At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I was wondering what people thought about prophets. In the bible it is made known that God revealeth nothing except it be through his servants the prophets. Further, Christ said that he organized his church on prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers, etc. My question to you is, has God closed the windows of heaven? If not, where are his prophets and apostles? The orginazation of Christ's church had 12 apostles, why do we not see a need for them now? How can God reveal His truth without them? or are we left alone on this dark earth? Is this not why so many different religions have formed? I just want to know what people think about these questions.
First of all, no, what the mormons claim is very different to the others. I do know Josephs Smith claim to a restoration is very different from that of others b/c as Morganite had stated, it's claim to the exact restitution of Christ's established church. Your claim the the line has not been cut even to now is arguable. The catholic church claims that a bishop (i forgot his name) replaced Peter. Peter being the "head" of the apostles. If the Bishop replaced him, why is it John the Revalator received the book of revelations. It should have gone to the bishop because the revelations of God were delivered to his apostles to give to the church. Yet in 90's AD John writes this book of Revelations well after the claim that the bishop replaced Peter. Obviously, it wasn't the bishop, it was John. Unfortunately, Morganite is also right that the apostles were all killed (being the unfortunate part of his statement) not allowing for any erepacement. If you read the book of acts, you see a vague process of apostolic succession in that all the apostles gathered together to confer with one another who would be Judas' replacement. This could not have happened according to Foxes book of Martyrs because the apostles were killed too fast. After the "universal" church was then established by Constantine (in the 300's AD) a man of NO Godly authority took the charge to reform the church, this, if you don't accept by previous statement about john and the Bishop, is ample evidence that Constantine had No authority to choose who could be the apostles. This is the cut. the tear in what authority God gave to man to guide his church. So i must emphatically agree with Morganite.
First of all, no, what the mormons claim is very different to the others. I do know Josephs Smith claim to a restoration is very different from that of others b/c as Morganite had stated, it's claim to the exact restitution of Christ's established church. Your claim the the line has not been cut even to now is arguable. The catholic church claims that a bishop (i forgot his name) replaced Peter. Peter being the "head" of the apostles. If the Bishop replaced him, why is it John the Revalator received the book of revelations. It should have gone to the bishop because the revelations of God were delivered to his apostles to give to the church. Yet in 90's AD John writes this book of Revelations well after the claim that the bishop replaced Peter. Obviously, it wasn't the bishop, it was John. Unfortunately, Morganite is also right that the apostles were all killed (being the unfortunate part of his statement) not allowing for any erepacement. If you read the book of acts, you see a vague process of apostolic succession in that all the apostles gathered together to confer with one another who would be Judas' replacement. This could not have happened according to Foxes book of Martyrs because the apostles were killed too fast. After the "universal" church was then established by Constantine (in the 300's AD) a man of NO Godly authority took the charge to reform the church, this, if you don't accept by previous statement about john and the Bishop, is ample evidence that Constantine had No authority to choose who could be the apostles. This is the cut. the tear in what authority God gave to man to guide his church. So i must emphatically agree with Morganite.
Catholics believe Peter to have ben the first bishop of Rome, followed by Clement. Foxe's Book of Martyrs has only limited validity as the early history of Christianity, and is much given to legend.
The only thing i used Foxes Book of Martyrs is the fact that the apostles were all killed in a reletively small amount of time which most historians agree upon, which is not legend or myth. Further, yes the Catholics do claim Peter to be the first bishop, but my point is on the second bishop. You seem to just be repeating what i said.
I will summarize the reasons for my faith this way.
We have the writings of hundreds of people - Christian and Non-Christian and Anti-Christian - that document the faith of the followers of Christ - starting with the books of the New Testament.
And from there, too, we have no shortage at all of documentation as to what they believed - and how the Church grew.
...right up to today.
I would have one question for followers of a Christian Sect that started during or after the Reformation:
Can you name a Christian who followed "correct doctrine" before about 1400?
Much can be learned about early Christianity from the books of the New Testament and the hundreds of other writings by early leaders of the Church, other Christians, Non-Christians and even Anti-Christians.
Then continuing to read 'up' in time there is more and more.
This is the Historic Christian Faith.
If you want to read some of the early Christian writings of the 1st to 3rd Century, here is a great resource.
The only thing i used Foxes Book of Martyrs is the fact that the apostles were all killed in a reletively small amount of time which most historians agree upon, which is not legend or myth. Further, yes the Catholics do claim Peter to be the first bishop, but my point is on the second bishop. You seem to just be repeating what i said.
The legends of the deaths of many - most - of the apostles are just that: legends, without any historical basis. There is no way of knowing how long they lived, but we can be sure that by AD 150 they had all either been killed or died of natural causes.
The second bishop, if you count Peter as Bishop of Rome, and there is good argument against that point of view, was Clement. If you do not count Peter, then Clement was the first named as bishop.
"Catholics believe Peter to have been the first bishop of Rome, followed by Clement". You must of missed that.
In Modern Times, Would Not A Prophet Be Someone Who Receives Revelation Knowlege Of God's Word And Shares It With The World?
If This Is True, Then Is Not Evangelist Billy Graham A Prophet Of God's Word? You Got To Remember That God's Word Was Written For All Times, Not Just 6,000 Years Ago To The Present.
In Modern Times, Would Not A Prophet Be Someone Who Receives Revelation Knowlege Of God's Word And Shares It With The World?
If This Is True, Then Is Not Evangelist Billy Graham A Prophet Of God's Word? You Got To Remember That God's Word Was Written For All Times, Not Just 6,000 Years Ago To The Present.
Billy Graham would not fit the Biblical meaning of a prophet. Mr Graham is a teacher, an evangelist, and has not claimed to be a prophet or to receive divine revelation.
Linear Mode
