The End of the Organized Prophetical System.

[Ben Masada]

The End of the Organized Prophetical System

The organized prophetical system was so famous in the History of Israel that schools were raised for candidates to the office of the Art of prophecy. The students were commonly called "the disciples of the prophets" or "the sons of the prophets." (II Kings 6:1) That system last until about 444 BCE when prophets and prophecy ceased to be pursued as an Art. That was the time of the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon. The time declared by Daniel, when vision and prophecy had been sealed up. (Dan. 9:24)

One of the roles of the prophets was to teach the people to know the Lord and how to obey the laws. But, with the return of the Jewish People from exile, a New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one People, when the Law would be written in their own hearts, in the sense that they would no longer need anyone else to teach them to know the Lord, because, from the least of them to the greatest, they would know the Lord by themselves, which rendered the prophetic role obsolete. (Jer. 31:33,34)

Therefore, from the statement used by Daniel that "vision and prophecy had been sealed up," the prophetical system had come to an end. It means that any one claiming or claimed to be a prophet either in the NT or throughout History to this day, was not a prophet. A false prophet therefore, not only for the reason in Daniel 9:24 but also for Isaiah's statement that, "To the Law and the Testimony; if they do not teach according to this method, it's because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20)

Now, please, make sure to check the quotations I have mentioned for the evidences, in order not to raise a contension for my apparent implication that Jesus was a false prophet. He was not. He just was not a prophet at all, as neither was any other up to this very day. Jesus was a teacher and a Rabbi if we take Nicodemus' word for granted. (John 3:2)

Ben

 

[bob x]

Jesus never called himself a prophet, and said No when asked if he was. So calling him a "false" prophet is unfair.

 

[radarmark]

I would make that a big you are right but add that any claim of prophecy since the return from the Captivity.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Bob, you seem to be in agreement!

...in order not to raise a contension for my apparent implication that Jesus was a false prophet. He was not. He just was not a prophet at all...

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus never called himself a prophet, and said No when asked if he was. So calling him a "false" prophet is unfair.

If you paid close attention when you read my thread, I did not say that Jesus was a false prophet. I said that he was not a prophet at all. And I agree with you that he never called himself a prophet. He was a learned Jew, and he knew that the prophetical system had come to an end with the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon. But the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew does refer to him as a prophet. (Mat. 13:57; 21:11) And so does Luke. (Luke 4:24) Not to speak of Christians in general, as I have watched from the mouths of many a TV evangelist.
Ben

 

[arthra]

Jesus never called himself a prophet, and said No when asked if he was. So calling him a "false" prophet is unfair.

Here I am again in the Christian Forum..

Would Jesus not have referred to Himself or alluded to Himself as a prophet..in Mark

6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

(King James Bible, Mark 6:4)

 

[Ben Masada]

I would make that a big you are right but add that any claim of prophecy since the return from the Captivity.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

You are right Radarmark, the issue includes any claim of prophecy since the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon.
Ben

 

[Dream]

One of the roles of the prophets was to teach the people to know the Lord and how to obey the laws. But, with the return of the Jewish People from exile, a New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one People, when the Law would be written in their own hearts, in the sense that they would no longer need anyone else to teach them to know the Lord, because, from the least of them to the greatest, they would know the Lord by themselves, which rendered the prophetic role obsolete. (Jer. 31:33,34)

We are talking about an important passage to Christians. Its Jeremiah talking, so it makes sense he could be talking about the second exodus. (Babylon destroyed the 1st Temple during Jeremiah's lifetime.) There is an obvious covenant in Deuteronomy 27:12 where the people stand on the two mountains. Plain reading of the text it seems that there is a stack of covenants, but it could be that all of the covenants were part of one large covenant.

One of the most debated passages in Christian literature concerning Jeremiah's statement about new covenants is Hebrews 8. Hebrews takes Jeremiah's 'New covenant' to imply that a previous one had been declared 'Old' by Jeremiah, hence by God. Its part of the pedantic analogy of the covenant through Jesus. What it means on the surface isn't always what it meant to them then. Jesus death was the death of a good man who never did any wrong, but he wasn't the only martyr to die around that time. He was one of many thousands, not all that different from the people who died at Masada. It begs to be asked what was the impact of all their lives? One of the things that the passage in Hebrews seems to say is they, like Jesus, didn't die for nothing, that it benefited the world that they stuck to their consciences. They were like an atonement for the world to God. The death of this one man, Jesus, meant the saving of the world and their deaths would be considered similar, part of saving the world. It is all based on what Jeremiah talked about when the original temple got destroyed and the country was up-heaved, and everything seemed like it had been for nothing. Jesus and Christianity comes from a time period when there were similar upheavals and when the Temple was destroyed again. It makes sense that this same idea of a new covenant would appear again in literature.

 

[Ben Masada]

Bob, you seem to be in agreement!

Why wouldn't he be? I am not saying any thing which is not written in the Scriptures. That's a reference to post #1.
Ben

 

[bob x]

Bob, you seem to be in agreement!

Yeah, I try to argue with everybody, but once in a while I agree with somebody-- just by accident, I'll try not to let it happen again

 

[Ben Masada]

Here I am again in the Christian Forum..

Would Jesus not have referred to Himself or alluded to Himself as a prophet..in Mark

6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

(King James Bible, Mark 6:4)

Thanks Arthra, you are right. Therefore, I agree with you.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

We are talking about an important passage to Christians. Its Jeremiah talking, so it makes sense he could be talking about the second exodus. (Babylon destroyed the 1st Temple during Jeremiah's lifetime.) There is an obvious covenant in Deuteronomy 27:12 where the people stand on the two mountains. Plain reading of the text it seems that there is a stack of covenants, but it could be that all of the covenants were part of one large covenant.

One of the most debated passages in Christian literature concerning Jeremiah's statement about new covenants is Hebrews 8. Hebrews takes Jeremiah's 'New covenant' to imply that a previous one had been declared 'Old' by Jeremiah, hence by God. Its part of the pedantic analogy of the covenant through Jesus. What it means on the surface isn't always what it meant to them then. Jesus death was the death of a good man who never did any wrong, but he wasn't the only martyr to die around that time. He was one of many thousands, not all that different from the people who died at Masada. It begs to be asked what was the impact of all their lives? One of the things that the passage in Hebrews seems to say is they, like Jesus, didn't die for nothing, that it benefited the world that they stuck to their consciences. They were like an atonement for the world to God. The death of this one man, Jesus, meant the saving of the world and their deaths would be considered similar, part of saving the world. It is all based on what Jeremiah talked about when the original temple got destroyed and the country was up-heaved, and everything seemed like it had been for nothing. Jesus and Christianity comes from a time period when there were similar upheavals and when the Temple was destroyed again. It makes sense that this same idea of a new covenant would appear again in literature.

Jesus never had anything whatsoever to do with Christianity, which rose about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, organized by Paul in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

And the concept of a New Covenant does not mean that the ancient Sinaitic Covenant had got old and obsolete. Only the terms and reason of the Covenant had changed because of social changes in the historical evolution of the people. For instance, the Law had to be read publicly from time to time, and the people had to be taught how to be in tune with God's will by Priests, Levites, Prophets and Scribes, since the Scriptures had not yet been codefied into writing. Once that was done by Ezra at the return from Babylon, the prophecy of Jeremiah about the New Covenant from 70 years before Ezra, had achieved fulfilment at the time of Ezra, with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31) Therefore, the passage in Jeremiah about the New Covenant cannot be that important to Christians, since it has to do mostly with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
Ben

 

[Dream]

Jesus never had anything whatsoever to do with Christianity, which rose about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, organized by Paul in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

I don't know your background but I respect your opinion. I did look at some postings you made over at another site, because I was curious. I'm more cloak & dagger, usually change names if I change sites. I'll bet you've an interesting back-story, not that I'm prying.

Therefore, the passage in Jeremiah about the New Covenant cannot be that important to Christians, since it has to do mostly with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
Ben

That is the conclusion of what you posted. I moved some of the middle part forward for conversational purposes. With regard to both of the above quotations, in the past I would have had nothing to say; but I don't mind saying that its a very controversial subject to more than just Christians, Muslims and to Jews. If I've learned anything it is that conclusions are inconclusive when it comes to Jesus; but I take your opinion as additional probability that Christianity may have arisen without his consent. If you strongly feel that way, then I will add your opinion to my own.

Its strange to me but the future Christian will be different than the Christian I knew as a child. You and I are some kind of transitional form, not that I'm calling you a Christian, but I mean in the sense of what we think about who Jesus is. I learned the computer when I was 12, the same age when I first read the Bible. Everything and everyone is different now, and we are all changing fast. We are like the people who saw the invention of the automobile and the decline of horses. I want to say 'Get a Horse!' to somebody.

And the concept of a New Covenant does not mean that the ancient Sinaitic Covenant had got old and obsolete. Only the terms and reason of the Covenant had changed because of social changes in the historical evolution of the people. For instance...

You give great examples there. I agree that its tragic for Christians in America (and subsequently in many other places) to think that God, who cannot lie, would reverse a promise. I think however, that it isn't the root of the issue. I also think that the passage in Hebrews takes its meaning of old and new from whatever it was that happened in Jeremiah. Its flexible that way and can accommodate your discovery, perhaps due to its being so old and in a dead language commenting upon another dead language. In order for the 'New' to come in the covenant had to be 'Updated', so then the author of Hebrews would have been talking about the same thing though it reads strangely in English. We read it to mean 'Old' but it cannot mean that, since that isn't what Jeremiah meant. That may seem a little frustrating, because you cannot invalidate and therefore can not validate. Its frustrating from a fundamentalist point of view but not if you are flexible.

 

[Princely]

You are very much mistaken because you do not understand scripture and the power of God.The reason that kind of prophet ended is because the Lord left the Jewish people to their own ways,since they would not walk in His ways. Jesus was a prophet, but much more.God warned the Jewish people prophet after prophet but they didn't listen so He said He was going back to His place until they pay for their guilt and they seek His presence.As far as putting His law within them and writing it upon their hearts so that least to greatest will know Him that hasn't happened yet, but will happen when man accepts the son of man and all the prophets of the Lord.

Thus says the Lord who sent me;

Bk of Isaiah;

My chosen ones shall inherit the land, my servants shall dwell there.
my servants shall eat, but you shall go hungry; My servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame;
My servants shall shout for joy of heart, But you shall cry out for grief of heart and howl for anguish of spirit.
The Lord God shall slay you, and the name you leave Shall be used by my chosen ones for cursing; but my servants shall be called by another name
By which he will be blessed on whom a blessing is invoked in the land; He who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth; For the hardships of the past shall be forgotten, and hidden from my eyes.

This is the covenant with them which I myself have made, says the Lord: My spirit which is upon you and my words that I have put into your mouth Shall never leave your mouth, nor the mouths of your children Nor the mouths of your children's children from now on and forever.

Jeremiah;

They shall be my people, and I will be their God.
One heart and one way I will give them, that they may fear me always, for their own good and that of their children after them.
I will make with them an eternal covenant, never to cease doing good to them; into their hearts I will put the fear of me, that they may never depart from me.
I will take delight in doing good to them: I will replant them firmly in this land, with all my heart and soul.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Lord except through me.
If you know me, then you will also know my Father
Whoever has seen me has seen the Lord.
Do you not believe that I am in the Lord and the Lord is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Lord who lives in me is doing his works.
Believe me that I am in the Lord and the Lord is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves.
Truly I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do.

The only one who's gone up to heaven is the One who came down from there,the son of man.I came down from heaven to do the will of the Lord who sent me. Anyone who chooses to do His will shall know about this teaching namely whether it comes from God or I am merely speaking on my own.

 

[Dream]

You are very much mistaken

Ben has not returned here for a while, so you may not get a response from him.

because you do not understand scripture and the power of God.

Everybody misunderstands the scripture except you, because you have gone through the narrow gate. We have already established this. You have also pointed out that your are the son of man, a very exalted title..

I feel like my theory is being tested. Jesus has told his disciples that he is the way, which I suspect means he expected them to say the same thing. Did he mean them to also repeat it by rote? Not sure. Should they call themselves the 'Son of man' or not? Does this extend to Christians or was it for Jews only? Its one of those questions like the question of whether one must 'Say' they are baptized in the 'Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost' or whether they must merely 'Be' baptized in that name while saying it is optional. Its not plain and obvious from the gospels alone. Another question pertains to how he taught them to pray. People discuss whether his prayer must be spoken verbatim or not. Must one say exactly "Our father which art..." and so on. It is interesting to see someone saying 'I am the Son of man'.

 

[seattlegal]

It is interesting to see someone saying 'I am the Son of man'.

In the generic physical sense, I see "sons of God" as meaning spirit creatures, whereas "son(s) or daughters of man" meaning human beings.

However, when it comes the spiritual meaning, one can see from Genesis 6 that spiritual creatures can be physically minded and have physical desires, and from Jesus that physical creatures can be spiritually minded.

 

[bananabrain]

princely:

i hate to say it but you are not the messiah. you are a very naughty boy.

who's coming to the stoning?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

In the generic physical sense, I see "sons of God" as meaning spirit creatures, whereas "son(s) or daughters of man" meaning human beings.

However, when it comes the spiritual meaning, one can see from Genesis 6 that spiritual creatures can be physically minded and have physical desires, and from Jesus that physical creatures can be spiritually minded.

In Daniel 7:14 and other places it carries some additional meanings, but as prose they don't make a lot of sense. I think someone told me Daniel was written in the Apocalyptic style. Now there is the duel problem of separating what 'Son of man' meant to people in the past vs. what it means to me now and whether its meaning was left open-ended. I think that 'Son of man' is only one of the images used to describe. It may not have been clear to the author exactly what the being would be like after entering the presence of the 'Ancient of days', and he only says 'someone like a son of man.' It is beyond my training.

 

[Dream]

I'm in agreement with the stoning.

 

[bananabrain]

there aren't any women here, are there?

RIGHT! mattathias son of deuteronomy...

b'shalom

bananabrain