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.

Perhaps there were no 12 apostles to begin with; that would explain a lot of what you are asking.

They were explicitly named and labeled in the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

They were explicitly named and labeled in the bible.

---

Perhaps the bible is a work of fiction?

Obviously this question is for the less phlisophical. :D

There are dozens and dozens of early extant writings outside of the Bible that testify to the names and actions of Christ and his apostles.

Christ founded a Church. A Church, he promised, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against.

He gave his Apostles leadership over the church and they in turn have passed their leadership on - down to today.

So we are not left alone. We still have Him and His Church.

Hi,
We are not alone and have not been left to ourselves; only those who are not Christians are alone.
The Elders and Deacons are alive and well in the Church of Christ; following the teachings of the 12 Apostles; taught by Jesus Christ.
It's very easy for some posts here to question whether they are "fiction". This questioning comes from non-Christians. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the "boat" found in a mountainous area with all the measurements of the Arc are not acknowledged by non-believers.
The New Testament explains it, with the teachings of the Apostles. Miracles do happen, by the Grace of God, as acknowledged by Professionals who can not explain why things happen.
Best wishes, and may God bless you and keep you safe.
fredg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Hi,
We are not alone and have not been left to ourselves; only those who are not Christians are alone.

---

I'm not alone - I have my family and friends and co-workers and neighbours. Wow, I guess if we aren't part of the group that you are in then we're in the wrong group in your opinion. High school must have been difficult for you.

fredg, and anyone else seeing this:
"only those who are not Christians are alone" is not a teaching of the historic Christian Faith or of the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

fredg, and anyone else seeing this:
"only those who are not Christians are alone" is not a teaching of the historic Christian Faith or of the Bible.

---

You earn my respect with every post you make.

Rickj said that there are leaders and there is a church. Question: Which church is it? After the death of an apostle they replaced him. Why haven't the 12 apostles been replaced through the ages if His church is still intact?

"...where are his prophets and apostles?"

"The Twelve" were "Foundational Apostles." Once the Foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was laid, there was no need for "foundational apostles." In fact, we will never have another "Twelve" or "foundational apostles." "Other foundations can no man lay than that which is laid" -- which is Christ Jesus!

HOWEVER, the Bible lists some 13-14 additional apostles, who were not of The Twelve. The Apostle Paul was one of them. These apostles were "sent" to preach the Gospel (the foundation that was laid) of Jesus Christ.

An apostle is a "sent one." THUS WE HAVE APOSTLES TODAY! Every minister should be "called" and "sent" by The Holy Spirit!

Where are the apostles today? Most denominational churches do not recognize the office of the Apostle nor the Prophet. However, no where in Scripture do we find authority to remove these two from the Five-fold Ministry, as listed in Ephesians 4:7-16 ("And to some He gave apostles; prophets; evangelists; pastors, and teachers.)


"And to some He gave...." WHAT WAS GIVEN AND TO WHOM GIVEN? The anointed or gifted ones of the Five-fold Ministry were given to the "church" -- the Body of Christ. If a church needs a teacher, God sends a teacher; a pastor, God sends a pastor, etc. However, God has sent apostles and prophets, as well as evangelists, pastors, and teachers, whom the local churches rejected or refused to acknowledge in the ministry. HOWEVER, THE BIBLE IS STILL TRUE!

I know quite a number of ministers who stand in the Office of the Prophet (and they are not the charlatans seen on T.V.).

To stand in the "office" (rather than one who moves only in the Gift of Prophecy) one must be anointed or move in others Gifts as well; e.g. Prophecy; Word of Wisdom; Word of Knowledge; Discerning of Spirits; Tongues, Interpretation of Tongues. The Gifts of Faith, Miracles, and Healings may accompany the Gift just listed, or they may not. The Holy Spirit gives Gifts "severally as He wills."

The Nine Gifts of The Holy Spirit (as listed in I Corinthians 12) are enablements or empowerment to those who operate in the Five-fold Ministry (Ephesians 4:7-16).

Many are gifted with the "Gift of Prophecy" (one of the Nine Gifts of The Holy Spirit) who prophesy only, but do not stand in the Office of the Prophet.

WHERE ARE THE OFFICES OF APOSTLE AND PROPHET TODAY? Outside the door where the "church" has placed them. However, this is contrary to Scripture.

Blessings,

Yo man I don't think your a scammer all I wanted you to do is hack that account I sent you but you isn't replied saying that you have or you isn't hacked it yet :(

SSchultz0956, you ask
"Why haven't the 12 apostles been replaced through the ages if His church is still intact?"

They have been replaced through the ages. Hence the term Apostolic.

Unfortunately "Apostolic" has become a word that many churches use - even ones who have rejected the leadership line of all of the Apostles.

"We believe in one Holy, catholic [with a small "c"... meaning "universal"] and apostolic Church" has been proclaimed in our creed for about 1700 years now.

... and we follow the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, whose line of leadership can be followed back to Peter.

Yes, I'm well aware of all of the non and anti-Catholic arguments, but that's not my point here. Here I am only addressing your particular statement.

I wish true Peace and Blessings to all of you.

We are not alone as God is forever available to us. Jesus told us in the Bible that greater things "could we do" and He is not a liar. We have the ability through the Holy Spirit to do what the apostles did. God's word also tells us that we have not because we ask not or ask amiss. When we trust in God and put our complete faith in Him, we can do all things through Him. Amen and Amen.

MaggieB

That's a good and accurate summary, MaggieB.
I'll third the motion:
Amen.

I'd like to echo Maggie's post, and also expound on it a bit.

The text we're referring to is John 14:12-14--
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

We must also remember that the word "prophet" does NOT denote only the foretelling of future events, even though that's how it's most commonly used today. God used his prophets as human mouthpieces for His desires, wishes, warnings, and judgements. A prophet is someone who speaks the Word of God, whether that word be for the past, now, or the future. Now, there are some guidelines to follow when evaluating a prophet. Are their words true? In other words, do their words conflict with Scripture? If so, then they are not prophets, since God will not contradict Himself. Do their prophecies come to pass without fail? If not, then they are not "foretelling" prophets.

The "in my name" part also needs some clarification. This phrase does not mean uttering a cursory "in Jesus' name" at the end of a prayer. Rather, this is asking for things that are in accordance with the will of God and praying that the will of God be done. To ask in Jesus' name means to ask to do what HE would do, in accordance with his teachings and commandments. "In my name" is more of a lifestyle than part of a petition.

The prophet is still here today, very much alive and well. So why don't we see them or acknowledge them? In my opinion, the church is so wrapped up in its religion that it's losing its faith. Words like "prophet," "apostle," "healing," "deliverance" and so forth make more than a few people nervous. Those words, and everything they connote, threaten the stability and nice, safe, little warm place that many mainline denominations are in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'm not alone - I have my family and friends and co-workers and neighbours. Wow, I guess if we aren't part of the group that you are in then we're in the wrong group in your opinion. High school must have been difficult for you.

---

The group I am referring to are Christians. If one is a Christian, they are never alone... they always have God.
Family, friends, co-workers and neighbors are always greats, but they cannot replace God.
I don't understand why you consider this as "judgemental". Christianity is word wide, and only Christians can understand... that might be what you meant, but I am not sure. I don't mean any of this to be "judgemental", only God can judge, and eventually, will judge all of us.
fredg
PS, My High School was 45 yrs ago. So what has that got to do with anything? My parents were Christians, too, and I grew up in a christian environment. No, those were not bad years for me and not difficult, with God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

Rickj said that there are leaders and there is a church. Question: Which church is it? After the death of an apostle they replaced him. Why haven't the 12 apostles been replaced through the ages if His church is still intact?

---

Paul said that the apostles were the foundation of the church with Christ as the chief cornerstone, a reference to how a building is constructed. Apostles were replaced for a season to maintain the foundation of the church, but eventually they were not. When that happened, the foundation was not there and the church of Christ collapsed.

Mormons under their prophet Smith say the apostles have been brought back to retsore what was lost, and they have a college of apostles just like the church did in the time of Jesus.

The term 'apostolic' does not mean the existence of apostles, but that their teachings were taught by the apostles of Jesus, It is a claim to succession. As the teachings and doctrines of early Christianity developed into avenues at variance with the teachings of Jeuss and his apostles, the claim to be in the line of descent from apostolic doctrine is hard to substantiate.




MORGANITE


:)

I beg to differ in your implication that the Apostles and/or their successors were not replaced.

They were.

Most, if not all, of their lines of successorship can be traced to a Bishop of the Church today.

To boot, there are many who claim what Joseph Smith did: Mohammed, David Koresh, Mary Baker Eddy, etc, to name a few.

What makes any one of them believable over any of the others?

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.