From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Early comments[edit]

For me a prophet is somebody who asks us to reassess the way we are living our lives, somebody who asks us to look in a new direction (is this not what prophets of all creeds have done), and gives us guidance, or points out possible errors, in the way we have treated both each other and our home. The problem appears to be that a prophet cannot be considered such unless she/he has the weight of history behind them, should a new prophet arrive would they be greeted with open arms by the many, or shunned into hiding and desperation by the many, who expect who knows what but not words from the mouth of an ordinary person.

If I look at a prophet as someone who shows me a new way of living, that is more in tune with the world that I inhabit than a world 2000 years ago, do I dismiss this prophet?? Do I say that although I believe your thoughts to be correct, although I believe your arguments valid, I cannot accept you as a prophet?

The prophets have all one thing in common, they tried to shape the world for the better. Their beliefs were held because of a deep belief not only in a deep understanding of humanity, but also the belief that humanity was here for a purpose.

According to the major religions of the world today, there has not been a moderm prophet for nearly 1700 years, why is this? was there a sudden flurry a couple of thousand years ago??? or have we become too closed off to hear the new prophets??

Bill Hicks RIP

Biblical prophets[edit]

Article says "Within this group, many Protestants believe that prophecy ended with the last of the prophets in the portion of the Old Testament included in their canon, leaving a gap of about 400 years between then and the coming of Jesus Christ" -- doesn't the NT say John the Baptist was a prophet?

And, don't the Epistles speak of prophets or prophecy in the early church? (Which would seem to indicate that it didn't die out until the end of the apostolic age?)

Finally, doesn't the book of Revelations (Rev. 11:3) predict a comeback for prophecy? (The two witnesses who will prophesy for 1260 days?) -- SJK

Regarding the Protestant belief, that's what I gathered from growing up in Sunday School in a variety of Protestant settings, but my experience is a very small data point. If you have other experience or data that suggests Protestants view John the Baptist as a prophet, than perhaps "many Protestants" should be downgraded to "some" or "a few"; or delete the reference to Protestants and Orthodox and just say "many Christians think John the Baptist was the last prophet" if my experience turns out to have been an anomaly. That wouldn't terribly surprise me, on something like this.
The Epistles do speak of prophecy and even prophets, mostly in terms of a gift or role that a person might exercise from time to time. I don't think the NT names specific people as prophets, though I could be mistaken. Historically, the Church has often referred to such people as "saints" rather than prophets, whereas OT holy people are usually called "prophets" rather than "saints", or it seems based on my limited exposure. I don't think you see specific people identified as prophets until you get down to groups like the Latter Day Saints. As for anything dying out at the end of the apostolic age, prophecy or anything else, I think that belief is only held by some dispensationalist theologians. Certainly the Catholic and Orthodox would affirm that the apostolic age is continuing via apostolic succession, and many Pentecostals, Charismatics, and other Protestants would say that the Holy Spirit continues to be active in the church and in the world in a number of ways, including by bestowing prophecy. Perhaps the difference between OT and NT prophecy is best shown in the Joel passage that's quoted in Acts 2.
Revelations says lots of things, which are interpreted many many different ways. :-) If we were discussing what the Bible actually teaches, we could quote Scripture verses in defense of this or that interpretation, as well as argue that this or that methodology should be used to interpret the verses, or that a particular tradition of interpretation is authoritative and ought to be followed. As we write these encyclopedia articles, I think our job is to document what the major groups of people out there believe that the Bible teaches, both historically and today. With that in mind, do you or any groups you know of believe that Revelation predicts a comeback of prophecy? As for me, I've believed many things about it myself, to the point now of being fairly thoroughly agnostic about it.
These are good questions, and I'm glad you raised them. Hope this is dialogue is helpful, and that it results in an improved article. I think it will. --Wesley

Muhammad was not the seventh Muslim prophet, although he was the last. He was the last of the "5" prophets who brought with themselves a book (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad). Muslims have thousands of other prophets, although they did not bring upon their people a religion. Alireza Hashemi

Some of them did. E.g., the Persians Zoroaster and Mani. Don't Muslims regard them as prophets? Some people think the Mandaean religion was founded by John the Baptist, who is considered by Mandaeans the greatest prophet (although they claim their religion antedates him, just as Muslims claim theirs antedates Muhammad). Since someone asked about Roman Catholic views of John the Baptist, I believe I recall reading in the online Catholic Encyclopedia (I don't recall the URL, but you can find it via Google) that Catholics do consider him a prophet. Michael Hardy 21:22 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

In response to your comments:There are thousands of prophets, however Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are of the ololazm. Zaroaster is considered by some to be a ololazm prophet, although he has never been mentioned. With the many thousand prophets muslims have in virtually every region of the world, even the Buddha might be considered as a prophet.

The "Revelation of Ares" is not really a religion. It is the work of one Frenchman, named Michel Potay, a former Eastern Orthodox Deacon who since 1974 claims to be a new prophet of God. He has been ignored by the masses, and has few followers. His faith isn't even a statistical blip, and it does not (yet?) merit any text within this article. We can, of course, create a new article on this new spiritual movement.

Deleted material follows:

Views of The Revelation of Arès ===
The Revelation of Arès took place in Arès (France) and made the witness of the supernatural events, Michel POTAY, a prophet. The Revelation of Arès was given by Jesus in 1974 (40 Apparitions) and God in 1977 (5 Theophanies), it constitutes a recent but major Revelation since the Bible and the Qur'an.
The Revelation of Arès recalls the monotheistic roots, in order to recreate and dynamise spiritual life, which is the fundamental task of any prophet. The basic message is that man will not gain happiness by any rigid, dogmatic, legalistic, ideological, political, scientific, financial, nationalistic, theological, etc., system, but by simply recreating himself good, becoming once again the positive image and likeliness of the Creater, thus redeeming himself and recreating Eden, here on earth.
The Revelation of Arès refers to former prophets (Zarathustra, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Muhammad) in a unique way, inciting the faithful of The Revelation of Arès to accomplish all their respective messages in a spiritual and virtuous harmony with this recent Revelation. It is giving many insights as to how everybody is to become a prophet himself by delegation, e.g. by living and spreading all the Word of God, as revealed by His prophets.
The original text of The Revelation of Arès is edited in a book with the same title. In Arès (France) takes place a pilgrimage every summer, which is destined to give the humble pilgrim coming there the forces to accomplish his intentions of recreating himself and the world good, in order to contribute to change human history to the better, which is the reason why all the prophets are sent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talkcontribs)
This material has been moved to a new article: Revelation of Arès. COGDEN 19:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't some mention of classical oracles, and so forth, be mentioned on this page? As I recall, soothsayers, and so forth, were sometimes called prophets. john 22:34 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! RK 22:37 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A removal[edit]

I removed the following text, which seems awkward and not really à propos to this article:

Readers of this article are encouraged to read the parallel article on revelation, as the term revelation itself has a number of meanings and interpretations, even within the same religion. Various forms of revelation have been proposed, including: verbal revelation; Aristotelian rationalism; non-Verbal propositional revelation; and God's will as revealed through a people's historical development of their faith. In the 20th century existentialism has inspired new ways of understanding revelation.

COGDEN 16:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Christian concepts of a prophet[edit]

I removed "for the link to the divine is threatened. Questions of self-deception and gullibility arise from those who remain unconvinced." because:

  • The first part seemed like a bit of unnecessary psychoanalysis. Isn't it enough to state what without hypothesizing why?
  • The second part is about skeptics' view of the Christian concept of prophecy, not the concept itself. If this perspective is going to be included, it should be separate from this section, because these "questions of self-deception and gullibility" apply to all believers in prophecy, not just the Christian variety.

Tverbeek 01:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Raw censorship. If prophecy is a link to the divine as it is claimed, then doubt threatens the link to the divine. A functional and logical statement, not "unnecessary psychoanalysis." Questions of self-deception and gullibility do indeed apply to all believers in prophecy, assessed from a skeptical, which is to say a rational and neutral point-of-view. This suppression is too shallow to deceive and too offensive to stand. A mark of dishonor for User:Tverbeek. I refuse to revert, since reversion has been so compromised by just this kind of "editing." Wetman 04:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to suppress anything (I don't believe in prophecy either), so please tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric. I think the skeptic's take on all this is pretty self-evident, which is why I didn't think it needed to be spelled out, but if you think it does, by all means, include the comments about how skeptics view prophecy, but put them in an appropriate context. The insertion of critical comments in that particular section seems like an attempt to insert your own POV into a description of someone else's.
P.S. Anyone who believes that his own POV is inherently NPOV should be prepared for questions of self-deception from those who remain unconvinced. :) Tverbeek 11:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No educated person could imagine that skepticism is a "take" in a neutral atmosphere. Skepticism is an intellectual starting-point. It is the neutral starting-ground for the rest of us here at Wikipedia. In fact the lack of skepticism is a symptom of a cultist in its most negative connotation. Wikipedians should not all be bullied by a handful of aggressive cultists. "If prophecy is a link to the divine as it is claimed, then doubt threatens the link to the divine." Where is the illogic of this neutral and axiomatic statement? Why are we to be censored by Tverbeek in this repellant manner? --Wetman 01:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really understand the point of these sentences. Obviously those who are assured in their own worldview (be they bible-thumper or skeptic) think everyone who thinks differently is gullible and deluded, and this works both ways. It seems too obvious to state. Why do we need to explain why this is the case in this article, as opposed to some more general article on religion or skepticism? COGDEN 04:28, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's a sensible thought! --Wetman 07:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed advertisement for Muhammad... not sure how that slipped through.-- 01:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very poor quality discussion of Chiristian concepts of the prophetic tradition. It seems to be written from one, fairly narrow perspective of a particular charismatic group. For instance, what Chrisitan groups are meant by "some Christians?" The discussion is very vague, and does not seem to reflect the breadth and depth of theological thought on the topic. 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"For Christians the authenticity of a prophet is judged as Jesus said that one should judge a prophet, by his fruits (Gospel of Matthew 7) and by checking whether his predictions come true." I do not know Jesus saying this in the Bible. At least a reference (like the one in italics) should be given? --Timo M Aho (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Timo, the Old Testament reference is this:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:22

But in obtaining an understanding of the subject it is a frequent mistake to not consider that which other scriptures, whether oft quoted or obscure, teach and exemplify. For instance:

"...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Revelations 19:10

Similarly, Old Testament prophets prophesied, and thereby testified, of a Messiah and His coming, as quoted many times in the Gospels: " is written...". So prophets testifying of Christ is both an Old and a New Testament theme.

"And he said unto them,...that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

DanB (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Prophecy with Prophet[edit]

Why should this article be merged? Prophecy is the act of telling the future, a prophet is the person who does it - they're both long pages, and I'm pretty sure they'd spit out page size warnings if they were merged.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheridan (talkcontribs)

I'm removing the merge notice and removed the merge listing - see Talk:Prophecy#Prophecy distinct from Prophet -- Zawersh 06:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it is not immediately obvious, but the prophet is quite a separate subject from the contents of the prophecy, and needs to be examined separately, particularly as they relate to their particular faiths.--Mrg3105 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Prophethood with Prophet[edit]

Not sure who suggested this merger, but given the similarity of their opening paragraphs, it seems like a good idea. The Prophethood page could easily be turned into a re-direct page to the Prophet page making managing subject edits more easy and consistent. Daniel De Mol (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be some minimal standard of notability for a religion to have a section on this page? In particular, do the last two - Direct Worship and some splinter sect of Rastafarianism - really merit a whole subsection, particularly when major issues like the Nilotic concept of prophecy remain undiscussed? - Mustafaa 22:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a problem, but the NPOV policy makes it more difficult to exclude marginal stuff like this. Jayjg 04:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Shouldn't we mention the Prophet electronical music keyboard? Purple Rose 14:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


Where is Zarathushtra (Zoroaster)?! Is there a reason why he is not here? Considering the impact his religion had on Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism (not to mention Manichaeism, Mazdakism, Mithraism and others), I find it a major omission. I just wanted to ask, before I consider endeavoring to distill what I know into a section. Others have mentioned him above, but only as a peripheral matter in regards to Islam or The Revelation of Arès. Zoroastrianism may be the smallest of the great World Religions, but its current size belies its historic notability which is especially apparent in the eschatology, soteriology, dualism, angels, temptation by evil, the three wise men, et cetera ad æternum, of the three largest monotheistic faiths today. In essence (or should I say Essenes!) he's a prophet's prophet and I am mystified why he's not here. I can not varify whether or not Zarathushtra is considered a minor Islamic prophet, but Magians are only mentioned once in the Qur'ān (22:17) and not spoken well of in the Ḥadīth. After the Arab conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians were officially considered as 'people of the book' (which is an interesting footnote considering their scriptures were non-Abrahamic), though in reality they were heavily persecuted and driven into the hills of Iran and to exile in India. Khirad 14:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aidun (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Many followers of Zarathushtra do not consider him a prophet rather a teacher or a philosopher who composed the Gathas or manthras (thought-provokers)consisting of 17 songs. The concept of a prophet who is considered a miracle worker came years later when organized religion took form and got hold of even Zarathushtra's philosophy of life turning it into a religion which appeals to the masses.

An omission. --Wetman 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for a Prophet. My two cents: prophecy is only one "job" that a prophet does. I think miracle working is another. Intercessory prayer is another. Whether or not a prophet has a mass of followers is not that important. Daniel and Jonah come to mind. Sex should not be important either. I would add Anna, the 84 year old lady in Luke chapter 2, to the list of New Testament Prophets. For me it comes down to two criteria. Does the Prophet bring a message from God to a person(s),whether by way of reinforcement, a new teaching, or a prediction? Does the Prophet manifest the works of God? A prophet must experience God. A prophet must express the will of God in words and works. Enoch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Removed the paragraph on dispensationalism as it was unclear, no reference for the phrase “most of Christianity”, and lumps The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints incorrectly into a Protestant denomination. (If this section was meant to show that the LDS church teach a form of dispensationalism, then it should go under the LDS concept of a prophet) But mainly it seems this section just seems to be placed here and does not flow well.

I also included Joseph Smith as a false prophet under the Christian concept of a prophet for the following reasons. 1. No mainline Christian denomination (from Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc, consider Joseph Smith a prophet. 2. Joseph Smith’s taught different theology about God, Jesus, Salvation than what is taught in the Bible. 3. Very few if any of his prophecies came true. 4. Unlike the Bible there is no historical proof of any of the events or cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith, Latter day saints: Unfulfilled prophecies, teaching contrary to

Comparison of Christian and Mormon Belief 1freethinker 16:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I qualified the statements about what "most Christians believe" to "some Christians believe" because it's an unsupported statement. I also added some qualification and clarification about why some Christians may point to Joseph Smith as a false prophet in a way that introduces the topic without getting into the argument of who's a real prophet and who's not. Finally, I added some more information about what latter-day saints consider our prophet and ancient prophets to be. I wanted to add that mormons consider themselves Christians, but it didn't seem like it would flow, and there's probably a better page for it elsewhere.Adambryant 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)adambryant

discussed & unreferenced passage[edit]

I rm the subsection titled "The Direct Worship concept of prophet" which stated that: Direct Worship teaches that God is equally accessible to all mankind, and that God has ordained only one universally common mode of worship for all mankind to follow. As such, any follower of Direct Worship can obtain enlightenment from God provided a certain level of sacrifices is met and that these sacrifices are performed directly in honor of God only. Consequently, prophets in Direct Worship are accorded a normal human status, but are recognised to have received divine revelation as a reward for performing significant prayers and sacrifices.". It is not noteworthy and unreferenced. Please see WP:CS. Santa Sangre 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

so how are they the same well to tell you the truth no one really knows the right answer to that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Other people termed Prophets[edit]

All members of the Grotto (an appendant Masonic Order), officially called The Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm are termed "Prophets" This should perhaps be included in the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Someone is vandalizing the page by reverting to this patently nonsensical description:

"a prophet is a person who has directly encountered God, of whose intentions he can then speak as if he were God himself."

Has that been there very long? It's ridiculous.

Alleged or actual 'prophets' neither consider themselves to be nor are considered to be "speaking ask if he [or she]is God himself." The sentence was was written by someone who is either very ignorant of the topic, or a cynic wanting to trivialize the whole discussion. It is vandalism pure and simple, and I'll go to the mat on this. To repeat: You can modify my own input, but a wholesale revert is vandalism.

(the above edit was unsigned)
The opening paragraph back on 2005-04-10 was as follows:
In numerous religions, including Abrahamic religions, Jah religions, Sikhism, and many forms of Paganism, a prophet is an intermediary with a deity, particularly someone who speaks for the deity or interprets the deity's will or mind. A prophet usually operates through some means of divination, channeling, or extra-sensory perception, and the prophet's pronouncements in the name of a deity are sometimes called revelation. Some utterances foretelling the future may be interpreted as having been prophesies. Some "prophecies" seem to have been made after the event; these are given the technical name vaticinia ex eventu.
I would agree that the description in the article as it stands today is far inferior to this earlier one [apart from obvious typos or spelling mistakes]. DFH 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attack on the person here - labling people "vandals" - is inappropriate. This is not vandalism, it is a difference of opinion. Wikipedia says "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What about going to that mat? Contrast and compare your claims with scripture.

God said to Moses:

"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." Exodus 4:12

Moses protested, saying he didn't speak to others well. So God called Aaron, via his prophet Moses, to be Moses' spokesman. Then He drew a parallel between the two sets of relationships: God to Moses, and Moses to Aaron.

"And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God."Exodus 4:15-16

God spoke to Moses face to face Exodus 33:11, and Isaiah saw God Isaiah 6:5, as did others.
To the prophet Ezekiel, God said:

"But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God..."Ezekiel 3:27

Further, in Ezekiel 33:1-19, God teaches Ezekiel the role of a prophet: he is to warn the wicked from sin, comparing Ezekiel to the watchman who, at the peril of his own soul, must blow the trumpet when the enemy appears.
So the statement: "a prophet is a person who has directly encountered God, of whose intentions he can then speak as if he were God himself" is succinct and accurate.
By the way, associating the process of revelation from God with such evil and/or spurious means as divination, channeling or ESP demonstrates a gross and presumptuous lack of understanding of the process of revelation - at the very least. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9
Instead, keep on studying the scriptures to learn more. DanB (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That the foregoing comments are not NPOV is true; then again, need an NPOV article sections, listing differing views? DanB (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

POV issues[edit]

In the same vein as the two comments directly above this one, I think the lead is problematic in numerous ways, especially concerning the Sybilline oracles and the implications of "a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered God". The Sibylline oracles were primarily pagan and hardly monotheists. I think that there is some very heavy Abrahamic POV in this entry. Zoroaster is suspiciously absent as well. I think that we should use Rudolf Otto's term numinous in place of "God" in the lead, and some of the material should be redacted for tone and POV. - WeniWidiWiki 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Several edits have been made to the entry without anyone bothering to discuss the inherent POV issues I've brought up. I would like some discussion about this matter, but will adhere to wikipedia policy by the letter and edit the material unilaterally if no one is interested in discussion. - WeniWidiWiki 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and be bold and change the intro. If it's something that others have problems with, the discussion will be able to go forward with an alternative. -- Jeff3000 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The current lead is way too short and doesn't meet WP:LEAD. -- Jeff3000 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that it was finished - I intended to start off with what I consider a neutral title sentence and then discuss a neutral overview for the lede here on the talk page. Feel free to add NPOV material. I will be adding material on Sibyl and the Voluspa to the article directly (which are not Abrahamic or monotheistic) and later Zoroaster (who is not Abrahamic, but *is* monotheistic) so please keep that in mind. The usage of "God" is not consistent with Jewish usage, and most definitely not consistent with historical pagan usage. This is the lede before I modified it:

In religion, a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered God, of whose intentions he or she can then speak as if a formal representative of God. Those who are not prophets are then urged to take seriously the divinely revealed word as an act of faithfulness to God. When a prophet is held to be genuine, new religions may be adopted, based on the prophet's teachings, and on their interpretations. A prophet often operates through some means of divination or channeling. The process of receiving a message from God (or 'The Gods' or 'angels of God') is usually known as prophecy or revelation, and in this sense, the terms are synonymous.

Any suggestions or ideas which adhere to WP:NPOV would be appreciated. - WeniWidiWiki 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the version as it now stands. Anyone want to discuss this, or is this acceptable?

In religion, a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered the numinous and serves as an intermediary with man for the divine. Prophets existed in many ancient cultures, including the Sybilline and Delphic Oracles in Ancient Greece, the Völuspá in Old Norse, Zoroaster in Persia, and many others. In Abrahamic religion, a prophet is seen as a person who has encountered, and speaks as a formal representative of, God; they are seen to found a new religion based on their teachings from God.

I changed "man" to "humanity," minor point. I do think the sentence is awkward, and would say "between humanity and the divine," but did not want to change that as others might think it implied different content. I did change last line to SOME prophets are seen as founding new religions. I don't think that is accurate of most prophets in the Abrahamic tradition... the Hebrew prophets are by far the majority and did not found new religoins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

In modern times, the term "prophet" is often controversial. Joseph Smith, Jr. and Ellen G. White the respective founders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, were considered prophets by their followers, but vilified by other branches of Christianity.

- WeniWidiWiki 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who introduced the phrase "a prophet is someone who, having encountered God, is able then to speak of His intention." I had hoped in this to have stated the essential in as few words as possible. Someone else added to this "as if he were God himself," which certainly is "nonsense."
I think there is a confusion here between ecclesiastical efficaciousness and the nature of prophecy. What makes a person a prophet has nothing to do with the extent to which he or she is admitted to being a prophet, able to act as intermediary, formal representative etc. A prophet is someone, simply, who HAS had the relevent encounter (not necessary to say that the person BELIEVES to have had such an encounter), and all the relevent theology is contained in the idea of God, whatever that is, having a knowable intention, generally of a moral or eschatological character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliotistic (talkcontribs)

As a descendent of the Afrian Zulu Nation ... Why is it that you do not incorporate the the African Nation within your explatives of the origin of man. Knowing full well that the origin of man dwellwd in Africa nad that eveything that this so called modern world originated came from Africa. Stop Frontin!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

What happened??[edit]

The article in its present form (or rather, before I restored the intro), strongly implies that the term "prophet" originates with Judaism and the Old Testament, an implication which is broadly and specifically inaccurate. For instance, Nabu-Kudu-Reser (Nebuchadrezzar) means "the prophet guards my territory," --and he wasn't an Israelite, and the "nabu" in his name isn't referring to an Israelite prophet. Comparing the article with its form several months ago, it seems as if an apologist for just one faction of one religion or philosophical outlook has co-opted the article as a platform for a personal view about the nature of prophecy, and prophets. It isn't accurate, for example, to assert that many or most prophets "are unremarkable" except for the "gift" of prophecy: On the contrary, prophets or alleged prophets in every culture and religion and nation and society have been remarkable men and women. 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source that suggests Nebuchadrezzar predated Moses? The first Nebuchadrezzar is dated from about 1146 BC to 1123 BC, but I know of no record that suggests he was a prophet. Moses expereinced his first revelation in 1314 BCE. The second Nebuchadrezzar II is known from the Book of Daniel, but Daniel was not a prophet and certainly not Nebuchadrezzar II (c 630-562 BC).
I will have a look, but it seems to me these were not my edits since I had not edited this article for months.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Nabu - The etymology of his name is disputed. It could be derived from the root nb´ for "to call or announce", meaning something like "He who has called".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I find multiple problems with a couple of drastic revisions you've made to the article, not so much with the individual corrections and edits you've made. In late August 2007 and now, you are trying to conform the article to your own religious views, which are evidently a form of conservative Judaism. How would you like it if an atheist or a Muslim or Baptist or Reform Jew radically revised the article prophet to reflect their own opinions? I don't want to point-for-point argue with you, arguments involving religious and political POV are almost always unconstructive, and usually generate resentments galore. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -- and the introduction to the article wasn't bad, until you altered it. For example, you replaced Abrahamic Religion with Judaism, as if unaware Judaism is an Abrahamic religion. (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is Wikipedia. If you are not prepared to discuss the edits with other editors, you may not be in the right place. I thought it was "broke". Have you read the article on Abrahamic religions? Aside from the fact that no one is obligated to use the term, it is a claim. This claim is based on Islam, and is unsubstantiated. I am not going to argue with you on the right and wrong of the use of the term, but only say that in the context of the subject the views on prophets are so diverse among even the "Abrahamic" religions that it is unwarranted to lump them all into one. In any case, I do not appreciate being called "vandalistic". If you have a problem with any one of the edits I made, please discuss first...after you register as a user.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I discussed the edits, but again, am not interested in arguing religious POV with you. Nor am I interested in edit warring with you. I've requested, and will request again, that an administrator monitor your edits to this article, and will accept their decisions. (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On the plus side, I see the wisdom in listing Judaism, Christianity and Islam in chronological order instead of just the phrase "--each Abrahamic Religion." Others may disagree, but either characterization is acceptable enough to me. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with your replacing the obscure term numinous with the well-known term supernatural, and with other edits you've recently made in the body of the article. I guess all I'm urging is that you be extra-careful when modifying the introduction to any article about a super-controversial term such as Prophet. For comparison, the introduction to the article Prophecy could use improvement, but I plan to leave it alone unless the introduction to the article Prophet becomes similarly awkward. (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing religious POV with anyone in Wikipedia.
If you stop reverting my edits, and tell me what it is that you find wrong with them, point by point, you may find I am not unreasonable.
I am rebuilding prophecy from scratch, almost. I seem to be having hard time explaining the difference between prophecy, and the belief in it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, it appears you are only trying to "rebuild" the sectarian POV you believe the article should espouse. Nevertheless, I don't mind your deleting the paragraph which was basically an unnecessary re-statement of the lede, and then adding a version of it as an intro to the section entitled Judaism. (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is my problem with you - although edits sometimes depend on changes of one word, or even a part of it, you make blanket statements about what I did without referring to specific edits although I had made many.
This makes it impossible for me to understand what it is that you disagree with.
A Wikitruth - everyone has a bias!
I am going to restore the version I most recently edited. PLEASE take time and note in point fashion where you disagree, ok?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok what is the problem with

In Judaism, a prophet is seen as a person who is selected by, and speaks as a formal representative of God, and the intention of the message is always to effect a social change to conform to God's desired standards initially specified in the Torah dictated to Moses.

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said there is a problem with that particular edit? No need to reply (although you undoubtedly will!), anyone else is welcome to examine my attempts to discuss things with you on this page, in order to see what I'm up against. So forget it. I give up. Go ahead and tailor the article to all your religious preferences, see if I care. (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok there is a problem with something you inserted further down the page, I only just now noticed this:

While Christianity accept the prophecy of the prophets claimed in Judaism as true, the various churches do not accept prophecy derived from Judaism as messages directed to Christians, and therefore they are not binding in any way that they are in Judaism.

--The highlighted portion is simply not true, and not surprisingly, is uncited. And similarly with the term "Abrahamic religion," you wrote "...Abrahamic religions? Aside from the fact that no one is obligated to use the term, it is a claim. This claim is based on Islam, and is unsubstantiated." --you claim the term is merely a Muslim concept (even though it is explicated here[1] by a Jewish source), and then removed instances of it from the article's introduction, as if the article is supposed to be sort of battleground between Abrahamic religions. These are both examples why religious POV is especially inadvisable for Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Hmm, which part of the highlighted sentence do you find untrue and require source for?
2. The site you pointed to is not Jewish, but University of Wisconsin. However if you look a the Wikipedia article on Abrahamic religion, you will find I am only repeating what it says there.
3. Personally I find the term Abrahamic ridiculous because it only confirms the acceptance of genetic relationship between Semitic populations, and in no way related to religion, particularly Christian, which is why I avoid it. See Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some possibilities of what you find disagreeable:

  • the various churches do not accept prophecy derived from Judaism - had prophecy derived from Judaism been accepted, there would not be Christianity because Judaism considers that all prophecy ended well before the story of Jesus
  • the various churches do not accept prophecy derived from Judaism as messages directed to Christians, - had Christianity accepted the prophecy derived from Judaism as being directed to Christians also, the Christians would be bound to all the commandments in the Torah and not the ten currently accepted
  • the various churches do not accept prophecy derived from Judaism as messages directed to Christians, and therefore they are not binding in any way that they are in Judaism - It is self evident that Christians are not bound by the prophecy accepted in Judaism, if only because the Christian day of rest is on Sunday<ref> for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts, xx 7; I Cor., xvi, 2; in Apoc., i, 10, it is called the Lord's day.</ref>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talkcontribs)

Terrible Organization[edit]

So, the first few sections are pretty organized, but then after that it ends up just being other prophets, and these people were prophets, oh and this person is also a prophet, and by the way these people are prophets, and here's a list of people who are considered to be prophets. (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Werent most if not all prophets just Schizophrenic loud mouths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Prophets and idolatry[edit]

Under a header like the one above, I think it should be added a paragraph like the one beneath:

Foreigners to the sect of any particular prophet, may consider worshipping the prophet to be idolatry. Such worshipping includes for instance, naming of children within the sect after the prophet, pilgrimage to the tomb or other connected site, displaying pictures and figures, singing songs or reciting texts glorifying the prophet. St.Trond (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia Paragraph[edit]

I would like to clarify that this paragraph was removed in part because in reading the source that particular conclusion is not explicitly drawn, rather merely that the voices are considered omnipotent and omniscient. While this does factually mean that conditions are met, the conclusion drawn is not from the source itself, but rather improper synthesis.

Furthermore, the unsourced first part of it I removed, as it wasn't part of the original source to begin with, and moreover the language was inappropriately assertive of a subjective nature to prophethood. A neutral approach to this is rather to indicate that there are disputes to the definition and classification of the term and cite sources, something that we should be doing already. I do think that something on this nature should be included in the introduction, but Wikipedia policy would indicate not this particular content in the manner presented. Peter Deer (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

While the paragraph currently reflects the web source given, per NPOV the assertion that the label of Prophet is subjective rather than disputed is contentious. Rather than simply removing it, which I think might be disruptive, I'm tagging it as dubious and opening this up for discussion on how it should be dealt with properly. Peter Deer (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with the Schizophrenia paragraph in the lede. The lede should only contain a summary of information desctibed in greater detail in the article's main body. This paragraph does not qualify. Several of the assertions are not supported at all with citations (violations of NPOV and NOR), and the web site appears not to qualify as a reliable source (it is self-published, not peer reviewed, and not subject to external editorial control from a recognized body). The citation that is a reliable source is concerned specifically with auditory hallucinations and is not immediately concerned with whether or not prophets suffer from Schizophrenia; therefore, its current use is improper synthesis. If sufficient reliable sources can be cited, there may be a place in the article for a section discussing the hypothetical relationship between prophetic claims and Schizophrenia, but as currently written, this paragraph is far from meeting the standards for encyclopedic content. Every assertion that might be contentious should be supported with a citation of a reliable source or it should be removed, per Wikipedia policy. Assertions in the lede that are not summaries of material discussed in more detail in the article body should be removed, per Wikipedia policy.Fishgeek (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. While the contention and differing definition on the subject should, in my opinion, be contained in the lead section in some form, its current form is patently unencyclopedic. I'm just going to take a leap and axe it. Peter Deer (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Having reached consensus on the talk page to remove the schizophrenia material from the lede, it seems odd that it was put back without any discussion. As it is currently, there are several problems. Material in the lede should be a summary of material the article discusses in greater detail in the main body. Without any detailed discussion in the article body, this topic does not belong in the lede. In addition, the web site cited does not seem to be a reliable source: it is self-published. Furthermore, the statement constitutes sythesis and goes beyond its source in drawing a conclusion. A better wording would be, "According to P Chadwick and M Birchwood, auditory hallucinations are consistent with schizophrenia." The wording "being able to communicate with God" is much too broad when the reliable source only considers auditory hallucinations. If this topic is to be restored to the article, it should be in a neutrally worded, well sourced section separate from the lede, and it should be in accordance with the consensus of the discussion.Fishgeek (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

what is to come?[edit]

An editor has twice added text asserting that prophecies (in the sense of the first paragraph of the lead) are generally about what is to come: about the future. This is not at all true in general, as the article itself makes clear. Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures are often not at all about the future, but instead about correct understanding of the present, or delivering a moral message. The sections on Islam and Bahai don't show anything about "what is to come" as being particularly associated with prophets; likewise the LDS conception of a prophet doesn't mention or talk about the future tense. Being concerned with "what is to come" is part of some prophets in some religions, but is not generally about "what greater events, changes, or destinies" are to come. Tb (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest Christian Group That Believes In Prophecy[edit]

The article states: "While many Christian sects recognize the existence of a "modern-day" prophet, the largest denomination by far is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or "Mormons"), who claim that God still communicates with mankind through prophecy.[40]"

Putting aside that issue of whether Mormons are "Christians," this statement is factually incorrect in its major claim. The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes God still communicates through prophecy and has ~2 million more members than the LDS do. I suggest this portion of the article be amended or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The SDAs believe that God still communicates through prophecy--but then, the same is true quite broadly--but what about the existence of a "modern-day" prophet? Tb (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Mormonism Christian As Wikipedia Claims? (see Wikipedia footnote #39)[edit]

Note: I am Not attacking. There is a difference between Truth and Falsehood. By definition Mormonism doesn't meet the term, "Christian"

James F Robey (Facebook) - The Mormon Church IS a non-Christian "Cult" because they deny essential Christian teaching that makes Christianity "Christianity" In humility I can say I'm an expert on Mormonism and have demonstrated this before countless Mormon missionaries. Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer were "brothers" Mormons believes in three other so-called Holy books besides the Bible, 1) Book of Mormon 2) Doctrine and Covenants 3) Pearl of Great Price. Mormons believe in "Eternal Progression" that when we die we will become God (His equal). Mormons believe that Adam is God (via Brigham Young) Mormons believe that Jesus was married and had many wives (poor Jesus...:/ Friends, let the Mormons start any religion they want too, but when they put the label "Christian" on it, them are fightin words! If Mormonism is Christian then Christianity is lost. But now it's time to "fight for the faith that was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The footnote is now #46 and reads "Whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is considered a Christian denomination is subject to dispute, see Mormonism and Christianity." As the footnote points out there is a dispute over Mormons being Christian and it's not correct to say that Wikipedia claims that the LDS are Christian. Anyway, this is not the article to be disputing that. As the footnote points out, you want the "Mormonism and Christianity" article. By the way I suggest you find a more reliable source than someone on Facebook. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Move a paragraph to disambiguation[edit]

Quote: "In the late 20th century the appellation of "prophet" has been used to refer to individuals particularly successful at analysis in the field of economics, such as in the derogatory "prophet of greed". Alternatively, social commentators who suggest escalating crisis are often called "prophets of doom." This should be moved to the disambiguation page as it is off topic of "prophet" in the religious sense of the main article.Zapzooma (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Order in which religions are discussed[edit]

Not a big deal either way, but wouldn't it make more sense to list the first four religions discussed here chronologically (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í) rather than alphabetically? By "chronologically", I mean in the order of each religion's writings about their prophets. I.e. Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Koran, and the foundation texts of Bahá'í. The rationale for chronological discussion is that each of these traditions builds on preceding ones. For example, both New Testament and Koran have interpretations of the stories of the prophets first set forth in the Hebrew Bible. (I haven't considered prophents grouped together in next section of article and express no opinion on order of these, although same logic may apply.) --Sjsilverman (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai seems like a good order. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like things in wikipedia shift order back and forth. Is there any kind of general consensus across wikipedia articles about the order of the religions? Otherwise it keeps shifting like the wind. Smkolins (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, appears from the way most Abrahamic-religion topic articles are structured that there is a general consensus across the WP Religion articles to place the Abrahamic religions in chronological order. Even this discussion is evidence of that, I clicked Talk to add almost verbatim the same comment SJSilverman added. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Misidentification of Greek oracles, Germanic volvas, etc as "Prophets"[edit]

The use of oracles and volvas in these pagan religions does not in any way jive with the standard definitiion of prophet (say, the kind that arose among the Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc)-- I am removing them from the introductory paragraph.

It is a fairly common attempt of shamans to attempt to "see" into the world of the gods, and foretell the future. They had to do all sorts of rituals usually to be able to do this. Still, an oracle or a volva was considered prescient related to that one attempted ritual act of seeing, and it is in this way that they were paid attention to.

They were not simply exalted as permanent human representatives that a singular God with One Word of Truth spoke to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talkcontribs) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


The third paragraph speaks about lexicology. If a sentence speaks about proper nouns it would fit perfectly into such a paragraph since they are both branches of linguistics. Pass a Method talk 02:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this such a big deal? The 3rd paragraph of the Lead is talking about the origin of the word and a couple non-religious uses of the term. And then we have this jarring, incredibly specific statement that "Muslims refer to prophet Muhammad as the prophet in the form of a proper noun." (We'll ignore for the moment that you called him "prophet Muhammad" in Wikipedia's voice and didn't capitalize the Prophet after calling it a proper noun.) What's wrong with letting the WP:LEAD section be a general overview of the subject and putting the specifics in the article body? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I dealt with the "we'll ignore for the moment..." part. As for WP:LEAD, i see this page as being the equivalent of Messiah. Why do we have incredibly specific statements about Jesus there? Its because Jesus is the most referenced Messiah on Google Books. Similarly Muhammad is by far the most quoted Prophet on Google Books so both seem fine with me. Pass a Method talk 02:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Jesus isn't mentioned at all the Lead section. Also, I don't see how a vague reference to Google Books is supposed to be an excuse for poor writing and violation of Wikipedia guidelines. If your point is that Muhammad is a notable prophet, then you're right, but that doesn't excuse poor article writing either. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I mean that the article Messiah mentions Jesus in the lede. Using your argument we could similarly call that "jarring"/"incredibly specific". Whats with the double standards? Pass a Method talk 03:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
As for poor writing, i live a busy real life. I usually come back to check for any errors. Unfortunately you want everything to be perfect immediately, with the first edit, and pounce on any mistake in the blink of an eye. Also, remember, not everybody is American like you, so the Latin script has quite a varied grammar style. Pass a Method talk 03:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I see. In the Messiah article the mention of Jesus isn't jarring, and though it is specific, that's because "Messiah" is one person, and Islam and Christianity agree that person was Jesus. This is an article about prophets in general: there wasn't just one prophet. If you want to make this about dropping specific names in the Lead section, I suppose we could talk about that. Right now (at least for me) it's about style, continuity, and good writing, which the addition to the Lead is not. It's always been a pet peeve of mine when somebody comes along with a little factoid, and when they can't find a place for it in the article they just tack it on the end of the Lead whether it's relevant or not. These little factoids need to be moved down and worked into the article, which is what I was trying to do. You'll note that I didn't remove your addition entirely, and even took steps to improving it (removing the "prophet" in "prophet Muhammad".) So do you want to talk style/layout/WP policy, or do you want to discuss the merits of dropping the names of specific prophets in the Lead? BTW, speaking of American, aren't you up a bit late? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Jarring is in the eye of the beholder. List of messiah claimants disproves your notion of Messiah being one person. Further, Judaism, the religion which coined the phrase Messiah, rejects the notion that Jesus is the Messiah. Pass a Method talk 03:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on Islam, and it is a pet peeve of mine when someone who clearly knows less than me continuously seeks to argue with me about this subject. For example did you know that Muhammad is mostly referred to as "the prophet" instead of mentioning his name in the hadihs? Pass a Method talk 03:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I rarely argue with you about Mormonism since you cleary know more about that than me. You know humility is a virtue right? Pass a Method talk 03:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Messiah literally means "anointed [one]", and the existence of other messiah claimants doesn't refute the fact that Jesus was by far the most notable Messiah figure.
I actually did know that about Islam. I'm glad we've got experts on Islam on Wikipedia, and I'm certainly not trying to argue anything Islamic with you. As I said before, we're talking about style/layout/policy as far as I'm concerned. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


  • "the sentence has little to do with the paragraph it was added to, interrupts the logical flow"
    • Thats untrue. The sentence i added and the previous sentences are all about lexicology which i explained in more detail above.
  • "isnt important enough for the lead, "
    • Muhammad is the founder of the 2nd largest religion on Earth, and arguably the founder of the most practised religion on Earth. His name in both Islamic scriputre and non-Islamic books is often used interchangeably with "the prophet". How is that not important?
  • "Violates WP:LEAD"
    • In what sense does it violate LEAD? Pass a Method talk 20:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
1. The third paragraph is talking about lexicology, but of the word prophet in a very general sense. The sentence you added was incredibly specific, and Muhammad is not unique in being referred to as the prophet.
2. You are absolutely correct that Muhammad is a very important prophet. Unfortunately this article isn't about Muhammad specifically. It's a general article about prophets. Currently the Lead doesn't name any specific prophets, and I think it should stay that way. If you want to make an argument for name-dropping in the Lead, that's fine, but if you're going to name drop, why not also pick prophets like Moses or Abraham or Isaiah who are seen as prophets by all the Abrahamic traditions.
3. How does it violate WP:LEAD? If you follow the link, you don't have to read much further than the "nutshell" box at the top of the page. It says, the Lead should "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." You are adding something to the Lead that doesn't exist in the body at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with all of Adjwilley's points above. The only way I could see this particular content meeting WEIGHT requirements would be if it were demonstrated in some reliable source, preferably a reference source of some broad scope, not relating specifically to Islam and related, that gives it similar weight. Right now, I still haven't seen that evidence, and, without that evidence, I can't see any reason for that material to be given that degree of attention or weight. Please produce the evidence from independent reliable sources which demonstrates that Muhammad being called "the Prophet" is of such significance to this topic that it merits that degree of prominence in the article. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I was asked by Pass a Method to chime in. I can see both sides and see weird things to my reading in the article as it stands. Mentioning Ancient Greece and Zoroaster? Really? Part of the problem is the diversity of understandings of what the word means - from Christians believing "prophets" are any believer given a gift of prophecy to Jews noting rare individuals across thousands of years to Islam having a developed theology about types and relationships among prophets. I think acknowledging a diversity of views of what the word refers to would be suitable in the lead (in parallel to the way is done for "modern" usages) - like about one sentence per major religion with specific citation. Boiling it down to some minimum description as it does currently seems to not serve the relevant ideas well. Speaking to the distinction of Muhammad as "the Prophet" vs others - I agree with Pass a Method that it is true Muhammad is given special status as "the Prophet" and scholarly reference widely notes it in Islamic studies and I'm fairly sure as a title/office it is far more common in Islam. Islam does this kind of thing - assigning a titled attribute or office - to notable figures - "the Friend" "the Speaker on Sinai" and so on. I think the placement of Jesus high in the article on Messiah follows relatively easily that most Abrahamic religions follow that usage even if for more than one reason. The grounds that "the Prophet" is a noun usage and thus deserves lead mention seems artificial to me. However as the last high prominent religion's prophet founder often referred to by that title - I could see some notability there and thus mention in the lead. So - is there a strong source reporting on how the word is used and shows this prominence I think exists as well? --Smkolins (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Smkolins. It's always good to get outside eyes, and I agree with you that some discussion in the Lead regarding differences between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism would be helpful indeed, since the article is divided into those sections and there isn't really a place that summarizes them. I think the 2nd paragraph would be a good place for that. As for the "Ancient Greece" and "Zoroaster", it looks like that was added to the lead a long time ago. I'd be fine with removing it, or moving it down to the body somewhere, since those two also aren't mentioned in the body anywhere that I can find. I should note that I have no disagreement about Muhammad being called "the Prophet" in Islam. I only disagreed with its placement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Adjwilley - you readily admit the title "the Prophet" is significant "in Islam". You don't see a particular emphasis across religions for what kind of title is used? --Smkolins (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a specific source I want to suggest yet but if you do a scholar search for (prophetology judaism christianity islam "the prophet") Islamic related hits come up high. You can see some of what I mean by the prominence by the usage of the title at something like PATHWAYS OF FAITH - 'Abraham' from Oxford Islamic Studies Online - which repeatedly mentions "the Prophet" specifically for Muhammad, and minding not from an Islamic source but the main scholar on Abrahamic religions in general. --Smkolins (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there is a difference between "prophecy" and "prophet", and that the content of one doesn't necessarily in this case serve as the best indicator of content in another, but the recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion has a rather lengthy article relating to the broad topic of prophecy, and it might serve as one of the better possible indicators for weight relating to that topic, and also, possibly by extension, this one. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
John Carter - you mean what starts on Page 7424? --Smkolins (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at the list of articles from that source I am used to make lists of articles in reference books for various religion projects, not the book itself, but I have a feeling that's probably it. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
ah - well this might speak to what I was saying about the distinctive placement of Muhammad though it doesn't address the idea that the title itself is used uniquely in Islam...
  • "Finally, Muḥammad, like no other, established a believing community around himself as divine messenger…" second paragraph of page 7425 ( I quibble alittle about this but it is specifically relevant between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.)
  • "Since Muḥammad there has been no prophet to form a religious tradition with a stature equaling that of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam." top paragraph of page 7427. --Smkolins (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Good points, although knowing how many (if any) specific discussion of other prophets would be useful as well. There is, at least to me, who doesn't know this specific topic well enough to say much on my own, to what extent Muhammad might follow in the tradition of the old Jewish prophets of the OT, and how much relative weight to give them and other such prophets. I don't myself know if Zoroaster is considered a prophet per se or not. The quotes do establish his prominence within the comparatively limited classification of prophets who founded major religions, and that is certainly significant, probably enough for inclusion in the lead somewhere. I won't include Jesus in the group of prophets, because most Christians don't count him as a prophet per se, although some Christians, and Jews and others, do, and that might be significant enough. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, the best way to proceed in this instance is to try to develop the lead section fully, probably in this case to the standard five paragraph max, given its complexity, and see what all should be included in the lead, and where in the lead to include it? John Carter (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good! Zoroastrian Saoshyant and Hindu Avatar and Buddhist Buddhahood are all related ideas. And yes the Baha'is use prophet in context with Manifestation of God but I'll let the group decide what is notable enough to be in the lead. I did find christian points of seeing Jesus as a prophet but it was considered a minimum (which brings me back to diversity in what "prophet" means.) --Smkolins (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So do we have consensus that the lead should have a section devoted to the idea of what prophet is across multiple religions with a highlight of special uses if one exists in a religion?--Smkolins (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to that. Do you have a particular wording in mind? I think what you want to add might fit nicely in our current 2nd paragraph. (I think John was mistaken about the Lead having a 5 paragraph maximum...the longest it should be is 3 maybe 4 paragraphs. I'm looking at WP:Leadlength.) Also, @Smkolins, my primary criteria for stuff in the Lead is that it summarizes the main points of the article, so I don't think it will be necessary to find anymore sources. We can just summarize what we've got already. Of course, if you want to add to the article, that's great as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

muhammed photo[edit]

i insist to remove the photo of muhamed because that is offensive for some relegions --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You have already been told that it will not be removed at Talk:Muhammad. See also Talk:Muhammad/images. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


alkakdkdk dfkjdj — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

POV on Balaam[edit]

In the section "Abrahamic religions", under "Judaism", it says: "The story of Balaam in Numbers 22 describes a non-Jewish prophet who honors God and refuses to curse Israel and who is generally presented favorably". This seems to me to be POV; it is entirely the author's interpretation that Balaam is "generally presented favorably"; also, it seems questionable that Balaam "refuses" to curse Israel, given the fact that he tries and tries again to do just that, only to fail because it is God who turns his curse into a blessing (cf. Deut. 23:5). Since the lines mention only the passages in Numbers as their source (which constitutes original research), I will remove the words "who honors God and refuses to curse Israel and who is generally presented favorably". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

today when I arrived work I was susspede,what is happening to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)