No More Prophets?

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Evangelicals believe in the notion of "Sola Scriptura". Sola Scriptura means that the Bible, as it currently exists,  is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.  Evangelicals claim this scripture in Hebrews 1:1 means that since the coming of Jesus Christ. God no longer uses prophets and there will not be any more scripture given. The Bible is closed.  Believers are to rely on the testimony of the Apostles alone who were eye witnesses of Christ  in the New Testament.

Evangelicals claim that since the coming of Jesus Christ, that Christ's Himself manifests Himself to mankind directly via His word in the New Testament and the Holy Ghost without need for a mediator, intermediary, emessary, witness or prophet as was done in the Old Testament.  This is, in reality, a reactionary protestant doctrine that rejects the authority of the Catholic Pope. 

But does the Bible itself support this interpretation?

1. Luke was the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke is not an Apostle, but was a missionary companion of Paul.  Luke himself confesses that he was not an eye witness of the sayings or acts of Jesus Christ but claims to have recorded the witnesses of people who did. 

While, Luke is reliable in my mind. Doesn't Luke serve as an intermediary of Christ's words? 

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

2. John is visited by an angel. In Revelation, John the Beloved is shown a vision of the Last Days.  John mistakenly attempts to worship the angel sent to deliver Christ's words.  But, the angel forbade John stating that John should only worship God.   But if God no longer uses intermediaries other than Christ, and Christ deals with mankind directly without any other intermediary; why did  Jesus send His testimony vua this angel in Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:9 and not directly?

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

3. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan, who respresents Christ, personally cared for the man who fell among thieves.  But then Christ states that the Samaritan left the man in the care of the host of the inn.  If Christ no longer uses prophets, representatives, or other authorized representatives, why does the Samaritan in the Parable arrange for someone else, (the innkeeper) to continue care of the injured man on His behalf?

Luke 10:35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

4.  Revelation says in the Last Days, there will be two witnesses who prophesy in Jerusalem. Isn't witnesses who prophesy just another way of describing a prophet?

Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Considering these four examples from the Bible,  is it reasonable to continue to believe in the protestant/Evangelical tradition of Sola Scriptura, which tradition itself is not found in the Bible?