Featured Apostles, prophets and manifestations of the Holy Spirit

I would not say that "Modern-Day Apostles" are any more gifted than our original Apostles were in the sense that they alter God's Word to mean something completely different than that of the original Apostles intended. IMHO, "Modern-Day Apostles" are merely those who would make terms that currently are used in today's more modern terminology (EX: Using "Iran" instead of "Persia.")

 

There can be NO modern day "Prophets or Apostles" in the Biblical sense. It is very clear from Ephesians 2:20-21, that they are the FOUNDATION, of the Church, and NOT the BUILDING, which is the Church of believers.

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord"

When the Old Testament Prophets spoke, they did so in the Name of the Lord, "Thus says the Lord", etc. And had to be correct 100% of the time, as Deuteronomy 18: 20-22 is clear:

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him"

In Matthew 11:13, Jesus says that John the Baptish was the FINAL Prophet, in the Bible: "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied UNTIL John". In Acts 21 we read of the Prophet Agabus, who was most probably born before Jesus died, which is the OT Time.

 

Your arguments make an excellent case. I've never believed that the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, nor those "offices" ceased, but never could argue my case very well. On a slightly different topic, could you elaborate on the dating of John's Gospel and his epistles? All the commentaries I'd ever read regarding Revelation claims it was the last book written. I do not doubt you, but I'd like to learn more about this.

 

I'm wondering about this. Where do you get that John's other writings were from before the book of Revelation? That's pretty non-standard. Merrill Tenney puts John's Gospel at 45-50 (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, 9), and Glenn Barker (vol. 12, 301) puts the epistles at around 90.

Revelation before AD 96 is a position usually taken by preterists, originally put forth by a liberal.

I see you have answered this somewhat to someone else. I'll just say that the temple in Revelation is certainly not Herod's Temple.

 

You are correct; I was getting the terms confused, though you've got to admit that's just some kind of fine distinction somebody thought up. But remember the biblical test of a true prophet [Deuteronomy 18:21-22], and what is characterized as "fothtelling" is not subject to that test; therefore such prophecy cannot be proved.

It is clearly mentioned that some (...to another gifts of...") have the gifts of healing [I Corinthians 12:9]. My own position is that we do not receive particular gifts as enumerated in these chapters. If we do, then we should have "two or three prophets speak, two or three speak in tongues, with at least one to interpret..."

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part and prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with"[I Corinthians 13:8-10].

What is "when the perfect comes?" Some say completion of scripture. Some say the rapture. Some say the millenium. Some say the very end of it all. My best understanding is the completion of scripture. Those who get a kick out of tongues and miracles IMO like to play with certain biblical concepts. Besides, if the perfect to come is not completed scripture, then we don't have anything perfect in scripture.

Frankly, yes. [This refers back to my saying it would take a person with a missing arm or leg growing a new one to convince me it is a miraculous healing.] Not that case specifically, but one in which there is no question whatsoever that the 'healing' was an absolute physical impossibility. This getting healed of stomach or back pain is nonsense in that way. And this isn't just an assumption on my part. ? years ago, when I was having back pain, I knew about those guys on tv who claimed the "word of knowledge" and named certain conditions about people watching them and saying they are healed now. I decided to turn such a show on, knowing the psychogenic effect of hearing something like this, just to see if he would mention a guy with back pain. He did, and it felt much better. And I already knew exactly why; I just took advantage to get a little relief. I did not pay him for this "miracle," because I would be supporting fraud if I did.

I said the mountain-moving thing because that comes directly from Jesus. If anyone wants to take this miracle stuff literally, then really take it literally. If no dice, it's not literal. But yes, I agree about the foolish test, and that's why snake handlers are nuts. But a miracle is not just an unlikely happening. And today, to carry it beyond an illusion is very difficult.

So, how do you define a miracle?
How do you explain that certain gifts are given to some, but to another... a different gift, as the scripture says?
Do you think I'm justified in calling these preachers of miracles money-grubbing frauds?

 

Oaukl Himself claimed to be one born out of season, as he was the last person in the Bible Jesus commissioned as an Apostle. Do you claim some extra biblical revelation regarding additional apostles God sent forth since John passed? And that the canon and revelation is now closed is asserted and agreed upon save for those in cults such as Morminism, and Sda!

 

I have read all of your postings, but you seem to have some strange theology in certain areas!

 

No, I am saying that whenever one leaves open Concept of additional revelations and books coming from God, can lead into heresies such as wof and modern day Apostles and prophets!

 

Matthias was not the replacement for Judas, as Jesus called and commissioned Paul for that, as he was the replacement 12 Apostles!

 

Book of Revelation last inspired book from the Lord to us, as just as Genesis shows the beginning, Revelation shows to us how it all ends!

 

Jesus made blind see, deaf to hear, lame to walk, and raised very dead, things that I see no evidence any so called faith healer or modern day Apostle and prophet can do!

 

John was the last OT Prophet, and we have the canon of scripture, the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, as none save someone inspired by the risen Christ can give forth revelation to us!

 

The point that I was trying to make was not one of "Adding To" God's Final Revelations as it was to merely rename some nations in their more modern names, EX: "Iran" instead of "Persia." Period. If I gave you the impression that I was attempting to somehow "Add To" what the "NT 'Prophets'" wrote, then I'll humbly ask for your forgiveness in that matter. In NO WAY was I trying to do such a thing. Rather, as I've just pointed out, it was merely update some nations' names and nothing else.

 

The Holy Spirit ceased inspiration when John passed, and I hold to very high view of the scriptures, as they ONLY are the authority in all things spiritual, and cannot be added to or contradicted, as much so call revelations today do!

 

Paul wrote Romans, and that should be enough to show that God choose Him to be the true replacement to Judas!
And book of revelation was last book penned down, as all other Apostles had died for sake of Christ before John!