just might not be able to accept it?

Well, Christians have been claiming that for nearly 2000 years now...while I probably wouldn't recognize Elijah, I can say that most other aspects of the messianic era have accepted, traditional signs. Fulfill all of those requirements and voila, we have a messianic era.

that he thinks Elijah might be reincarnated as someone else

Well, Jews don't believe that Elijah will be reincarnated as someone else, but will always remain himself. The talmud is filled with stories of people meeting Elijah as himself, or in disguise, but not a different individual with the soul of Elijah.

 

[Brickjectivity]

\

I see. Well, merely announcing that something is so doesn't necessarily make it so.

Well, Christians have been claiming that for nearly 2000 years now...while I probably wouldn't recognize Elijah, I can say that most other aspects of the messianic era have accepted, traditional signs. Fulfill all of those requirements and voila, we have a messianic era.

Well, Jews don't believe that Elijah will be reincarnated as someone else, but will always remain himself. The talmud is filled with stories of people meeting Elijah as himself, or in disguise, but not a different individual with the soul of Elijah.

Certainly merely announcing something doesn't make it so, not even if its someone famous or highly acclaimed. Such a thing is unthinkable, but results are what matter!

The messianic era is no doubt something I can read about if I am truly dedicated to understanding it.

I see. So to Jews its got to be Elijah, the man, or it doesn't count as Elijah.

 

[Harel13]

but results are what matter!

Jews (well, those that are still Jewish) are in agreement that nothing happened in Jesus's time that made it partiuclarly messianic. If anything, it set the stage to what a large portion of the Roman exile (the current exile) would be like: Christianity (and partly subsequently, Islam) looming in the foreground.

The messianic era is no doubt something I can read about if I am truly dedicated to understanding it.

I can explain the Jewish perspective to you, if you want.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well...you're view is like that of the Jewish Bible until the New Testament comes into town. Then it's on to that, right?

Yes. Right.

 

[curious_mind]

In Judaism, prophecy is believed to have ended after Malachi and is set to come back during the messianic era (never mind the reasons now).

From what I've gathered, Christians believe that prophecy never ended. Jesus, for example, is considered, among other things, a prophet. Maybe also John the Baptist, though I'm not sure. It's a big chunk of years between the time of Malachi and the time of Jesus (several hundred years). I was wondering, therefore, whether Christians can point to other individuals who lived before Jesus and had prophetic capabilities?

May I ask, from a Jewish perspective, why is there no prophet after Malachi?

 

[pearl]

I'm merely trying to understand why you define John as the last of the Hebrew prophets. John came prior to Jesus - so in terms of prophecy, how would you define Jesus? And perhaps also his disciples, if you regard them as prophets?

John the Baptist represents continuity. At the same time he also signals a new era, that of the church. In a sense John is the bridge between the two. Yes, as noted in Christian Scripture Jesus is the prophet of God par excellence. I do not regard disciples as 'prophets' in the same sense.

 

[Harel13]

May I ask, from a Jewish perspective, why is there no prophet after Malachi?

As @KenS already squeezed it out of me...

I wasn't going to get into the Jewish viewpoint because I'm too tired to pull up the sources and explain it all...but because you asked, a really, really short version is that the problem was twofold, and both of the reasons (that come to mind, there may be more) are related to the mechanics of how prophecy works, and these rules weren't fulfilled during that era. Hence, no prophecy. In the messianic era, the rules are supposed to be fulfilled (it's part of the definition of the era), and so - return of prophecy.

Awww.... It's really complicated...but here goes:
To reach prophecy, there are several factors that must be met. One is a high spiritual level. That's something that can still be found over the generations. The "Bnei hanevi'im", sons of the prophets mentioned in Tanach were schools of people attempting to attain the level of prophecy. The actual prophecy comes from God, but you need to do your own part for that to happen. Highly spiritual people have always existed. So that's a factor that hasn't changed. However, other factors have: One is that the majority of the Israelites have to be living in the land of Israel (without getting into the specifics now of why Moses could prophecize in Egypt and the wilderness and other questions). How, why, what does that have to do with anything - we'll set that aside for now. Another is a more arcane reason, which is that we are told in the Talmud that our sages destroyed the inclination for idolatry in the early days of the Second Temple era. How, why, what - we'll set that aside for now (yes, I'm lazy). The problem was that while this was a good thing on one hand, on the other hand, it canceled out something called Koach Hadimyon, which very roughly translates as the power of imagination, something which is central to one's prophetic capabilities. How, why, what - once again, too complicated and I'm lazy. There are probably some other reasons, but that's it in general.

 

[metis]

I was wondering, therefore, whether Christians can point to other individuals who lived before Jesus and had prophetic capabilities?

Why should we assume that the only prophets were those found in the Tanakh or mentioned in the "N.T.". Matter of fact, why should we assume that only the Abrahamic religions had "prophets"? And why should we assume that only prophets of old have had special spiritual connections with the Boss?

 

[Harel13]

Why should we assume that the only prophets were those found in the Tanakh

I didn't say that. You may be familiar with "The Gemara answers: In fact, there were more prophets, as it is taught in a baraita: Many prophets arose for the Jewish people, numbering double the number of Israelites who left Egypt. However, only a portion of the prophecies were recorded, because only prophecy that was needed for future generations was written down in the Bible for posterity, but that which was not needed, as it was not pertinent to later generations, was not written." (Megillah 14a)

mentioned in the "N.T."

Does it bother you that I call it the NT? Would you prefer the Christian Bible or the Christian Testament instead?

Matter of fact, why should we assume that only the Abrahamic religions had "prophets"?

Well, Jewish tradition holds that there were seven non-Jewish prophets to the nations, so there's that...

And why should we assume that only prophets of old have had special spiritual connections with the Boss?

Huh?

 

[metis]

I didn't say that. You may be familiar with "The Gemara answers: In fact, there were more prophets, as it is taught in a baraita: Many prophets arose for the Jewish people, numbering double the number of Israelites who left Egypt. However, only a portion of the prophecies were recorded, because only prophecy that was needed for future generations was written down in the Bible for posterity, but that which was not needed, as it was not pertinent to later generations, was not written." (Megillah 14a)

I don't have a problem with that other than it's just a belief that some may have.

Well, Jewish tradition holds that there were seven non-Jewish prophets to the nations, so there's that...

Again, that's a belief by some.

Does it bother you that I call it the NT? Would you prefer the Christian Bible or the Christian Testament instead?

Doesn't bother me at all, but thanks for asking.

Huh?

Again, what you are putting forth are sets of beliefs, which is all fine & dandy, but undoubtedly minus objective evidence to support them. But then, that pretty much applies to probably most religious beliefs.

IOW, I'm a skeptic, and that covers a wide range of topics.

 

[Harel13]

I don't have a problem with that other than it's just a belief that some may have.

Again, that's a belief by some.

If we continue with your line of reasoning, then the final result will be: None of the prophets were really prophets. Or maybe they were. Or maybe not. Or yes. Depends. Maybe there's no such thing as a prophet. What is prophecy, anyway? Is there even a god? What's going on here? etc.
Then that's a line of thought that isn't related to my thread OP, which assumes a certain agreement between the majority of Christians on who was a prophet in the Tanachic era.

Doesn't bother me at all, but thanks for asking.

I was merely wondering why you wrote "N.T.". I thought it might have bothered you that I call it the NT.

IOW, I'm a skeptic, and that covers a wide range of topics.

Can't help you there...

 

[metis]

If we continue with your line of reasoning, then the final result will be: None of the prophets were really prophets. Or maybe they were. Or maybe not.

Yep.

Maybe there's no such thing as a prophet.

Yep again.

What is prophecy, anyway? Is there even a god? What's going on here? etc.

Yep again-- you're on a roll!

I was merely wondering why you wrote "N.T.". I thought it might have bothered you that I call it the NT.

I did it out of respect for you.

Can't help you there...

I don't need help in this area, but there are some other areas...

 

[Rise]

Why the silence, according to Christianity?

It's based on nothing more than the fact that no writings from the time were canonized.

But that is not correct reasoning.

We know writings were produced during this time after Malachi which the early church regarded as authoritative and eastern orthodox still uses.

Whether or not they are Scripture is a separate debate.

The fact remains that logically you cannot conclude God didn't speak during a particular era just by the absence of canonical writings.

The fact is the OT mentions writings by prophets like Gad and Nathan which were not preserved for whatever reason. That doesn't mean God never spoke to them.

The fact is we see in Luke that Anne is referred to as a prophetess, and
Simeon received word from God that he would live to see the Messiah.

Matthew also makes reference to a spoken prophecy about the Messiah, not a written one, which we presume he knew the readers would be aware of.

Obviously people were still hearing from God prior to Jesus.

It would also be inconsistent with God's nature and character to stop speaking to anyone. We see from earliest times with Cain, Able, Enoch and Noah that God is speaking to people. We see with Melchizedek (believed to be Shem by Jewish tradition) that the world was not without people speaking on behalf of God prior to Abraham and Moses. We don't have any Biblical reason to believe God ever stopped speaking to people in any given era. It would be counter to His purposes to not talk to mankind considering His whole goal is to restore man to communal relationship with Himself.

 

[Rise]

In Judaism, prophecy is believed to have ended after Malachi and is set to come back during the messianic era (never mind the reasons now).

From what I've gathered, Christians believe that prophecy never ended. Jesus, for example, is considered, among other things, a prophet. Maybe also John the Baptist, though I'm not sure. It's a big chunk of years between the time of Malachi and the time of Jesus (several hundred years). I was wondering, therefore, whether Christians can point to other individuals who lived before Jesus and had prophetic capabilities?

Some of the reasons I gave for why Christians have no reason to believe God stopped speaking to people during the intertestamental period also apply to Judaism.

It raises the question of why did the Jews start asserting in the first place that God had never spoken during that time?

They knew that writings were produced during that time.
They knew that some people considered these writings authoritative.

Rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century denounces the practice of reading them in the synagogue as though they were Scripture. He had to specifically argue against their inclusion. Implying there was significant uncertainty over this issue.

This leads us to believe that they were more widely regarded as authoritative than just among a few isolated groups that could be dismissed.

The fact that early Christians made reference to those writings also suggests they felt they were authoritative enough to reference for the purpose of pointing to Jesus as Messiah.

If they didn't think other Jews would regard these writings with authority, then they would not have thought they could gain agreement by referencing them.

So why were they striken from being considered authoritative in the 2nd century? Probably for the same reasons the Gospels were denounced at the same time. The intertestamental writings point to Jesus as Messiah in more overt ways than you find in most other books. We can speculate this may have influenced their desire to remove them in order to draw a sharper theological divide between Rabbinical Judaism and Christian Judaism.

But considering that Akiva promoted a false messiah as part of a failed revolt against the Romans, it brings into question why anyone should trust his judgement about what should or should not be considered Scripture.