Talk:Prophecy/Archive 2

Why me break

I'll ask the question once again. When did this article become about the experience of prophecy? mrg3105, your early contributions certainly weren't solely about that. If used as part in the correct sections they should be included again, however, I can find no references included. mrg3105, in searching through many resources you are the only person who solely defines prophecy as the experience of the prophet. The Jewish Encyclopedia[1] doesn't, the Encyclopedia Brittanica[2] doesn't and the Catholic Encyclopedia[3] doesn't. Oh, and many legitimate dictionaries don't either: Chambers[4], Oxford English Dictionary. etc. There can be room for more than one idea here. Paulrach (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My early contributions had to be abandoned when I realised where I was going. However other things came up and I had to stop editing.

Ok, before we get to your proposed Encyclopaedia Britannica derived article structure, please do me a favour and copy to here (below) the definitions of prophecy that are found in the articles you linked to in your response above. Once we have them all together I will illustrate why I am defining prophecy as experience only.

I have no doubt there is room for more then one idea, as there usually is, however ask yourself a question - has mrg315 seen these sites already or not? ;o)

You seem to think that I am some sort of a barrier erected to stop you editing, where as in fact I have "been there, done that". Save yourself time and do not rush in with good intentions into what will prove to be a proverbial "can or worms".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed structure of the article

Take a look at the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article on prophecy. You will see from the table of contents below that it deals with all aspects of what prophecy is, from all angles. The encyclopaedia also deals in separate sections with the beliefs of the individual religions and faiths, the psychology, philosphy of prophecy, etc.. The main problem with it is, there is very little referencing.

Nature and significance

Types of prophecy

Prophecy in the ancient Middle East and Israel

The ancient Middle East

Origins and development of Hebrew prophecy

Prophecy and apocalyptic literature

Prophecy and prophetic religion in postbiblical Judaism

Prophecy in Christianity

Divination and prophecy in the Hellenistic world

New Testament and early Christianity

Prophetic and millenarian movements in later Christianity

Prophecy in Islam

The centrality of prophecy in Islam

The Qur'anic doctrines of prophecy

Later theological and philosophical doctrines

Prophetic figures after Muhammad

Prophecy in other religions

Prophetic movements and figures in the Eastern religions

Prophetic movements and figures in the religions of nonliterate cultures

If we are to move this article from B-class then obviously, this is a very good structure to follow. With links to more detailed articles on the subject matter raised if necessary. There is scope for a lot of good work here.

Remember, that if you Google search the term Prophecy you get this article. So it needs to be good. Paulrach (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Encyclopedia Brittanica structure and thinking about all the myriad Wikipedia articles that relate to prophecy to some extent, one idea might be to adapt something like that, but limit each point to one brief paragraph plus a link to the WP article that has more details. Going back to the earlier suggestion that this article should have a very narrow focus because of all the other articles on Wikipedia; for that approach to work, there would need to be many more articles listed in the See also section, pointing to all these other articles. Prophecy is a very broad, general term, and people should at least find pointers to more specialized articles from here, if we're to have less than full coverage of this broad topic in one place.

I have no problem with this, although I see no reason to have a long list of See Also's. The links can be skilfully integrated in the article content for the most part. The brief paragraphs need to point to the other articles rather then being open-ended invitations to add content here, because that is how this article was ruined in the first, and second places--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

=

"... found throughout the religions of the world ..." ???

I am concerned that the introductory claim that prophecy is "found throughout the religions of the world" is not supported in the aticle.

The "Components of Prophecy" section begins with the unsupported claim that "There are many religious systems where prophecy is the core principle of belief recorded orally or in written form". No example of prophecy is currently provided outside religions of direct(or indirect) Judaic descent (the Bahá'í Faith incorporates the prophetic tradition of Abraham and Moses). The section on "Amerindian Prophecy" does not broaden the horizon to other religions: "cases of claimed prophecy" are exemplified only by "three Dogrib prophets who claimed to have been divinely inspired to bring the message of Christianity's God to their people". Finally, the section on "Other belief systems" [sic] is restricted to Nostradamus, who we are informed "was a Christian".

To provide a genuinely neutral point of view, I think this page must address the definition of prophecy from a broader cultural perspective, as is surely appropriate in a general encyclopedia. For example:

- Is prophecy, by definition, somehow restricted to traditions influenced by the Judaic heritage? (Clearly, this question requires consideration of other traditions.)

- Is prophecy ultimately distinguishable from premonition (eg Cassandra's message to the Trojans) without recourse to particular systems of belief (eg Catholic or Rabbinic)?

- More generally, what similarities and differences can be discerned between conceptions of prophecy in religions of Judaic geneology and the visionary phenomena (including messages to the people) found in other contexts ranging from Shamanic traditions to other highly developed religions?

I feel that some impartial consideration of questions such as these could be of key interest to readers of Wikipedia seeking unbiased information regarding the phenomenon of "prophecy".

I do hope this article can be restructured along the lines discussed in the previous thread (avoiding POV squabbles!): it would make much more healthy reading. I would suggest that the question of "what is prophecy?" should be carefully addressed from the outset in such a way as to provide the necessary perspective for ensuing sections regarding specific traditions. Personally, I think great care should be taken not to misrepresent religions or cultures which do not explicitly embrace Judaic-derived traditions of prophecy and prophets.

Of note, to probe the similarities and differences between oracles and prophecies, it might be helpful to consider the ways in which Mediterranean Sybils were adopted into Mediaeval Christianity.

87.6.51.88 (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No sources after 3 months

This stuff is good but as no sources have been provided I have placed it here until they are. If not this section can be taken to be original research. If the sources are provided then we'll put it back.

Components of prophecy

There are many religious systems where prophecy is the core principle of belief recorded orally or in written form. In the case of the written texts, usually called scriptures, the contents often include, though not exclusively, a record of prophecy that include the identification of the Source , the experience of the prophet or prophetess, and the record itself.

Prophecy is itself a part of a process. Most commonly the sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an ordinary human being into a prophet can be describe with the following:

• 1. There is an original condition stated by the Divine to a given individual, group or society
• 2. There is a need for a prophecy predicated by some divergence from the original condition
• 3. There is the selection of the messenger of the need to correct the divergence by the Source, the prophet
• 4. There is the experience of the messenger's realisation of his/her new role and mission
• 5. There is the delivery of the message...
• 6. ...and its recording as a claim to acting on behalf of the Source (which may occur at a later time)
• 7. There is the acceptance or rejection of the message by the intended addressee(s)
• 8. The content of the prophecy becomes reality, or not, if the message is accepted
• 9. If the prophecy becomes reality, the messenger is accepted as a prophet/prophetess based on the (point 8.) outcome
• 10. Once the messenger is accepted as a prophet (i.e. true prophet), he/she may make further claims of prophecy that are likely to be accepted based on the precedent of the previous delivery
• 11. Once the claims of prophecy are accepted, the prophet/prophetess become a part of the belief system, or faith

There is still to much unsourced material and opinion in this article, but to remove it would take it back to stub class. Paulrach (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I have asked for a determination on the length that can remain be included in the guidelines, none has been made, so until I can find time to add these, they will stay, since no one else is interested in doing research--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish view of prophecy

Interesting comment from another talk page (Talk:Torah):

As for prophecy, the Jewish view of that is very complicated and has nothing to do with an ability to foresee the future.

If this is true (and from what's already on this page, it looks like it may be - prophecy is inspiration from God, quite often to speak about the present), shouldn't the point be added to the article? Jheald (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a single simple "Jewish view" of prophesy that could be put in a one-sentence sound bite. On the one hand, prophets were consulted to obtain revelation on "what is correct" and "what shall we do" matters where one would today consult a rabbi, such as when Huldah was consulted to find out whether a scroll found in the Temple in Jerusalem was authentic or not. On the other hand, prophets do seem to have a habit of throwing in information about the future (as well as information about what is correct and what to do) even when not asked, such as when Hulda gratuitously told the people who came to ask her about the scroll that Jerusalem would not be destroyed during the lifetime of Josiah but would be shortly thereafter. While I don't think it would be correct to say prophecy is defined in Judaism as an ability to foresee the future, I also don't think it would be correct to say it has nothing to do with it, either. As Jheald says, the matter is complicated. The Rambam presented prophecy in a very rational light, but others (like Abraham Joshua Heschel) have been skeptical as to whether the experience of prophecy is a purely rational or mental (as distinct from physical/emotional) experience. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

definition of prophecy

Hi, I like the article, but thought - for those who are skeptics the definition of prophecy should include a slant from their point of view ie intuition, or writing about past events etc.

Also, Galatians 4:24 says prophetic dramas are a method of prophecy - so is a medium necessary?. An illustration of using this mechanism of prophetic drama is Antiochus Epiphenes being used as a drama for the lawless one in 2 Thesallonians 2

Wikipedia is excelent.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How about just the maxim "vaticinium ex eventu" which I found in http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_3-4_53/ai_n14730101

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is often misunderstood what this article is about. It is about prophecy, that is the experience of it, because that is what the subject is defined as, and not specific instances of prophetic claims that are dealt with in their respective articles. "vaticinium ex eventu" is actually a logical fallacy because one can not claim for a prophecy to be false until after the time for the prediction has passed. However, as you will note, prophecy is not about prediction of the future, another common misunderstanding

The excellent part of Wikipedia is that every statement is supposed to represent verifiable published research and not point of view or opinion--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the definition of נביאים "Seer" Or "See Clearly". For example nuvthal (Nuvdal) means "distinction". And nuvot means "to look". Nuvhol means to be fearful, but you cannot be fearful unless you can see the situation at hand. Also bin means "to understand". All of the similarities would lead one to believe it means "to see", which is what I have known it to mean. CheskiChips (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines prophesy (as a noun) as "1. a. That which is done or spoken by a prophet; the action or practice of revealing or expressing the will or thought of God or of a god; divinely inspired utterance or discourse; †the gift of this, divine inspiration itself (obs.)." Wikipedia's definition of "a process in which one or more messages that have been communicated to a prophet are then communicated to others," seems too vague. Could we define it as "the process in which one or more messages allegedly communicated by God or the divine that have been communicated to a prophet are then communicated to others"? Otherwise the message could be from anything, while prophecy refers to a(n) (alleged) message from God, the divine, or the supernatural, depending on your beliefs. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Baha'i section

I am restoring the section on the Baha'i Faith with some additional points. The section is definitely on point. The first sentence states that Baha'u'llah claimed himself that he was a prophet (in Baha'i terms a Manifestation of God) The first part of the second sentence states that he prophesied about the next prophet coming after 1000 years time, and the second part of the second sentence states that he also prophesied about certain worldly events. Finally, the newly added third sentence describes some prophecies that Baha'u'llah's son prophesied about. The section is on point, and is referenced from reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the article. Prophecy is an experience. The content of prophecy is the record of a prophecy claimant, i.e. the prophet. The contents of Baha'i Faith prophecies are dealt with ion other articles. Unless you can add something about the specific experience of prophecy by Baha'u'llah, you are editing in the wrong article on the subject of the record of his prophecy. It is not viable to include the record of every claimed prophecy in this article. It was tried and it failed, creating a bloated and rambling oversized and unmanageable content--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've even add more content now to address your concerns, including the specific act of experience with the divine in the Siyah Chal, and the Baha'i interpretation of the event. However, I should note that there are many other parts of the Instances of prophecy section that do not meet your standards for inclusion in this page. Examples include:

• In the Tanekh subsection "Malachi, whose full name was Ezra Ha'Sofer (the scribe), is acknowledged to have been the last prophet of Israel if one accepts the opinion that Nechemyah died in Babylon before 9th Tevet 3448 (313 BCE)." only states that someone was acknowled as a prophet. This type of statement was included in my first version of the Baha'i section.
• The subsection about Prohecy in the Gospels, the example notes where Jesus gave prophecies about a Women's life.

There are others as well. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Malachi is there to denote end of the prophetic experience in Israel. Other parts were removed as irrelevant and I simply lack time to add what is relevant.

prophecies about a Women's life were supposed to be expanded!

In your addition, most is irrelevant

In 1863, Bahá'u'lláh (only wikilink required), the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, claimed to be the promised messianic figure of all previous religions (unnecessary as this would be in wikilinked article), and a Manifestation of God(same),[22] a prophet endowed with constancy (what is this "constancy"?).[23] Bahá'u'lláh claimed that while being imprisoned in the Siyah-Chal in Iran he underwent a series of mystical experiences including having a vision of the Maid of Heaven who told him of his divine mission, and the promise of divine assistance;[24] he kept this perceived station and mission hidden until he made his claim to his companions in 1863. (unrelated to the actual experience)[25] In Bahá'í belief the Maid of Heaven is a representation of the divine and is analogous to the burning bush encountered by Moses, the dove that descended on Jesus or the angel Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad. (interpretation belongs in the article on record of that you inserted the link for) [26] Bahá'u'lláh foretold of other Manifestations of God coming after him, but indicated that the next one would not appear until at least 1000 years (yet again interpretation rather than experience);[27] he also made a number of prophetic statements about the world, including the downfall of various world leaders. (yet again record of prophecy)[27] `Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'u'lláh's son and successor, also spoke about World War I originating in the Balkans and the rise of communism. (more record of prophecy)[27]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the section, mostly inline with your comments, with a few exceptions. The sentence on the promised messianic figure is important because it shows the Baha'i belief in the continuation of prophets and prophetic experiences, and the connection to the previous prophets. In Baha'i belief, there is a Greater Covenant between the divine and humans that humans will never be left alone and that there will always be divine assistance in the form of prophets. The wikilink to Manifestion of God is quite germane as it describes the Baha'i view on prophets, and their relationship to the divine. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a definition for "a prophet endowed with constancy"? I'm sure anyone reading this will as how "constancy" is related to the experience of prophecy--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your change of the definition, because that is an Islamic definition for "endowed with constantcy". From the same source it states (emphasis added):

"Bahá'u'lláh mentions the figure of the prophet endowed with constancy several times in the Book of Certitude and says that these were prophets to whom a book was revealed.[44] He calls Moses, for instance, the "Author of a divinely-revealed Book."[45] Book in this sense carries the implication that it contains legislation. Many of the minor prophets of the Old Testament, for instance, authored books, but this does not make them prophets endowed with constancy. Such prophets were all, like Moses, legislators. This term also implies that these were major prophets who made lasting covenants with God, abrogating past covenants."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And another quote from the same article describing Baha'i belief on the term endowed with constancy (emphasis added)

"Abdu'l-Bahá refers to the prophets endowed with constancy as "independent prophets." He explains, "The independent Prophets are the lawgivers and the founders of a new cycle. Without an intermediary They receive bounty from the Reality of the Divinity."[46] He groups all the other kinds of prophet together under the category of "followers and promoters" of the independent prophets. He cites Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh as independent prophets. He gives Solomon, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel as examples of the "followers and promoters."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you are sticking on an interpretation from a Muslim scholar from 765 AD, when the Baha'i writings don't use the term in any such manner. Remember the original use of endowed with constancy was used to describe the term Manifestation of God and no Baha'i source describes the term as you have included. All of the Baha'i sources on the term take it to mean an independent prophet which has the right to abrogate a previous covenant and bring new legislation. Taking it to mean one interpretation which is overruled by the vast majority of sources is undue weight. Even the article you are using makes it clear that both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, who are the source of Baha'i theology, used it in a different way. For example, there is no concept of Iman in the Baha'i writings.

Let's go back to what the purpose of the sentence is. Baha'u'llah claims to have some prophetic status, which he terms Manifestation of God, which has certain characteristics. He never described his prophetic status as the definition you are sticking upon. Instead he concentrated on the term as a prophet who had the right to abrogate religious legislation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The following sources define the Manifestation of God as a prophet who can abrogate a previous covenant and legislation and brings in new laws, and not the definition you are extracting from one Islamic scholar 1100 years before the Baha'i usage of the term.

• McLean, Jack (1997). Revisioning the Sacred: New Perspectives on a Baha'i Theology. Kalimat Press. pp. p.6. ISBN 0933770960. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Hatcher, W.S. (1998). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. San Francisco: Harper & Row. pp. p. 122, 153. ISBN 0877432643. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Taherzadeh, A. (1987). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 4: Mazra'ih & Bahji 1877-92. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. pg. 216. ISBN 0853982708. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Balyuzi, H.M. (2000). Bahá'u'lláh, King of Glory. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. p. 166. ISBN 0853983283. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Esslemont, J.E. (1980). Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era (5th ed. ed.). Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. pp. p. 4, 20, 41–42, 124. ISBN 0877431604. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help)
• Taherzadeh, A. (1976). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 1: Baghdad 1853-63. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. p. 164. ISBN 0853982708. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Taherzadeh, A. (1984). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 3: `Akka, The Early Years 1868-77. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. p. 282. ISBN 0853981442. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Bowers, Kenneth E. (2004). God Speaks Again: An Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Baha'i Publishing Trust. pp. p. 278. ISBN 1931847126. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1963-86, comp. Geoffrey Marks (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1996)

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I include the the quotes from the various sources in good faith to show you that the vast majority of sources define the Baha'i term Manifestation of God as a prophet who brings a new law.

In the Baha'i scriptures, the phrases "all of the Prophets" or "all the Prophets of God" are often used to refer collectively to various prophets or, to use the Baha'i term "Manifestations", those extraordinary individuals who initiated and founded the various religious traditions. Abdu'l-Baha uses a similar terminology to distinguish between what he terms the "independent" and "dependent" prophets. The independent prophets are those who bring new laws and claim a new revelation while the dependent prophets are those who work within an existing religious tradition.

— McLean, Jack (1997). Revisioning the Sacred: New Perspectives on a Baha'i Theology. Kalimat Press. pp. p.6. ISBN 0933770960. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Not even the prophets, however are anywhere close to the station of the Manifestations, who provide humankind with God's infallible revelation. The prophets are still ordinary men and women whose powers of inspiration have been developed and used by God. They are referred to as "minor prophets" or "dependent prophets" in the Baha'i writings. When this terminology is used the Manifestations are called "universal" or independent" Prophets. The independent prophets are the lawgivers and the founder of a new cycle.

— Hatcher, W.S. (1998). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. San Francisco: Harper & Row. pp. p. 122-123. ISBN 0877432643. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Manifestations of God ... They are prophets endowed with constancy, who reveal divine law.

— Smith, Peter (2000). "Manifestations of God". A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. pp. p. 231. ISBN 1-85168-184-1. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Baha'is dinstinguish between two categories of divine messengers. The Manifestations of God, who are independent divine intermediaries, and the 'lesser prophets', who are the followers of the Manifestations, and reflect their light. The Manifestations are the bearers of divine revelation and the founders of the world's great religions.

— Smith, Peter (2000). "Prophets". A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. pp. p. 279. ISBN 1-85168-184-1. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Two types of prophets are mentioned in Baha'i writings - the Lesser prophets and the Greater prophets. Lesser prophets, such as Isaiah and Daniel, can predict future events are followers of the Greater Prophets. Greater Prophets, such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah are independent Manifestations of God who come to renew the World of God and establish a new religion.

— Bowers, Kenneth E. (2004). God Speaks Again: An Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Baha'i Publishing Trust. pp. p. 278. ISBN 1931847126. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, its not a competition over references. The competition is over clarity. "Manifestations of God" is a Baha'i term which would be unclear to any atheist. Moreover there are two related articles: prophecy and prophet. The first describes the experience or process of attaining the status of the second. The claims of prophecy, its recorded content, the status of the prophet in his/her religion and society are all a part of the article called prophet and other more specialised articles within specific religions. This article is primarily about the experience and process of attaining prophecy. Is the Baha'i concept different from Islam when expressed in non-technical English? "constancy" and "independent prophet" are meaningless in this sense--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's about clarity, but using terms that don't describe the Baha'i concept of the connection to God which a Manifestation of God has is no less clear, and is actually counter-productive to describing the term accurately. The description you were using is not one that is used in any Baha'i theology, and the sources back that up. Secondly the current wording doesn't use the jargon that you state is meaningless to most: there is no mention of constancy or independent prophet. It uses words to describe the specific type of prophet that Baha'u'llah claimed to be: a Manifestation of God that represents a level of existence which is an intermediary between the divine and humanity, speak with the voice of God, and manifest his attributes to humanity; they have the direct and infallible perception of God's word and transmit it to humanity.

As to the purpose of this article and the Baha'i content therein, the section germanely indicates the prophetic experience through the Maiden of Heaven, and Baha'u'llah's claim to be a prophet (which Baha'is name Manifestation of God). The phrase continuing following that statement, serves to clarify the term as a specific type of prophet. I can change that sentence to be more in line with the prophetic experience, but using an Islamic idea that does not exist in any Baha'i theology is counterproductive. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Divine definition

I think that this article begins to stray in the first two sentences. "Prophecy, generally, describes the disclosing of information that is not known to the prophet by any ordinary means.[1] In religion, this is thought to be a divinely inspired revelation or interpretation..."

Now the first sentence is sourced, yes... but it is given within the context of a discussion of disclosure by a Creator. Whereas the Wikipedia version makes it sound like prophecy = precognition and then goes downhill from there. The source #1 makes it clear that this isn't so, and that prophecy can be simply the very clear explanation of what is believed to be God's will without foretelling any future events. (Besides, bear in mind that the Abrahamic religions carry a scriptural prohibition against fortune telling, which should make it clear how differently the two are viewed)

I think that this article needs to accept as a ground premise that prophecy is a strictly religious phenomenon, in order to bring some kind of order to the topic. Wnt (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely what I have been saying all along, and is the reason why the article concerning the St. Malachy prophecy is in error on the last two names in the list. Integrity is obviously not anything of a pillar anymore at wikipedia as such. - ~~Prophet of the Most High~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.209 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Prophetic office

I would like to see some material on the prophetic office (Munus docendi), which is part of the theology of the New Testament. [5] ADM (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is found in sections 783-786 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as compiled by Bishop (Cardinal) Ratzinger. - ~~Prophet of the Most High~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.209 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What is prophecy (definition)?

We shall make difference between fortune telling and prophecy. If the events relate to one person or his/her family, we speak about fortune telling. If the events relate to large groups of people, such as nations, kingdoms, states, countries, etc., we have a prophecy. Accordingly the similar is the difference between a fortune teller and prophet. --Zara-arush (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If the fortune telling is true, then it is prophecy. Simple as that. Any further distinction is superfluous. - ~~Prophet of the Most High~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.209 (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

These subsection headings not needed

Since I found them out of order (Jude before Pauline Epistles) I rearranged them in the correct order, but really the subsection headings could all be merged into one. And there's a distinct lack of refs.

1. 4.4 Christianity

   * 4.4.1 in the New Testament
   * 4.4.2 Gospels
   * 4.4.3 Acts
   * 4.4.4 Pauline Epistles
   * 4.4.5 Other Epistles

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal update for wikipedia editors concerning prophecy

Quote from Jeff3000 : "Wikipedia has a number of policies that I've seen you have already had problems with."

Firstly, Jeff3000, it is not grammatically correct to end a sentence in the English language with a preposition when it is possible to express one's written idea otherwise. Although this may seem difficult at first, I have found that it seems to get easier. Your first sentence quoted above should be written "Wikipedia has a number of policies with which I've seen you have already had problems."

Secondly, as to the content of the sentence, I have corrected the policy of No original research to include the exclusion of any application of crime in cases when an editor does not have any inclination to commit crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=313123193#Wikipedia_does_not_publish_original_research_or_original_thought.

Copyright law in the United States of America requires you to remain in abidance with this exclusion. Prior to my discourse at the above link, wikipedia was in violation of not only copyright law, but criminal and civil law as well. So the statement by Blueboar that the policy would not change is totally incorrect. I have changed it to exclude crime for those not inclined to commit crime, even to the extent that a prophet and/or prophetess may publish in wikipedia if necessary without any violation of wikipedia policy.

Aside from this, I agree with your statement except that "we" have had problem, in example, wikipedia was abusive to all prophets and/or prophetesses prior to my fixing the problem. This improvement is global for anyone using wikipedia. And it is not exclusively up to you to decide what is or is not necessary to publish.

As for your limiting the Holy Bible to being a Christian source, you are in error. The Blessed Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - Three Persons in One God. A properly cited sentence which improves the article "Prophecy" at wikipedia should not be taken lightly. The final version of the opening sentence of which I support has three references supported by Three Persons. That is a total of 9 (nine) reliable references. It has been mentioned that when one searches "prophecy" they will come to that page. A powerful and correct statement should be at the forefront.

I offer no resistance to improvement. The rest of you should follow suit. Your thoughts and ideas on this may be helpful. - Edward Palamar (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward, pointing grammatical points in my sentence structure is not germane to the topic at hand, which is that your edits don't meet Wikipedia's policies. You seem to be editing as the Bible is Truth, and Wikipedia doesn't work with Truth, but what is verifiable in the neutral point of view, and using the Bible as the introductory sentence is not neutral. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for using the spelling germane, I always used germain. Everything is important, Jeff, even the details. The more we help each other out, the better things get. Arguably, my weakness in the spelling and your dangling preposition can be attributed to the fact that guidelines lacked neutral point of view while enticing crime. My link was too broad, sorry, I fixed it. Please read through that, as it addresses the specifics in question except for one other major detail. My secondary and tertiary resources have the same strength as my primary source. I have something else to say to you, but I first need to make sure you read the discourse to which I specifically referred. I'll be able to respond after some other work I need to do. - Edward Palamar (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward, in the context of what types of content are applicable in this article, spelling or grammar in our discussions absolutely does not matter. And your whole argument of enticing crime makes no sense at all. What is applicable in Wikipedia is that you have to follow its policies including no original research and neutral point of view, and the Bible as a primary source cannot be used at the beginning of this article since it is not neutral nor is it a secondary source. Remember Wikipedia is not about what you think is the Truth. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In your interpretation of what you think the context should be according to your interpretation of what you think the content should say according to what your interpretation of what you think the rules should say. - Edward Palamar (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I quoted from policy which clearly states that secondary sources should be used, and the Bible is not a secondary source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And they were provided, aside from your assumption that they were of the Bible. - St. John the Baptist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.28.153 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

how do i know if i was inspired by divinity has anyone here live such unfamiliar situation?--Bellaaa128 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bellaaa128 : One can be inspired by God and never, necessarily, say nor write a single word. But when it comes to prophecy, by definition, it is a matter of whether the words are true or not. This determines if you are a prophet of God, or not, and whether the prophecy is true or not. The Law regarding the prophet(ess, etc.) is that if he/she/they should lie and communicate something which God had not specifically commanded, then the violator would be answerable to God alone. This Law is the oldest and only precept regarding prophecy. The attempt of wikipedia in its varied editorship to re-establish this Law as a subjunct of its pillars is futile as it doesn't concern its pillars, it concerns God, the prophet, and the distance between. And as to definition, this article repeatedly fails, even in court, as to not include this at the forefront of the article, is merely trying to take that which is sacred and replace it with that which is not. - ~~Prophet of the Most High~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.209 (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian section longer than all the others?

What is the reasoning for all the excessive information? This is NOT an article about Christianity and thus it should be treated the same as the other religions. I think the section should be trimmed. 86.131.245.123 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to add to the other sections, your more than happy too, however removing information is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Ishmaelblues (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For real? Nothing on Wikipedia is ever removed? That's nonsense. There is a separate article on Christian prophecy... the long repeat on this page is unnecessary and suggestive of favouritism. It should be slashed down to an appropriate length. (118.172.36.159 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Psychological Understanding

I have a couple of beefs with this section. Firstly, the phrase, "the phenomenon of prophesy is not well understood" implies that prophesy has been empirically verified, but the section does not support this, nor does it explain away the skeptical arguments. Many of the other statements seem to be talking about intuition. Not only do I not see why these 2 concepts were linked, intuition does not fit the definition of a prophecy, as given at the top of a page, because intuition is not necessarily thought of as communication from the divine.184.5.166.215 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That is well noted, but you need to understand the difference between prophecy and prophesy. Prophecy is the noun form, prophesy is the verb form. The difference in the last syllable is important. Prophecy (pronounced "see") and prophesy (pronounced "sigh"). A prophet prophesies prophecies. - ~~Prophet of the Most High~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.209 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)