Does Ephesians teach that the church always needs living apostles on the earth?

[Rob Bowman]

Palerider and Vance,

I'd appreciate it, pardners, if you would be a mite careful not to hijack this here train and take it down a different track.

[Vance]

If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread.

Actually, you haven't done any such thing.

[Vance]

Palerider and Vance,

I'd appreciate it, pardners, if you would be a mite careful not to hijack this here train and take it down a different track.

Well, since your whole line of attack has been rendered useless, perhaps some additional benefit can be experienced here.

Besides, I was answering a question that isn't totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have.

Actually, you haven't done any such thing.

[mrmendoza]

Which will occur at Christ's coming......show me where it says differently. Show me something Biblical that sets a pre-millenium timeline for that restitution.

The problem here is that, once again you're only willing to accept one part of what the Lord has given us as your only frame of reference. But consider this,

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET

ISAIAH

CHAPTER 7

10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the bRezin the cking of Syria, and evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Now if you were a Jewish Rabi, you would not be making this out to be a prophecy that would not be fulfiled over a thousand years later! Why would the Lords prophet be telling an evil king something that far reaching, when if you read the preceeding verses, you would see that Ahaz was worried about Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it! yet Matthew says

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Making the prophecy applicable to the birth of the Savior. But of course a Jewish rabi would not accept the NT at all! In many cases prophecy , or the understanding of it is very elusive until after it comes to pass, and then, it seem that only those see its application to their lifetimes are willing to accept that it has happened! Then they write the books that show its fulfillment. Thus you have the NT writers vrs the OT at least in the minds of those who don't accept Jesus as the prophicied Messiah. So it is today, we have declared a new dispensation, new revelation, new scriptures, the "restitution of all things" has begun! (Not done, just begun!) There is no absolute Biblical timeline for it but those with eyes to see it, see it! Well does Isaiah say

chap.29;13

[Vance]

Vance,

At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have.

I am going to have to CFR that. I haven't seen anyone agree that you have "If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth,. . . "

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

This is silly. See post #42, to which you were supposedly responding above, where I quoted WalkerW as saying, "I don't see a problem with your interpretation of Eph. 2:20. Quite plausible. Funny enough, I don't think your interpretation would necessarily conflict with LDS theology. Eph. 2:20 just wouldn't be a proof text for current apostles and prophets."

I am going to have to CFR that. I haven't seen anyone agree that you have "If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth,. . . "

[Rob Bowman]

Mike,

You wrote:

You and Rob are pretty smart. You've done a lot of homework, but while you're spending a lot of time debating the words of the dead prophets of old, we have embraced the teachings of all the prophets, both the old as well as the modern prophets of today! And for all of Robs efforts to prove what was before, we're moving on!

The issue, again, is whether these alleged modern prophets really do speak for God. One cannot simply assume that they do. If we were to discuss the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Tayloy, Wilford Woodruff, etc., or even Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, or Gordon B. Hinckley, we would still be discussing "dead prophets." Unless you wish to limit discussion to the prophetic pronouncements of President Monson, which won't give us very much to discuss, we're going to have to discuss the words of "dead prophets," whether true, false, or alleged.

[Vance]

Vance,

This is silly. See post #42, to which you were supposedly responding above, where I quoted WalkerW as saying, "I don't see a problem with your interpretation of Eph. 2:20. Quite plausible. Funny enough, I don't think your interpretation would necessarily conflict with LDS theology. Eph. 2:20 just wouldn't be a proof text for current apostles and prophets."

Yes it is silly!

Silly for you to claim that an admission of "plausibility" for a small portion of your OP (and not the most important portion at that) as "At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have" . . . "established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread."

I am beginning to think that you easily delude yourself.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have no more patience for this sort of argument from you--evidence, perhaps, of my incomplete sanctification.

Yes it is silly!

Silly for you to claim that an admission of "plausibility" for a small portion of your OP (and not the most important portion at that) as "At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have" . . . "established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread."

I am beginning to think that you easily delude yourself.

[Ahab]

I am beginning to think that you easily delude yourself.

What took you so long to begin to think that?

Rob has simply come up with one of the many ways to interpret scripture, and he is certainly not the first one to come up with the idea he has.

The idea that we don't really need any more apostles on the Earth has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, including among the first "Christians" who didn't think they needed them, either.

[Vance]

Vance,

I have no more patience for this sort of argument from you--evidence, perhaps, of my incomplete sanctification.

So you don't have patience for the exposure of the flaws in your work. So what? That certainly doesn't make the flaws go away.

[Vance]

ebeddoulos,

You put an awful lot of thought and work into your reply, and I appreciate it. I must be honest with you, though, and say that your suggestion that ed?ken ("gave") in Ephesians 4:11 is proleptic has zero chance of being correct.

It is strange that a non-LDS Christian (inerrantist) site has the Greek interliner of "edOken" in Eph 4:11 as "gives". See here, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/eph4.pdf

So to say that it has a zero chance of being correct is an overstatement at best and an out right fabrication at worst.

Edited to add from the web site cited;

"THE Greek Aorist tense cannot be consistently translated into English, and especially not by the English present." This seems to be the usual attitude of scholars toward the attempt to render each Greek tense consistently, and to use the English present as a constant equivalent of the Greek indefinite, in the CONCORDANT VERSION.

We fully concur in this opinion, from the standpoint of traditional Greek grammar. If we include under the term "Aorist," and "second Aorist" all the forms usually so designated, it is impossible not only to translate consistently, but it is also impossible to give a rational reason for any rendering. Translation will be based on individual bias, and thus the Scriptures are conformed to fallible human interpretation.

To the casual critic, the renderings of the verbs in the CONCORDANT VERSION sometimes seem erratic and pedantic. Until one has become accustomed to them, the changes appear unreasonable and capricious, instead of being consistent or uniform. It is like one who steps out at night and stares at the stars, scattered hither and thither on the blue vault of heaven without any apparent system. Yet, just as the heavens are marvelous manifestations of order and law to the astronomer, so the patient student will find that the verbs are rendered in accord with divine law, and seek to manifest the exactitude of the great Author of the original, even though these are often unappreciated and unwanted.

[David T]

Vance,

I have no more patience for this sort of argument from you--evidence, perhaps, of my incomplete sanctification.

Actually, I think the fact that you've continued this far shows that you may indeed have a special endowment of the spiritual gift of patience

[Palerider]

Rev 7 and 8 indicate clearly that those 144K are "sealed" PRIOR to the second coming. Of course for them to be "sealed" they would need the gospel. So your complaint is unfounded.

Edited to add; Also I would suggest that Mal 4:5-6 clearly show that the work of "turn(ing) the heart of the fathers to the children", MUST occur "before the great and dreadful day of the Lord".

Also, Jesus Himself prophesied of an Elias coming first to restore.

Matt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Also Jesus Himself prophesied the gospel be preached BEFORE the end.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

If you're thinking "day of pentacost" in the future then I'll look into that. But there was no qualifier in Zakuska's statement regarding timeline so I thought he was refering to The day of Pentacost when Peter and the Apostles were still alive. It still appears past tense to me................

"Did not Christ stand on Mt. Zion and seal 144000 out of the tribes of Israel on the day of Pentacost and shortly after?"

That's why it sounded so preposturous..

Verse 12 in your quote from Matthew answers your own question regarding Elias.

[Sky]

Sky,

You wrote:

Speaking for myself, I don't base my beliefs on what ideas I find attractive. The issue is not what I want to believe, but what I ought to believe.

You wrote:

Another thing we can learn from the Scriptures is that there has been a pattern throughout history of people following false prophets (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; 1 Kings 18:19-25, 40; 22:6-13, 22-23; 2 Kings 10:19; 2 Chron. 18:5-12, 21-22; Isa. 9:15; Jer. 2:8; 5:13, 31; 6:13; 8:10; 14:13-15; 23:11-16, 21, 25-26, 30-34; etc.; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13:2-4, 9; 22:28; Micah 3:5-6; Zeph. 3:4; Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1-6; Rev. 2:2; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). It's unfortunate that all too many people today make that same mistake.

The issue isn

[Vance]

Verse 12 in your quote from Matthew answers your own question regarding Elias.

The Elias in verse 12 was John the Baptist. The Elias in verse 11 was a future appearance thus the "truly shall first come, and restore all things", not the past one.

What part of "restore all things" did John the baptist do?

[Vance]

Actually, I think the fact that you've continued this far shows that you may indeed have a special endowment of the spiritual gift of patience

Or blind stubborness.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The source you cite is a non-academic, non-scholarly source that takes a highly idiosyncratic approach to Greek grammar and translation methodology that would be laughed at not only by any orthodox Christian scholar but by anyone with training in biblical Greek at BYU. It nicely illustrates the danger of fishing on the Internet for material to support your position instead of actually learning something about the subject matter.

It is strange that a non-LDS Christian (inerrantist) site has the Greek interliner of "edOken" in Eph 4:11 as "gives". See here, http://www.scripture.../NTpdf/eph4.pdf

So to say that it has a zero chance of being correct is an overstatement at best and an out right fabrication at worst.

Edited to add from the web site cited;

"THE Greek Aorist tense cannot be consistently translated into English, and especially not by the English present." This seems to be the usual attitude of scholars toward the attempt to render each Greek tense consistently, and to use the English present as a constant equivalent of the Greek indefinite, in the CONCORDANT VERSION.

We fully concur in this opinion, from the standpoint of traditional Greek grammar. If we include under the term "Aorist," and "second Aorist" all the forms usually so designated, it is impossible not only to translate consistently, but it is also impossible to give a rational reason for any rendering. Translation will be based on individual bias, and thus the Scriptures are conformed to fallible human interpretation.

To the casual critic, the renderings of the verbs in the CONCORDANT VERSION sometimes seem erratic and pedantic. Until one has become accustomed to them, the changes appear unreasonable and capricious, instead of being consistent or uniform. It is like one who steps out at night and stares at the stars, scattered hither and thither on the blue vault of heaven without any apparent system. Yet, just as the heavens are marvelous manifestations of order and law to the astronomer, so the patient student will find that the verbs are rendered in accord with divine law, and seek to manifest the exactitude of the great Author of the original, even though these are often unappreciated and unwanted.

[TAO]

Vance,

The source you cite is a non-academic, non-scholarly source that takes a highly idiosyncratic approach to Greek grammar and translation methodology that would be laughed at not only by any orthodox Christian scholar but by anyone with training in biblical Greek at BYU. It nicely illustrates the danger of fishing on the Internet for material to support your position instead of actually learning something about the subject matter.

Erm, I can already tell, Vance is going to want you to identify which parts of the site you consider non-academic and non-scholarly, so yah, you might wanna include that. Just warnin' ya'!

[Rob Bowman]

Sky,

You wrote:

The issue isn

[Vance]

Vance,

The source you cite is a non-academic, non-scholarly source that takes a highly idiosyncratic approach to Greek grammar and translation methodology that would be laughed at not only by any orthodox Christian scholar but by anyone with training in biblical Greek at BYU. It nicely illustrates the danger of fishing on the Internet for material to support your position instead of actually learning something about the subject matter.

I was actually pointed to that site by a non-BYU Greek scholar.

Who HIGHLY recommended it.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

The tough part would be identifying anything in the site that has academic or scholastic worth. If Vance -- or anyone else -- really wants to know what's wrong with the so-called "concordant" approach to biblical translation, I can explain it, but it really takes us far afield of the present subject. Again, I can confidently predict that if you approached anyone at BYU who had more than a semester of ancient Greek you would get confirmation of what I am saying.

Erm, I can already tell, Vance is going to want you to identify which parts of the site you consider non-academic and non-scholarly, so yah, you might wanna include that. Just warnin' ya'!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Okay, I'll bite: who was that Greek scholar?

I was actually pointed to that site by a non-BYU Greek scholar.

[TAO]

Sky,

You wrote:

The problem I pointed out remains: To embrace a belief because you find it useful is pragmatism; it is not pursuing the truth.

Wrong. Let me ask you. Would it be worth serving God if he was not perfectly just? No, he wouldn't be.

If you lived in, say, 1600, what would you have done? By your own religion's account, God was not speaking then.

No, he didn't have an organized church on the earth. He still spoke through the Holy Ghost. As he does to all people today.

Essentially, you are allowing other people to tell you what to believe and how to understand God's Word. This is not the approach commended to us in Scripture (see, for example, Acts 17:11).

If you base your testimony off of other people's experiences, you are living off of borrowed light. Not good. Thus Sky basis it on his own testimony, on his own experiences on feeling what is true. And on nobody elses. This is what it comes down to - we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions.

If your presidents were true prophets, I would want to know it, and I would accept their teachings. But the evidence I have examined leads me to conclude that they are not the prophets of God they claim to be.

I think you too have gotten lost in the 'evidences' that bound me for a while. I have since learned there is no truer 'evidence' than the Holy Ghost. Others may say differently, but I will solely base it on my own experiences, that I will.