You are
right about the prophets in the OT.
Not exact matches
Yes, and that's exactly what the people in the days of Jesus said
about the
prophets who came before Jesus...
right before they turned around and killed Him (Matthew 23:30).
This from a person who practices a religion that has millions of it's adherents everywhere calling for the death of anyone who draws their child touching, slave owning
prophet, but is upset when new yorkers are mad
about the building of a mosque (which as everyone knows, become hotbeds of islamic fundamentalist education)
right next to the spot that your pathetic comrades killed thousands of innocent people.
Lastly, the fact that Jesus fulfilled 600 + prophecies (I believe that's the
right number: /) kinda shows that these
prophets new what they were talking
about.
Such refusal and such incapacity are the measure of the sinfulness of man — and the Hebrew
prophets, who taught the truth
about sacrifice, at the same time saw the radical sin in men which prevented their doing that which alone would «please God» and result in
right relationships with Him.
If I understand you
right, then what you are talking
about with
prophets is listening to the creative order and it's serving of humanity to facilitate humanity obeying it rather than humanity expecting the created order to obey humanity.
My candidate for a «
prophet to the liberals» is Will Campbell, publisher of the journal Katallagete and author of the highly acclaimed Brother to a Dragonfly, an autobiographical book
about the lives of Will and his brother, Joe, as they leave their father's small cotton farm in Mississippi — Will to become a civil
rights worker for the National Council of Churches, Joe to become a small - town pharmacist.
Decisions had to be made from time to time as to where or when services of the church would be held; the church needed to be told of the impending visit of an apostle, or of some
prophet or teacher from abroad; a question has been raised as to the good faith of one of these visitors, and there must be some discussion of the point and a decision on it; a fellow Christian from another church is on a journey and needs hospitality; a member of the local congregation planning to visit a church abroad needs a letter of introduction to that church, which someone must be authorized to provide; a serious dispute
about property
rights or some other legal matter has arisen between two of the brothers and the church must name someone to help them settle the issue or must in some other way deal with it; a new local magistrate has begun to prosecute Christians for violating the law against unlicensed assembly, and consideration must be given to ways and means of meeting this crisis; charges have been brought against one of the members by another member, and these must be investigated and perhaps some disciplinary action taken; one of the members has died, and the church is called on for some special action in behalf of his family in the emergency; differences of opinion exist in the church on certain questions of morals or belief (such as marriage and divorce, or the resurrection), differences which local
prophets and teachers are apparently unable to compose, and a letter must be written to the apostle — who will write this letter and what exactly will it say?
Besides the fact that most humor comes from some inappropriate pairing of themes («A priest, a rabbi and a prostitute walk into a bar...»), it's always ironic to me to see a group of
right - wingers freaking out
about some creative endeavor that doesn't bother to take Christianity or some other part of Traditional America seriously, when they also freaked out
about Muslims freaking out over cartoons
about the
Prophet.
Although Levant has had his own run - in with human
rights tribunals (over complaints
about publishing Danish cartoons portraying the
prophet Mohammed) and does not hide his disdain for them in general, he does have a point.