Talk:Prophet

message: 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)
thread_title: A removal

message: === Prophecy with Prophet ===
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 (talk • contribs) 
: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Merging?

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 
: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Prophecy with Prophet 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prophethood with Prophet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notability

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

message: 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)
replies: text: An omission. --Wetman 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zarathushtra?

message: 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.  199.91.37.33 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Organization 

message: Werent most if not all prophets just Schizophrenic loud mouths?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.174.40 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophets 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prophets and idolatry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia Paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  what is to come? 

message: 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 98.227.91.5 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Largest Christian Group That Believes In Prophecy 

message: 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 98.197.81.29 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Mormonism Christian As Wikipedia Claims?  (see Wikipedia footnote #39)

message: 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)
thread_title: Move a paragraph to disambiguation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Order in which religions are discussed 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misidentification of Greek oracles, Germanic volvas, etc as "Prophets" 

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

message: alkakdkdk
dfkjdj  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.130.124 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annnnnnnnnnnnn 

message: 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 193.190.253.150 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV on Balaam 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20130506193620/http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/jjne.pdf to http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/jjne.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715111142/http://ppietsch.com/that-prophet.html to http://ppietsch.com/that-prophet.html
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) 23:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would have thought that given the stature of Thomas Paine, his influence and his seminal work "The Age of Reason"[], his novel and intriguing views on Biblical "prophets" would merit a justified inclusion on this page.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Paine on "Prophecy" 

message: The See Also section of this article is a morass of unfiltered items. Please come up with a basic criteria for inclusion here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also needs cleanup 

message: Some prophets claim to speak directly with God, while others write down what God revealed to them, in the secular world, there must be some explanation as to what exactly makes the prophets have their experiences, such as drug use, psychosis, charlatanism, or just wild guessing based on what earlier prophets said. There must be non-religious explanations to their experiences and motivation, I think the article would be greatly improved if it showed this perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Newman (talk • contribs) 05:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "such as drug use" There is some speculation that they were using entheogens:
**"In his research, Professor Dan Merkur points to significant evidence of an awareness within the Jewish mystical tradition recognizing manna as an entheogen, thereby substantiating with rabbinic texts theories advanced by the superficial biblical interpretations of Terence McKenna, R. Gordon Wasson and other ethnomycologists." Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Secular explanations for the prophets' experiences

message: Ms. Lovely Pie (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ms. Lovely Pie|Ms. Lovely Pie]] ([[User talk:Ms. Lovely Pie|talk]]) 01:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)