109 replies to this topic

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 26 October 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Zerinus - I don't think anywhere in this thread has Rob made that assertion. He may have that belief, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which was a poor CFR by Vance, which Rob answered clearly. The point was then evaded several times into a straw man argument, and trying to make rob look like an idiot, when it was in fact the LDS goal-post movers who are left looking very poor.

You make me wonder if you are even paying attention.

As a response to your earlier post I posted this.

Vance, on 24 October 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:

Perhaps you are right.  The problem is that Rob made a claim that he can't support.  When called on it, rather than just admit that he couldn't prove a negative, he made a lame attempt at misdirection.

Perhaps the CFR that should have been issued is for this statement.

I find NO SUCH requirment in my studies of the NT.  Perhaps Rob is confusing the Evangelical MISINTERPRETATION of this verse with what it ACTUALLY says.
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
  22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, . . . (Here Peter is discribing the group from which one was going to be chosen.  NOTHING in there can be reasonably construed to be a REQUIREMENT for any and all other Apostles.)

. . . must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

So here we have the requirement.  The fallen apostle MUST BE replaced. No requirement for being an "eyewitness" is made, but rather the requirement is for the replacement of a witness. Now lest some claim that the KJV has it wrong, here are several other translations of the important phrase.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus' resurrection."

English Standard Version (©2001)
. . . one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
. . . one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

International Standard Version (©2008)
. . . Therefore, someone like this must become a witness with us to his resurrection."

American King James Version
. . . must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

American Standard Version
. . . of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Bible in Basic English
. . . one will have to be a witness with us of his coming back from death.

Douay-Rheims Bible
. . . one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.

Darby Bible Translation
. . . one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection.

English Revised Version
. . . of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Webster's Bible Translation
. . . must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Weymouth New Testament
. . . -one should be appointed to become a witness with us as to His resurrection."

World English Bible
. . . of these one must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Young's Literal Translation
. . .  one of these to become with us a witness of his rising again.'

New Jerusalem Bible
. . . one must be appointed to serve with us as a witness to his resurrection.

Sorry Rob, but again you have it wrong.  There is no NT requirment for an "eyewitness".

PS,
Why would one of the five PHYSICAL senses be more valid than the SPIRITUAL with regard to SPIRITUAL things?

Why would rejecting the physical Christ bring less punishment than rejecting the ultimate witness of the Holy Ghost?
(Matt. 12:31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.)

Could it be that the ultimate witness of the Holy Ghost is stronger and more binding than an "eyewitness" event?

No goalposts were moved, nor was another CFR issued.

What happened here is that Rob misrepresented what the NT requirements ACTUALLY were, and I MADE THE MISTAKE OF BELIEVING HIM. MY BAD!!!

I will endeaver to avoid that mistake in the future.

Quote

I clearly have many fundamental disagreements with Rob Bowman, but he's the only one coming out of this thread with any dignity.

Only if you don't count the MISREPRESENTATION of scripture.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 26 October 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

No, Vance, that wasn't the original CFR. By your own admission, you accepted that claim (that the NT apostles had to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus) at first.

Yup!!!  I made a big mistake in believing that you were not misrepresenting what the NT requirements are.

Quote

You would not have issued a CFR against a claim you accepted!

You are right and I did issue a CFR for your claim that LDS apostles didn't meet NT requirements (as you misrepresented them to be)

Quote

No, as i have documented in this post, you confirmed several times that your CFR was directed to my claim that LDS apostles need not have seen the risen Christ.

Yup, my mistake for trusting you.

Quote

Vance, you are so anxious to avoid admitting you were mistaken that you are spiraling into deeper and deeper confusion and self-contradiction.

I freely admit that I made a BIG mistake.  And it all can be traced back to my trusting you.  As I have said before, I will endeavor to avoid that mistake in the future.

Quote

The fact is that you have now conceded the point against which your original CFR was issued. Man up and admit it!

Yup.  LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ.  I admit it.

But then again the NT doesn't make that a requirement.

So LDS Apostle are in compliance of the NT requirement. Man up and admit it.

Edited by Vance, 26 October 2010 - 07:21 PM.

[David T]

History of this argument, with all the irrelevant posts removed:
in [url="http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/51610-is-the-lds-church-really-led-by-prophets/page__view__findpost__p__1208929268"]this[/url] thread, Rob said:

[quote][size="2"]Actually, several other religions claim to have apostles and prophets. Furthermore, your current apostles and prophets do not seem to have been called "as they were called in the NT." That is, in the NT Jesus Christ handpicked his apostles and prophets, and each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles. In fact, I've never heard of any apostle during the past hundred years or so even claiming to have had a visible encounter with the risen Jesus.[/quote][/size]
[size="3"] [/size]
[size="3"][size="2"]To which Vance replied:[/size][/size]
[size="3"][size="2"][quote name='Vance'][quote name='Rob Bowman']That isn't the case with your LDS apostles.[/quote][/size][/size]
[size="2"]CFR[/quote][/size]


This thread is a continuation of this reference, namely:
It isn't the case that the current LDS Apostles appear to have been called in the same manner as they were called in the New Testament

By this, Rob explains he means his understanding of these qualifications of the role of apostle are:
a) Handpicked by Jesus Christ
b) An eyewitness of the risen Jesus


In this thread, which Rob began, he began by re-stating his understanding of the CFR:
[quote name='Rob Bowman'][size="2"] Presumably this was Vance's CFR for me to support my claim that LDS apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ.[/quote][/size]
[size="3"] [/size]
[size="3"][size="2"]Thus is appears that the discussion will be focused on addressing this aspect of the CFR, namely, "that it isn't the case the current LDS Apostles appear to be required to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus"[/size][/size]
[size="3"] [/size]
[size="3"][size="2"]Rob then gives references from official LDS sources that make clear this is not a modern requirement. This answers this aspect of the CFR.[/size][/size]
[size="3"] [/size]
[size="3"][size="2"]Lesellers then begins going in another direction to try to prove that there is not a specific record that the Biblical apostles saw the risen Lord.[/size][/size]
[size="3"][size="2"][quote name='LeSellers'][/size][/size][size="2"]But there is no record of Barnabas' seeing Christ Risen. [/size][size="2"]Or, how about James, the brother of Christ:[/quote][/size]

[size="2"]Rob's reply:[/size]
[size="2"][quote name='Rob Bowman'][/size][size="2"]The lack of any mention of Barnabas's encounter with the risen Jesus is not a valid argument against the principle that apostles had seen the risen Jesus. That would be a fallacious argument from silence. Hundreds of people who saw the risen Jesus are not named specifically in that connection the NT (see 1 Corinthians 15:6). It is quite possible that Barnabas was one of those hundred of people.[/size][size="2"]
My claim was not that there needs to be "a record," currently available, of every apostle having seen the risen Christ. My claim was that in the NT period the principle was enunciated and understood that all apostles had in fact seen the risen Jesus, whereas in the LDS Church no living apostle need claim, and none does claim, that he has seen the risen Jesus.[/quote][/size]

[size="3"][size="2"]LeSellers' reply misses the point:[/size][/size]
[size="3"][size="2"][quote name=''LeSellers'][/size][/size][size="2"]But you have no fallacy in your argument that modern Apostles have not seen Him based on the lack of a record' date=' or record of an open avowal. I see. The double standard is active: if it undermines the LDS position, any argument is valid, but if it undermines the Evangelical or creedal position, it gets a pass.[/quote'][/size]

[size="2"]Of course, Rob's argument at this point isn't that no modern apostle has claimed to see Christ (even though that is his belief), the argument is that it is not a modern day requirement to hold the office, with the associated declaration that it was a requirement to have seen the Risen Lord in the immediate Post-Resurrection era of the Church.[/size]

[size="3"][size="2"]Discussion follows for several posts that have no bearing on the topic at hand, some focused on firsthand account or remembrances of modern apostles hinting at recieving their Special Witness of the Savior.[/size][/size]
[size="3"] [/size]
[size="3"][size="2"]Then Zerinus shows up:[/size][/size]
[size="3"][size="2"][quote name='Zerinus'][/size][/size]
[size="3"][size="2"]I don't really care whether you have answered anybody's CFR or not. The only thing that I am interested in is answering the fallacies of your arguments. Your criticism of the LDS requirement of Apostleship is like someone criticizing some county's driving laws because it allows you to drive a truck without having a car driving licence; whereas in fact to drive a truck you need a truck driving licence which is a more stringent requirement than having a car driving licence. You demand a physical encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ. We claim that being a "special witness of Jesus Christ" is a more stringent requirement which may or may not include a physical encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ.[/quote][/size][/size]
[size="3"][size="2"] [/size][/size]
In this case, it is specifically not the CFR that is being referred to, but the interpretation of the term 'special witness of Jesus Christ' (a shortened version of the LDS specific phrase 'Special Witness of the Name of Christ', which is specifically  applied to the Modern Apostleship)

To which more tangents break off.
(continued...)

[David T]

Eventually, Vance comes back with:

Vance said:

To address this CFR and support this statement Rob has to prove that not a single LDS apostle has seen Christ. Which he cannot do.

Which clearly is not the argument. The argument was that it is not a requirement for one to have seen the Risen Lord to be called to the modern Apostleship. Rob noted this, and replied:

Rob Bowman said:

That is a ridiculous distortion of my meaning. "That" in the sentence you put in bold type refers back to the previous sentence, which asserts not that some apostles might have been eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus but that "each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus."
I hope you're not going to try to get this thread shut down by claiming once again that I refused to answer a CFR. I answered it in the other thread, and I answered it again, thoroughly and definitively, in this thread.

More irrelevant posts to the CFR at hand follow. To which Rob repeats his claim:

Rob Bowman said:

This has nothing to do with "convincing the unbelievers." My point, which I have documented from LDS leaders, is that they don't even claim that all LDS apostles have seen the risen Lord, and in fact make statements that indicate that not all of them have seen him. The issue I am raising here is what the LDS Church teaches about this, not whether it is true.

Vance then concedes that the originally addressed CFR had been answered by Rob, and then changes the focus:

Vance said:

Perhaps the CFR that should have been issued is for this statement. "That is, in the NT Jesus Christ handpicked his apostles and prophets, and each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus." I find NO SUCH requirment in my studies of the NT...Sorry Rob, but again you have it wrong. There is no NT requirment for an "eyewitness".

To which Rob concedes an element, presents a willingness to discuss the next issue, but desires first to have it clearly acknowledged that the initial CFR he was answering had been resolved:

Rob Bowman said:

You then go on to discuss Acts 1:21-22 at some length. In effect, you admit that candidates for Judas's replacement were required to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus, while claiming, "NOTHING in there can be reasonably construed to be a REQUIREMENT for any and all other Apostles." I agree that this text does not speak directly to the issue of what the requirements would be for anyone else to become an apostle subsequently to Matthias. However, the conclusion that NT apostles all had to see the risen Jesus rests on more than just this one text.
I'd be happy to discuss this issue with you, if we could just settle the issue that is the subject of this thread. Can you possibly admit, as others in this thread have acknowledged, that I am right in saying that LDS apostles are not required to have seen the risen Jesus?

To which Vance ignores the request for an acknowledgement, and simply repeatedly asserts that there is no NT requirement for Apostles seeing the Risen Lord, and then accused Rob:

Vance said:

Here we have another example of Rob wresting the scriptures to fabricate an attack on Mormonism.

Rob's reply:

Rob Bowman said:

After getting one thread shut down for my supposed failure to answer your CFR on this point, you now agree that "LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ." That was precisely my point! The only difference between us now is that you claim this was also not a requirement for NT apostles. Fine, I understand why that would be your view, but my original statement, which you challenged with a CFR, you have now affirmed explicitly! Furthermore, you defend this statement in precisely the same way as I did: by arguing that if there is no such requirement stated, then there is no such requirement.

Vance denies that was the purpose of the original CFR, even though above he admitted that it was, but should have been something else.

Vance said:

No, that wasn't your point. Your claim was that LDS Apostles didn't meet the NT requirements, which at the time you falsely claimed (and I unfortunately believed you, shame on me) was to be an "eyewitness".

Eventually, we come to the present, with Vance saying:

Vance said:

Yup. LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ. I admit it.
But then again the NT doesn't make that a requirement.

So LDS Apostle are in compliance of the NT requirement. Man up and admit it.

The latter statement is a subject Rob said he was willing to further discuss once the former was settled, and not before. Now that Vance has noted that Rob did in fact reference what he originally set out to reference, the conversation can respectfully continue. Rob has not avoided anything, but has sought to stay focused on one specific point, and stated his willingness to address other related issues once the subject at hand was concluded. Others tried to get him to address other issues before the issue at hand was conceded, and Rob specifically said he would address that issue once the issue at hand was conceded.

Because Vance just now clearly conceded that point, this is the first time in this thread that Rob, by his own statements, is now obligated to address the subject of whether or not an eyewitness of the Risen Lord was a requirement for post-Matthias Apostles.


Now that the Old CFR is ended, the new one can begin. Patience, people.

Edited by nackhadlow, 26 October 2010 - 02:13 PM.

[David T]

even shorter sum up:

• Specific CFR for the topic that seeing the Risen Lord is not a requirement for the modern LDS Apostleship by Vance, for Rob.
• CFR Answered by Rob, but not conceded by Vance
• New CFR issued by Vance for it being a requirement for all post-Matthias NT Apostles to have seen the Risen Lord
• Original CFR conceded by Vance
• Rob's turn to discuss the topic of ' it being a requirement for all post-Matthias NT Apostles to have seen the Risen Lord'

All done with love and happiness, and the joy of Salvation in Christ, etc.

Vance said:

You make me wonder if you are even paying attention.

Yes. Yes I am paying attention. As demonstrated, the goal post was moved before the original specific topic being addressed in this thread at hand was conceded. As someone once said, surely with charity in their heart, "Man up and admit it."

Edited by nackhadlow, 26 October 2010 - 02:43 PM.

[zerinus]

nackhadlow, on 26 October 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Then Zerinus shows up:

Quote

I don't really care whether you have answered anybody's CFR or not. The only thing that I am interested in is answering the fallacies of your arguments. Your criticism of the LDS requirement of Apostleship is like someone criticizing some county's driving laws because it allows you to drive a truck without having a car driving licence; whereas in fact to drive a truck you need a truck driving licence which is a more stringent requirement than having a car driving licence. You demand a physical encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ. We claim that being a "special witness of Jesus Christ" is a more stringent requirement which may or may not include a physical encounter with the resurrected Jesus Christ.

In this case, it is specifically not the CFR that is being referred to, but the interpretation of the term 'special witness of Jesus Christ' (a shortened version of the LDS specific phrase 'Special Witness of the Name of Christ', which is specifically  applied to the Modern Apostleship)

To which he did not give a reply. Wonder why.

Quote

To which more tangents break off.

So what? All discussions result in tangents. One train of thought inevitably leads to another; and a "tangent" may be more significant than the main thread of the argument. That does not mean that it shouldn't have been made, nor that it should not be answered.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 26 October 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

even shorter sum up:

• Specific CFR for the topic that seeing the Risen Lord is not a requirement for the modern LDS Apostleship by Vance, for Rob.
• CFR Answered by Rob, but not conceded by Vance
• New CFR A statement issued by Vance for it being a that there is no NT requirement for all any post-Matthias NT Apostles to have seen the Risen Lord
• Original CFR conceded by Vance
• Rob's turn to discuss the topic of ' it being a requirement for all any post-Matthias NT Apostles to have seen the Risen Lord'

All done with love and happiness, and the joy of Salvation in Christ, etc.

Yes. Yes I am paying attention. As demonstrated, the goal post was moved before the original specific topic being addressed in this thread at hand was conceded. As someone once said, surely with charity in their heart, "Man up and admit it."

Minor quibbles, and no second CFR was issued (therefore no moving goal post).

It is likely that Matthias had seen the risen Lord, but there is NO specific requirement given for it.

Edited by Vance, 26 October 2010 - 08:11 PM.

[David T]

Vance, on 26 October 2010 - 07:36 PM, said:

Minor quibbles, and no second CFR was issued (therefore no moving goal post).

It is likely that Matthias had seen the risen Lord, but there is NO specific requirement given for it.

Okay, it appeared that when you said:

Vance said:

"Perhaps the CFR that should have been issued is for this statement. "That is, in the NT Jesus Christ handpicked his apostles and prophets, and each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus." I find NO SUCH requirment in my studies of the NT...Sorry Rob, but again you have it wrong. There is no NT requirment for an "eyewitness"."

... that you were re-issuing the CFR with a new focus. Whether or not this was the intent, it's easy to see why others may have taken it to be so - especially with the emphasis being pressed on this point in the following posts.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 26 October 2010 - 09:16 PM, said:

<SNIP>

I don't see why anyone could take this as the issuance of another CFR.

"Perhaps the CFR that should have been issued is for this statement. . . .

I guess I am wrong on that too.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 26 October 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Because Vance just now clearly conceded that point, this is the first time in this thread that Rob, by his own statements, is now obligated to address the subject of whether or not an eyewitness of the Risen Lord was a requirement for post-Matthias Apostles.

Now we shall see if he lives up to this commitment.

[mrmendoza]

Okay! The questioned has been asked-"Are LDS Apostles required to have seen, with their physical eyes, the risen Lord?" I think that question has been answered as "No!" As to whether all NT Apostles, after Mathais, had that requirement, there is no clear evidence, altho IMO it would seem logical that they might. At least in the first generation, but consider this

Quote

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
CHAPTER 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
  22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his cresurrection.
  23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
  24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
  25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
  26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Paul, according to this qualification, didn't qualify either! He had not "companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
  22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one abe ordained to be a bwitness with us of his cresurrection."! Also they picked Mathais over Joseph Barsabas by casting lots!

Church government obviously operates difrently today then it did back then. My question is "So What?" That was then, and this is now. Their whole culture and way of doing things was different then it is today so the Lord gave us a better system for our times.
Mike

Edited by mrmendoza, 27 October 2010 - 11:46 AM.

[Vance]

Why would the requirements be different for the first 13 versus later ones?  Why the "Post-Matthias" division?

[mrmendoza]

Vance, on 27 October 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

Why would the requirements be different for the first 13 versus later ones?  Why the "Post-Matthias" division?

Beats me! Maybe they just all happened to be together at that time and it made sense for them then. Maybe, I seem to remember somewhere, that some have suggested that Paul wasn't an actual member of the Quorum of 12, but was an "extra" or something! While I can't really answer your question as to why one was different then the other, it does show, IMO that the "seeing" requirement was not set in stone!
Mike

[zerinus]

mrmendoza, on 27 October 2010 - 11:44 AM, said:

Okay! The questioned has been asked-"Are LDS Apostles required to have seen, with their physical eyes, the risen Lord?" I think that question has been answered as "No!" As to whether all NT Apostles, after Mathais, had that requirement, there is no clear evidence, altho IMO it would seem logical that they might. At least in the first generation, but consider this


Paul, according to this qualification, didn't qualify either! He had not "companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
  22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one abe ordained to be a bwitness with us of his cresurrection."! Also they picked Mathais over Joseph Barsabas by casting lots!

Church government obviously operates difrently today then it did back then. My question is "So What?" That was then, and this is now. Their whole culture and way of doing things was different then it is today so the Lord gave us a better system for our times.
Mike

Thank you, that is a valid observation. I think that that was a unique occasion created by the demise of Judas. I think that it was a condition that the Apostles set for choosing a successor to that particular Apostle for that unique occasion. It does not mean that it should have been a requirement for every successive Apostle.

[Vance]

zerinus, on 27 October 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

Thank you, that is a valid observation. I think that that was a unique occasion created by the demise of Judas. I think that it was a condition that the Apostles set for choosing a successor to that particular Apostle for that unique occasion. It does not mean that it should have been a requirement for every successive Apostle.

I agree.

Let's take a look at the NT Apostles.

The first twelve are called here.
Matt 10:2

Matthias is called here.
Acts 1:26

Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles here.
Acts 14:14

Paul calls James the Lord's brother an apostle here.
Gal 1:19

That makes 16 total.

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

None of the first 12 become "an eyewitness of the risen Jesus" until YEARS after their calling.  And Judas NEVER was "an eyewitness of the risen Jesus".

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.

Is Rob really going to be willing to discuss this?

[rameumptom]

Tarski, on 21 October 2010 - 07:24 PM, said:

When David B. Haight became an apostle he spoke in a conference. I heard him say with my own ears that he had not seen.

He used these words "I have not seen but...". What followed those words was too unremarkable to recall precisely.
I do not know how the printed version turned out but I remember being shocked when I realized he had not seen Jesus.
Frankly, he seemed a little apologetic about it.

In 1979, he came to Bolivia to organize  a stake.  In speaking with the elders, he discussed the 1978 revelation, implying that it was a life changer for him (he spoke frequently in Gen Conf, especially in the 1990s regarding the witness he received in this revelation).  And Elder McConkie also toured the mission about the same time and said that the experience was a witness stronger than that of the Son of God.  So, whether they saw with their eyes, or the Spirit gave them an extremely intense experience, we do not know, but it was a witness that these two did not easily forget.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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

Is Rob really going to be willing to discuss this?

Yes. However, in addition to having practically two full-time jobs at the moment, I have been distracted today by the news early this morning that my daughter who lives on the other side of the country from us had a seizure and may need brain surgery. So no promises of a quick response. I will, however, at some point offer a reply.

[Vance]

bump!

[David T]

Rob, I pray everything is all right with your daughter...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

nackhadlow, on 03 November 2010 - 12:36 PM, said:

Rob, I pray everything is all right with your daughter...

I agree. Hope all is well Rob.