109 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Nackhadlow and Mola Ram,

Thanks for your concern. My daughter is not well. The neurosurgeon who examined her didn't think the problem was operable and was hesitant to recommend any other treatment. She is now waiting for a second opinion and trying to find out if she even has any options.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 28 October 2010 - 07:17 AM, said:

Now, which ones actually were "an eyewitness of the risen Jesus", (as Rob claims was the requirement), prior to their calling?

I don't think I said that. I checked all of my posts in this thread and didn't find anything stating that all apostles had to be eywitnesses of the risen Jesus prior to their calling. If I had, that would have been a mistake. My claim is that all of the apostles in the Christian church (which I would say began after the ascension of Christ) were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus. The original twelve were called to be apostles prior to Jesus' resurrection, of course. Of these, again of course, only eleven became eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus, since Judas defected and committed suicide.

You wrote:

Quote

The ONLY one that can reasonably shown to have been "an eyewitness of the risen Jesus" prior to his calling is  . . . . .

. . . . wait for it, . . . .

. . . Matthias!!!!!!!!!!!

Only 1 out of 16 can be reasonably shown to have met Rob's claimed requirement.

This is a peculiar claim, since Paul saw the risen Christ, and obviously Paul was not an apostle before he saw the risen Christ.

I am going to start a new thread addressing the question of whether NT apostles were all required to have seen the risen Christ. That is a different subject than the subject of this thread (do LDS apostles need to have seen the risen Christ).

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 04 November 2010 - 01:55 PM, said:

My claim is that all of the apostles in the Christian church (which I would say began after the ascension of Christ) were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus.

That is your opinion.  To back it up you will need to provide proof that the Church didn't exist prior to the ascension.  I look forward to your attempt to do so.

Quote

This is a peculiar claim, since Paul saw the risen Christ, and obviously Paul was not an apostle before he saw the risen Christ.

Either you weren't paying attention or you have forgotten what has been posted.  Paul NEVER claimed to have seen the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. He only claimed to have heard the risen Lord.

So this argument fails.

Quote

I am going to start a new thread addressing the question of whether NT apostles were all required to have seen the risen Christ. That is a different subject than the subject of this thread (do LDS apostles need to have seen the risen Christ).

As you will.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 04 November 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

That is your opinion.  To back it up you will need to provide proof that the Church didn't exist prior to the ascension.  I look forward to your attempt to do so.

No need. Obviously, no one could be an eyewitness of the resurrection before the resurrection! The point is that Jesus appointed a group of men ahead of time with the intent that they would serve this function once he had risen from the dead. He also chose to appear to others and commission them to function as apostles in addition to those men chosen ahead of time.

You wrote:

Quote

Either you weren't paying attention or you have forgotten what has been posted.  Paul NEVER claimed to have seen the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. He only claimed to have heard the risen Lord.

Apparently, you have either forgotten my refutation of this argument or you are choosing to ignore it. I repeat and augment the evidence previously presented in the new thread.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 04 November 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

No need. Obviously, no one could be an eyewitness of the resurrection before the resurrection!

Right!! And so one does NOT need to be an "eyewitness" of the risen Lord BEFORE being an apostle. THAT is the important point that you are trying to ignore!!

Quote

The point is that Jesus appointed a group of men ahead of time with the intent that they would serve this function once he had risen from the dead. He also chose to appear to others and commission them to function as apostles in addition to those men chosen ahead of time.

True but IRRELEVANT.

Quote

Apparently, you have either forgotten my refutation of this argument or you are choosing to ignore it. I repeat and augment the evidence previously presented in the new thread.

I recall your "refutation" being totally blown away here;
http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208931685

From which you fled here;
http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208931774

[calmoriah]

Rob Bowman, on 04 November 2010 - 01:42 PM, said:

Nackhadlow and Mola Ram,

Thanks for your concern. My daughter is not well. The neurosurgeon who examined her didn't think the problem was operable and was hesitant to recommend any other treatment. She is now waiting for a second opinion and trying to find out if she even has any options.

What a terrifying experience for all concerned.  There are few things worse than having a child with a lifealtering and potentially lifetaking disease (speaking from personal experience) that you as a parent can only stand by and pray for.  Hope that his certainty is wrong and that good news await her and her family and friends.  If not, then may she be blessed with the peace and hope of Christ.

[Vance]

bump.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

Thank you for your kind words of concern. I appreciate it very much. I regret to say that we are still waiting for the second opinion.

calmoriah, on 04 November 2010 - 04:48 PM, said:

What a terrifying experience for all concerned.  There are few things worse than having a child with a lifealtering and potentially lifetaking disease (speaking from personal experience) that you as a parent can only stand by and pray for.  Hope that his certainty is wrong and that good news await her and her family and friends.  If not, then may she be blessed with the peace and hope of Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 04 November 2010 - 03:09 PM, said:

Right!! And so one does NOT need to be an "eyewitness" of the risen Lord BEFORE being an apostle. THAT is the important point that you are trying to ignore!!

How you could say that, when I specifically and directly addressed the point, is beyond me. Furthermore, the point is irrelevant because few if any of the current group of LDS apostles claims that Jesus has EVER appeared to them, before or after their appointment.

You wrote:

Quote

I recall your "refutation" being totally blown away here;
http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208931685

From which you fled here;
http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208931774

We obviously have differing opinions as to how effectively my argument was "totally blown away" by that post.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 01:39 PM, said:

How you could say that, when I specifically and directly addressed the point, is beyond me.

And yet you ignore that very important point with statements like this one;

Quote

Furthermore, the point is irrelevant because few if any of the current group of LDS apostles claims that Jesus has EVER appeared to them, before or after their appointment.

It is not irrelevant.  The ancient apostles were called to the apostleship and acted therein WITHOUT seeing the risen Lord.  THEREFORE seeing the risen Lord IS NOT A REQUIREMENT to be an apostle, neither then nor now.

Quote

We obviously have differing opinions as to how effectively my argument was "totally blown away" by that post.

Yes we do.