Are there still prophets?

I too have been somewhat skeptical of prophets that claim to predict the future. I have always thought of prophets more as people who reveal something of the nature of God or help men to reveal him for themselves.

Interesting interpretation. I have always considered Christ as the master of human nature though, and His predictions based on the knowledge of types and images. Again, just personal opinion, but I put forth this passage from Gnostic Peter as a predictive piece that has already come true:
"And still others of them who suffer think that they will perfect the wisdom of the brotherhood which really exists, which is the spiritual fellowship of those united in communion, through which the wedding of incorruptibility shall be revealed. The kindred race of the sisterhood will appear as an imitation. These are the ones who oppress their brothers, saying to them, "Through this our God has pity, since salvation comes to us through this," not knowing the punishment of those who are made glad by those who have done this thing to the little ones whom they saw, (and) whom they took prisoner."

Interesting discussion guys. I understand that the passage quoted form Gnostic Peter is about the state of Christianity today but would you care to elaborate more on what you feel it means?

First my frosted side:

He may have been preaching to an audience. Consider the dietary laws, and how strictly they were observed by Judaism. When he overturned them with a parable, it was not that the Diciples did not understand the Parable; they understood and were aghast that He was going against "Moses". "Are you so dull?" He asked, meaning in todays language, "Have you no common sense?".

Also consider the "Eye for an Eye" law. "I bring you a better way", He said. This was blasphamous, as the Law was said to be perfect and the "word of God"....by saying that there was a "better way" the implication was that it was not perfect, and therefore not the word of God.

I would refer you to Ptolomey's "Letter to Flora" for more examples.

Yoiu might also want to take into consideration the "Gospel of John" wherin He stated that "all" who ever came before Him were as "thieves and robbers". Modern apologetics aim to show that "all" means everybody but whom modern Christianity hold near and dear, but I am of the opinion that in this scripture anyway, "all" means "all".

Consider also that Judaism had no anthropomorphised devil figure, which did not come about untill the fifth century AD with Jeromes mistranslation of "Lucifer". The "devil" or "Satan" was anyone opposing God, usually a human. "He was a murderer from the beginning" could quite possibly be referring to Exodus 2:12.

Now my Wheat side:

These writings were written by late first centuiry/early second century writers who were seaking to differentiate themselves from traditional judaism.

By not calling for circumcision alone, they were overturning the Torah--- remember to break one law was to break all 613 of them. Add to that the dietary rebellion, and you have a group that was turning traditional Judaism on it's ear.

"Acts" states that St. Stephan was stoned for saying what Paul said in Galatians, and what the Author of Hebrews stated--- that the law was given to Moses, not by face to face with God, but "by angels", beings inferior even to men.

There are vast amounts of reasons in the New Testament to question early christianities loyalties to "prophets".

Well, I am in no way setting myself up for as an authority figure on this. I just have a strong opinion, but recognise that it is opinion. As the saying goes, "Your milage may vary".

Yes, context is everything; The Gospel of John came from the Naasene gnostics; We don't know much about them other than their usage of the text in a way that differs from common usage today. We do know that there is a strong relationship between the "parrable of the sheep" in John with the "parrable" of the sheep in Enoch, when God "hired" the seventy shepherds to watch over the "flock". The shepherds in Enoch were predicted to be found untrustworthy--- thus the saying of Jesus as found in John would be a fulfilment of that prediction, and an indictment of the teachings of the pharisees who relied on them. Thematically, this is common in John--- The pharisee were aparently unpopular with the Naasene authors. The pharisee, as portrayed in this story, searched their scriptures to find the Messiah, but were unable to recognise Him standing in front of them, because they lacked gnosis.

The Hellenized Jewish logic of the story spreads pieces of the puzzle to let the discerner find the answers in a non obvious fashion: "We are Moses diciples" is the battlecry of the Pharisee--- "Ye are children of the devil" is the answer of the Gnostic. "You define who your father is by your actions" says Jesus in John, a continuation of the proem given at the beginning of the story, and harmonious with "the inner man defines the outward action" theme common in so many Gnostic writings.

That the writers believed in the validity of the stature of prophets is beyond question; I think what they were disputing was the interpretation given to the prophets by Judaism in general. By the time the Gospel of John was written, Christianity was actively seeking to establish itself both as a replacement for Judaism, and also an identity that distinguished itself from Judaism.

Put in the context of earlier Pauline thought, the prophets brought the letter of the law, or death, where Jesus brought the spirit of the law, or life.