That is not what Jesus meant. This is clear from the context... but you reject the relevance of context. Nowhere in Scripture does it say or even hint that "the letter" means "the literal and physical interpretation of the word of God".
How do we distinguish false Christ & false Prophets according to Our Lord?
- Thread starter Godsgood
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
By tying "true prophet" to a particular English translation of Scripture, you have made yourself a false teacher.
Unfortunately, human reasoning is always used when we read the words of scripture and is quite capable of misinterpreting what we read. The natural world is cited as a second source of knowledge about God and His nature, but when what we believe about the natural world and about scripture conflict, far too often we decide that our interpretation of scripture "must" be correct and thus we ignore the evidence form the natural world. A far safer approach is to accept that if knowledge from scripture and knowledge from the natural world conflict, then we are misunderstanding at least one of our two sources and need to rethink both.
Unfortunately, if one tells an honest scientist that humanity seems to know about 5% of what can be learned from the natural world the scientist will likely respond that the speaker is very optimistic about our knowledge.
From my studies, I think the most overlooked passage for understanding both is Psalm 23. It seems to describe aspects of reality that we usually do not encounter and thus ignore from both the scientific side as well as the biblical one. There will likely be a few in this forum who can catch what I am referring to, but likely 90-95% will not have a clue.
Unfortunately, if one tells an honest scientist that humanity seems to know about 5% of what can be learned from the natural world the scientist will likely respond that the speaker is very optimistic about our knowledge.
From my studies, I think the most overlooked passage for understanding both is Psalm 23. It seems to describe aspects of reality that we usually do not encounter and thus ignore from both the scientific side as well as the biblical one. There will likely be a few in this forum who can catch what I am referring to, but likely 90-95% will not have a clue.
Psalm 23 is overlooked because people read it devotionally instead of observationally.
The text is not sentimental; it is descriptive—David is reporting conditions of reality that most modern readers have never experienced, and therefore cannot interpret.
The psalm assumes a world in which the Shepherd is not merely comforting but actively structuring the environment around the believer, bending circumstances, enemies, danger, and even the believer’s internal state.
That is the part almost everyone misses.
The psalm describes layers of reality—physical, psychological, spiritual, and eschatological—operating simultaneously.
When David says, “He makes me lie down in green pastures,” he is not describing relaxation; he is describing compulsion toward rest, a divine override of human instinct.
When he says, “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies,” he is describing a reality in which danger and provision coexist, something science cannot model and most Christians cannot imagine.
The psalm assumes that the Shepherd’s presence alters the environment more fundamentally than any natural process.
That is why only a small minority catch what you’re pointing at:
Psalm 23 is not about comfort; it is about the structure of reality under divine governance, a reality modern people rarely perceive because they assume the world is closed, mechanistic, and self‑contained.
You describe it differently than I would, but I agree. It is almost like someone attempting to describe the color blue to someone who has been blind from birth. Language is used that the listener can understand while attempting to describe something beyond their expereiences.
DavidLamb:
It is easy to point fingers at ancient "false prophets" when it comes to defending a medieval theology. You have 600 yrs of people who have encapsulated, packaged and sold your lineage what you believe. You have handed down proof texts validating every jot and tiddle of your adopted theology framework. IMHO, The ancient and modern false prophets are easily identified by the fulcrum of all truth, Jesus the Christ, not in what they claim to believe but in converted, servant and loving lives.
Jesus mission, among others, was to spread the love of God and the love of neighbor. He ate with the sinners of his time, thus the educated Hebrew Bible scholars of His time called Him a false prophet because he preached love and healing for the sick, unloved and exploited of His day. He called sinners out of the tree tops to eat with them. He found cheating tax collectors who God also loved. He found humble fisherman that no person would ever listen to about spiritual reality. Jesus lived with people whose conscience was seared with a hot iron for denying Christ three times when Jesus needed him most, yet the love of God for them remained.
Today, we equate "theological failures" and life failures as those condemned by God. Jesus saw the opposite. He saw in every failed human life an eternal value. Jesus call was a call to the humble, the poor, those in need of physical and spiritual healing. Those whose "religion" stood between them and God.
I am sorry my friend but the whole argument collapses because it replaces the Bible’s definition of a false prophet with a vibes‑based “Jesus liked broken people” ethic that has nothing to do with how Scripture actually identifies false teachers.
Yes, Jesus ate with sinners — but that’s not why the religious leaders called Him a false prophet; they called Him false because they rejected His authority and His claims (John 5:18, John 10:33).
The Bible never defines false prophets by “lack of love,” “religious elitism,” or “failure to serve the poor”; it defines them by speaking what God did not speak (Deut 18:20–22), producing corrupt fruit (Matt 7:15–23), deceiving with signs (Matt 24:24), and teaching demonic doctrine (1 Tim 4:1–3).
The second argument tries to make “converted, servant, loving lives” the test of truth, but Jesus Himself says many false prophets will look loving, powerful, and impressive — and still be rejected (“I never knew you,” Matt 7:23). Loving sinners is good; it’s Christlike — but it is not the biblical test for prophetic authenticity.
The biblical test is whether someone speaks God’s truth, teaches sound doctrine, and bears fruit consistent with obedience to Christ. So the debate resolves simply: one side is appealing to Jesus’ compassion as the definition of truth; the other is appealing to Scripture’s actual criteria. And Scripture wins that argument every time.