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 because as Morganite had stated, it's claim to the exact restitution of Christ's established church. Your claim 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

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.





MORGANITE

:)

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?

If not, then where was Christ's Church then?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

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.


MORGANITE

In Modern Times, Would Not A Prophet Be Someone Who Receives Revelation Knowledge 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STONY

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.




MORGANITE

:)

If One Hears The Voice Of God And Shares That Message, To Me He Is A Prophet Of God.

History is full of folks who have made that claim.
How is a person to know if the person's message is really from God?

Is The Message Of God's Love Or Is It A Message Of Hatred?

I Enjoyed Your Answer. You Are Obviously Someone Who Has Been There Before... halleluiah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Hi,
... the "boat" found in a mountainous area with all the measurements of the Arc are not acknowledged by non-believers.

fredg

---

I do not believe that any of the 'boats' that have been dug up is the Ark of Noah. Wood rots.



MORGANITE


:)

When It's Been Buried In Ice And Snow And Deprived Of Oxygen For Years And Years. Think About It...

There are still prophets I know but a lot of them are false prophets. I was stunned to realize that one of my favorite ( dang I'm!) TV preachers was a big fat liar fake. But there is nothing anyone can say or do that will ever take away my faith in God away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crankiebabie

There are still prophets i know but alot of them are false prophets. I was stunned to realize that one of my favorite ( dang im!) tv preachers was a big fat liar fake. But there is nothing anyone can say or do that will ever take away my faith in God away.

---

Prophets do not have to be perfect, and none has been. Nikos Kazantzakis wrote:

"God is a potter. He works with mud."

God uses men and women to fulfil his purposes. They do not always stand up to the scrutiny of those who expect them to be perfect and flawless.


MORGANITE


:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STONY

When It's Been Burried In Ice And Snow And Deprived Of Oxygen For Years And Years. Think About It...

---

On egroup of 'arkeologists' who say they have found Noah's ark, say that it is 100,000 years old. Do you believe them?




MORGANITE


:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

On egroup of 'arkeologists' who say they have found Noah's ark, say that it is 100,000 years old. Do you believe them?

---

Good point but the same can be said for all things religious so the point is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STONY

When It's Been Burried In Ice And Snow And Deprived Of Oxygen For Years And Years. Think About It...

---

It would be wonderful if the ark was found. So far it has not been found. Some claims to discovery are dealt with here:



On the snowy cap of Mount Ararat, lodged in ice, lies the shadowy form of a boat the size of a battleship. "Hallelujah,'' cried a triumphant Antonio Palego. ``It's Noah's Ark!''

He says the ark has been preserved in ice for over 4,000 years. A small piece of wood found in the same area by a French explorer friend and authenticated as dating from the time of the flood is physical evidence of his find, he says.
===
Ed Davis’ story of seeing the Ark has been circulated widely among Ark hunters and dismissed by many as the pipe dream of an old man with a big imagination and a faulty memory. [Robin Simons] spent a day talking with this man. This is what he said: "Something happened to me in '43 that's haunted me all my life... "I'm in the 363rd Army Corps of Engineers working out of a base in Hamadan (ancient Ekbatan), Iran. My driver Badi Abas. points to a distant peak that's sometimes visible and says, 'Agri Dagh, my home.' "We can see it clearly on the horizon with its year-round snow cap. 'Mt. Ararat, that's where the Ark landed? I say. He nods.

" Abas points down into a kind of horseshoe crevasse and says, 'That's Noah's Ark.' But I can't see anything. Everything's the same color and texture. Then I see it -- a huge, rectangular, man-made structure partly covered by a talas of ice and rock, lying on its side. At least a hundred feet are clearly visible.
===
When Stephen marked the locations of the anomalies he found on a topographical map of Ararat, I immediately saw they were in the same area that my grandfather indicated to me many years before. However, this does not mesh with Davis' story
====
The Learning Channel broadcast a film July 31, 1995, about the work of Wyatt, Fasold, and John Baumgardner Ph.D. However, as evidence against Noah’s Ark being at Durupinar has mounted and people like Arthur Brandenberger Ph.D. of Ohio State University (1959-1960) and Dr. John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratories (1980s-1990s) pulled back in their support of the formation, the Durupinar supporters seem to have evolved their view to say now that Durupinar is no longer the actual remains of Noah's Ark where Ron Wyatt stated it contained trainloads of wood inside of the formation, but is an imprint at the location where Noah's Ark stopped after the 500 foot long boat slid down the hill several thousand feet via a geologic flow which amazingly, did not turn the boat over or destroy its shape whatsoever.
====
Murat Avci made it scientifically clear that the Durupinar site is just a freak of nature and nothing special. The title of the presentation was "Geomorphological Surface Shape that looks like Ship Form in Agri" and "The Formation and Mechanics of the great Telceker Earth Flow."
==
According to the Ron Wyatt view, the ark later deteriorated or was scavenged and destroyed. The alleged "anchor" or ‘drogue’ stones fifteen miles away at Kazan are extremely controversial.
==
B.J. Corbin visited the Durupinar site in 1989, 1990, and 1998, and does not believe that it is the remains of Noah's Ark. Corbin viewed similar boat/canoe-shaped formations near Mt. Ararat during helicopter flights, and the formation appears natural and similar to the surroundings and mudflow.
==
Rex Geissler and an archaeologist also visited the site in 2000 and 2001 and were unimpressed by its archaeological significance. The natural qualities of the geologic flow down the length of the hill are obvious. ArcImaging contends that a professional dig of the site would be in order, along with independent, expert analyses of the contents as most interested parties have preconceived biases for or against the site.
=
George Vandeman concluded that "there vere no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made."
=
Wyatt said the chemical analysis he had done prove that the Durupinar site is a decomposed wooden boat. He says his two lab reports show that the carbon percentages are different within the formation (4.95%) and outside the formation (1.88%) "positively prove it to be composed of very ancient wood and metal" What Wyatt does not tell his readers is that both of these carbon percentages fall within the normal bounds of soil and does not show evidence of wood!
=
From: John Baumgardner <[email protected] >
To: [email protected]
September 26, 1996 7:13 PM

Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form. My very firm conclusions [are] reached after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in 1987 and 1988. I am convinced the remains of the Ark must be somewhere else, that such remains are emphatically _not_ associated with this boat-shaped formation. The central claims Wyatt and Fasold have been making about the site are bogus.
=
My reasons for concluding the site has nothing to do with the ark are based on the geophysical surveys my team performed in 1987 together with the core drilling we performed in 1988 which revealed a massive ridge of inside the site and aligned with the site's long axis.

This ridge actually outcrops at the surface over about 40% of the length of the site, and accounts for the stability of the site relative to the surrounding terrain as well as for its distinctive boatlike shape. The rock material that comprises the ridge matches that in nearby outcrops, especially that in the roadcut above the visitor's center. The material Ron claims is petrified wood is igneous rock of basaltic composition. We have analyzed many samples of it here at our laboratory.



MORGANITE


:)

Gigantic Tree Noah Cut Down. I Can't Buy The 100,000 Year Theory Because The Fall Of Adam Was Only 6,000 Years Ago.