I don't understand your reply. Jews don't recognize the apocrypha. Jews believe the canon closed with Malachi (Ezra) and do not recognize the NT. Some protestants adopt the 400 years of silence view as an attempt to poorly reconcile rabbinical Jewish beliefs that were created to deny Christ with the new testament. It's nonsensical.
Nowhere in the new testament is there a verse suggesting that there were 400 years without prophecy. All 4 of the Gospels begin Christ's ministry with John the Baptist... Would all of them really fail to mention "oh by the way John was the first prophet in 400 years, kind of a big deal"? As a matter of fact, we know he wasn't because Luke informs us that Simeon and Anna were two prophets in the temple when John was a small baby. Luke was a meticulous historian, surely he would have mentioned if prophetic activity was unusual and new?
There is no biblical basis for the teaching of the 400 years of silence.
I don't understand your reply. Jews don't recognize the apocrypha. Jews believe the canon closed with Malachi (Ezra) and do not recognize the NT. Some protestants adopt the 400 years of silence view as an attempt to poorly reconcile rabbinical Jewish beliefs that were created to deny Christ with the new testament. It's nonsensical.
Nowhere in the new testament is there a verse suggesting that there were 400 years without prophecy. All 4 of the Gospels begin Christ's ministry with John the Baptist... Would all of them really fail to mention "oh by the way John was the first prophet in 400 years, kind of a big deal"? As a matter of fact, we know he wasn't because Luke informs us that Simeon and Anna were two prophets in the temple when John was a small baby. Luke was a meticulous historian, surely he would have mentioned if prophetic activity was unusual and new?