Talk:False prophet

message: I don't know who wrote this but it's really stupid.
"The false prophet, used in St. John's Book of Revelation, is a personification of Satan, or the devil, from whom sulphur and fire will pour from his mouth. One can assume that the false prophet, taken literally, was the root of evil in a person's heart, telling them corruption and Satanic worship was the right path in life."
You can't take this literally! It's impossible to have sulphur and fire coming out of your mouth literally! And even if it were possible, it isn't logical to assume that this "literal" prophet is a "root of evil". Is the "root" literal as well? It would kill the person. A "literal" root in your heart (unless it was very small) would cause a heart attack, and/or blood poisoning. This article should be deleted!--ChadThomson 07:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you looked at the older version of the article which was, in fact, very stupid. Check the history. --ChadThomson 07:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is probably very old news, but I think you're nitpicking in general. I don't think the person in question was describing a literal "root" nor do I think the issue is whether or not someone breathing fire and brimstone is possible or not. However, I do agree the statement is disagreeable for the simple fact that it is based on a lot of assumptions and seems to be the writer's interpretation of the Bible instead of letting the text speak for itself. Drumpler 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand the term "root." "Root" in this context means origin or cause. Another note: the 'fire and brimstone' supposedly spewing from the character's mouth is not literal in meaning, just like most of the Bible. It is a metaphor, and Christians are supposed to understand that these 'false prophets' (anyone proselytizing in a religion other than Christianity) are spreading harmful falsehoods to the people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.205.67 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:CIVIL! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Really stupid

message: The new stub is not great, but it is, I think, acceptable.  Robert A West 08:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting Over 

message: I was in a hurry to replace the original article with a decent stub, so I wasn't careful about citations.  The article is now getting long and complex enough that we need to get careful about this.  Especially in a topic as potentially hot as this one.  Yes, this applies to me too.  Robert A West 22:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite sources 

message: I think that it is vital for the reader to understand that the court prophets, or at least many of them, were guilty of idolatry, and that idolatry was one of the principal charges against Ahab.  Why was this deleted?  Robert A West 18:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the defining thing of a "false prophet" is not that he worships a fake god but that he speaks with fake authority. The prophets mentioned in 1 Kings 22 speak not God's message but the message of the "lying spirit" – with disastrous outcome; on the contrary, the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 are not mentioned to prophesy anywhere. That's why I feel the present version to illustrate the point better. Idolatry isn't really the defining point, anyone can worship an idol. You don't have to be a prophet. Pilatus 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A prophet of Baal falls under the condemnation of Deut 13:1-5 as false prophet.  The fact that their prophesies are not recorded strikes me as irrelevant.  Whether the court prophets in 1 Kings 22 are the same as (or similar to) the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, or were in league with them, is something that I have long taken for granted, but I agree it is not obvious.  One can view the lying spirit, and its consequences, as punishment for prophesy without authority, and so the fulfilment of Deut. 18:20-22, or as the natural consequence of involvement with idolators, if not idolatry on the part of the prophet.  Either way, I think your version obscures the issue.  Robert A West 18:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Baal-worship is better subsumed under Deut 13:7-17, which is why Elijah has the Baal-prophets killed at the end of 1 Kings 18. On the other hand, the outcome of the "false prophecy" in 1 Kings 22 is death (for the king as substitute for the prophet). This is why I find the present version more suitable. Pilatus 22:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced, but I will hunt up some commentaries and check this out more.  Thanks.  Robert A West 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. I recently moved house, and most of my books are still in storage, 500 km from here. Pilatus 11:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples from Kings 

message: :"The status of Jesus outside of Christianity and of Mohammed outside of Islam is an important and controversial matter. For the most part Judaism does not regard either as a genuine prophet, but while some rabbis condemn them as false prophets, others deny that they prophesied at all, and blame their followers for misrepresenting their careers."
I've seen this view with respect to Jesus, but not Mohammed. Are there any citations?
Both have also been considered largely or entirely fictitious, views I consider unfounded but which should still be represented.
A.J.A. 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Views of Mohammed 

message: The sentence about the white horsemen needs a proper citation.  In Wikipedia, to state "It is thought that ... " without giving the "thought by whom" is just another way of disguising a POV. DFH 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The white horsemen? 

message: I have read, cover to cover,  The Book of Mormon, The Qu'ran, and the King James Bible. Each had warnings similar to Matthew 7:15 - 23 cited here. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact text and location of the related parts of these books. Hopefully one of you will. It would be great if additional quotations from these (and other) texts could be added to this Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HumanJHawkins (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Citations 

message: Is it me or does anyone else hint here a clear bias at the end regarding Islam? The article tends to make a particular argument as to why they believe Mohammed is a false prophet but doesn't directly deal with the issue of false prophecy and false prophets according to the teachings of Islam as it does the other two sections (which describe false prophecy and false prophets within the context of Christianity and Judaism). This seems to go against the tone of the rest of the article which reads more like a Christian tract than anything. Drumpler 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam Section Biased 

message: I'm not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think a counterlink should likewise be posted which shows arguments for fulfilled Christian prophecies in order to balance it out. In fact, does this even belong to this page at all? Maybe this is more appropriate for a page about Christian prophecies in general. Drumpler 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfulfilled Christian Prophecy Link? 

message: Rather than repeat the verbose Theology and prophetic models surrounding false prophets as part of the title for each of the 3 main sections, it seemed sensible to me to use this a level-2 heading, and make the others into level-3 sub-sections.  I have also removed the capitalization from the headings.  DFH 14:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructured with sub-sections 

message: : I put a "neutrality dispute" in the Islam section. Might be best to mention that its better categorized as possessing "undue weight", but I do not know how to do this. Drumpler 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not make a case for the dispute on the talk page beyond saying that you tagged the section. Make your case if you have one then. IN the meantime I have removed the tag.--CltFn 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam: Undue Weight 

message: I am wondering if nehemia is a false prophet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.208.249 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nehemian the prophet 

message: Why do so called Christians say they follow GODs words, but contradict what the Holy Scriptures say. Its plainly written in I Corinthians 14:34-35
That women are to keep silent in the church....That makes that preacher a Hypocrit.
(Lamar McPherson)
(May 30,2007 12:11pm)
:This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I recommend reading WP:Verifiability when you get time. :) Drumpler 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women Preachers 

message: Just because everybody hates them, doesn't mean that they should simply get tacked to the end of an article which makes them appear unfavorably.  They do that well enough themselves. 168.122.153.183 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phelps Family

message: The bottom section on Joseph Smith seems both biased, and is formatted to be an eyesore.  No other parts of Wikipedia have blatant ALL CAPS text and URLs randomly strewn about.  Also, the meaning of this section seems to be incoherent at best.  Delete the section, or at least reformat it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.74.222 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Mormonism seems biased 

message: I do not necessarily think the last stable version of this article is correct; in fact, I think it's frankly horrible.  It's a dictionary definition combined with a content fork, and I think there's a case for deleting this article entirely.  But the last stable version is how we should leave it until a talk page discussion has taken place and consensus has been reached.  The reverting should stop for the time being.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In my opinion the basic premise of the subject itself is so potentially inherently loaded with bias that it's probably best dealt with in a short entry in Wiktionary, stating its relativeness as part of the definition, rather than here in the encyclopedia. BMcC333 is correct insofar as that they're protesting the arbitrariness of only including some "prophetically" based religions and not others; but in my opinion they're only worsening the situation by attempting to focus in on the "falseness" of certain religious ideologies, as opposed to the "truth" of others. I'd wholeheartedly support the complete deletion of this article if it was proposed.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now I think on it further, a redirect to prophet would be better than outright deletion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Please do not re-add the material until consensus is arrived at here on the talk page. Also, as a reminder, please don't label edits that other editors make in good faith as "vandalism", it is usually considered to be provocative and can often incite negative reactions from other editors. Please see WP:CIV and WP:AGF.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest not working on a real definition at all, because definitions belong in dictionaries and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  All we need to do for a definition is point the reader to Wiktionary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: " ...There are many religions and only 1 real one..." certainly doesn't indicate any intent to comply with WP:NPOV. I'd happily enough redirect this thing to prophet. —Kww(talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll happily disclose that I'm a secular humanist.  This dispute is being resolved by the proper procedure (which is to return to the last stable version until a talk-page discussion is concluded).The consensus at the moment appears to be that this page should be redirected to Prophet, which would have the effect of concealing all the content (though it would still be visible via the page history).  Would you object to that, BMcC333?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You really need to understand that "the Bible is true" is not a neutral POV. So far as the encyclopedia is concerned, religious beliefs need to be discussed as religious beliefs without passing any judgment as to whether those beliefs are true or false.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's say it isn't a neutral POV in the opinion of many Wikipedia editors.  On, say, Conservapedia, the Bible would be considered truth.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I attempted to remove all Bible quotes that were not the subject of commentary within the article. I was reverted. I agree that consistent treatment is necessary.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Kww, and I apologised for doing so.  My position is that the last stable version of the article is what should remain until the talk-page discussion is complete.  I do agree with the principle behind his edit.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. I was simply pointing out that I was not being inconsistent.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: No. The Bible is an acceptable source for what Christian doctrine about false prophets is, when associated with critical commentary from reliable sources. It cannot be used to assert that any particular statement is true or false, and cannot presented as either true or false.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say it again: no definition is necessary, so this whole question doesn't arise.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Am I a 3rd or 4th opinion? In any case, I agree a redirect makes sense. I also do not think that the Urantia Book is significant enough for its presence in the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the presence of The Urantia Book for two main reasons, which are: 1) According to Urantia Foundation "Since its inception as publisher of the book, Urantia Foundation has printed nearly 600,000 copies of The Urantia Book in six languages." Also many other translations already exist. 2) The quoted four passages stay strictly in the subject. Uikku (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that books are printed and translations made is irrelevant, that just means they had the money to do it, it doesn't show anything more than that. Not only do we not know how many were read or sold, that's actually a pretty small number, especially if it is divided into 6 translations. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That source has existed in the literature more than half a century. The printed copies have been sold, not given away. The relevance of the passages in this subject is quite perfect. May I ask: What are your arguments? Uikku (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." So, do you mean that those passages represent a small minority or a tiny minority? The space and visibility given for The Old Testament and The New Testament are both much longer, which is ok according to WP:UNDUE rule. On the other hand, also the text content regarding Islamic teachings is short, but that may be correct if there are not many teachings about false prophets in Quran. Uikku (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Returned to last stable version

message: It seems to me that the notion of a prophet and a false prophet are intertwined (one cannot know what a false prophet is without knowing what a prophet is) and therefore it makes perfect sense to redirect the article to Prophet where the notion will be appropriately contextualized. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I a 3rd or 4th opinion? In any case, I agree a redirect makes sense. I also do not think that the Urantia Book is significant enough for its presence in the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the presence of The Urantia Book for two main reasons, which are: 1) According to Urantia Foundation "Since its inception as publisher of the book, Urantia Foundation has printed nearly 600,000 copies of The Urantia Book in six languages." Also many other translations already exist. 2) The quoted four passages stay strictly in the subject. Uikku (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that books are printed and translations made is irrelevant, that just means they had the money to do it, it doesn't show anything more than that. Not only do we not know how many were read or sold, that's actually a pretty small number, especially if it is divided into 6 translations. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That source has existed in the literature more than half a century. The printed copies have been sold, not given away. The relevance of the passages in this subject is quite perfect. May I ask: What are your arguments? Uikku (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." So, do you mean that those passages represent a small minority or a tiny minority? The space and visibility given for The Old Testament and The New Testament are both much longer, which is ok according to WP:UNDUE rule. On the other hand, also the text content regarding Islamic teachings is short, but that may be correct if there are not many teachings about false prophets in Quran. Uikku (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Amongst all the whinning of everybody: the intro at least is  a good one – in a topic that is in itself very controversial, the intro is neutral in tone and reflecting. I especially like:
:Without exception, someone who is considered a 'true' prophet by some people, is simultaneously considered a 'false' prophet by others.
which is not only true but also blatantly true! It is simply worthy of consideration for each and every human. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Good intro!

message: The revelation of Jesus Christ is to serve a purpose to all mankind and to fortell the endtimes. Although the Seven Churches or lampstands do stand for some sort prophecy. I do believe that the end times are going to be fulfilled, look at the american economy, look at the status of the world, statistically 96 percent of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled. Christians of the world, the time is at hand, act now, or forever be shut up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.114.49 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree. 

message: As much as I am at a loathe to point this out. This article looks at the Christian, Islamic and Jewish viewpoints as if they exist in a vacuum. Forgetting the Momonic offshoots and sub religions for a second, are we not missing the hundreds or thousands of people responsible for creating failed cults and independent religions as well as the non-religious POV? (e.g false prophets of natural disasters, worldly doom, or end of the world scenarios like asteroid collisions). I ask this not as a editor but as a wiki reader wishing to know if this is all there is to False Prophesy. 78.150.8.157 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralism around the big three religions 

message: The English is a translation of the Latin, which in turn is a translation of the Greek.Pamour (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  false prophets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on False prophet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315191536/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=1704 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=1704
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The false prophet is the very one who the Son of GOD warned about in Matthew 24:
"23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."
The LORD told His disciples how He would return, as seen in the verses of Matthew that follow the aforementioned verse:
Matthew 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
After the Son of GOD ascended into heaven, HE will return in the manner outlined in Matt 24:29, but not in the way that the false prophet said that the LORD appeared to him.
That false prophet is the  one who centuries of "Christians" have called the apostle paul.
Paul, aka saul,, was not an apostle, but rather a self appointed apostle who could not possibly have met the criteria of an apostle.
First, he was a Pharisee, the very ones warned of repeatedly by Yehoshua, the Son of GOD. Second, he did not meet the requirement as given by the apostle Peter in Acts chapter One, when Mathias was chosen to
replace Judas, who hung himself.  The true apostle according to the text in Acts 1, stated that the apostle must have been a disciple of the LORD from the time of His baptism, until the day which He ascended 
into heaven.  Paul did not meet these requirements, having never met the LORD. 
The works of the New Testament, which are attributed to Paul, are patently false having no authority from the LORD, but in fact they are writings filled with greek philosophy and misquoted Old Testament scripture verses.
The numbver of contrtadictions which can easily be seen between the teachings of Yehoshua and paul are truly staggering, but sadly as the centuries have passed they have gone unchallenged.
Only now in the 21st century has there been a small awakening to the truth of these matters.
What is amazing is that the ways in which paul claims to have seen the LORD, are the very ways which the LORD Himself warned of in Matthew 24.
Paul claimed to have seen Yehoshua return in the desert, in the wilderness while on the road to Damascus, as is the well known tale from the book of Acts.
Then paul claimed to have seen the LORD appear to him twice in the "inner rooms", once while praying in the temple (Acts 22:17-21), and once in the jail cell (Acts 23:11), as the LORD also warned to not believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:19DB:8000:8DDD:2687:934:3C3F (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the false prophet?