94 replies to this topic

[Ahab]

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 03:42 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 09:37 AM, said:

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.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.

Edited by Vance, 08 November 2010 - 07:32 PM.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

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]

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Palerider, 08 November 2010 - 07:36 PM.

[Sky]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

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’t just a matter of which beliefs I find attractive - but which beliefs I find the most useful and relevant to my life.  I want to hear what God has to say today – not just what He said in the ancient past.  People have interpreted the Bible in so many different ways that I wouldn’t know where to start in trying to figure it all out on my own.  They can’t all be right - hence the need for a living prophet and an open cannon of scripture.  The 9th (LDS) Article of Faith comes to mind:

Quote

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

As for false prophets – yes – there has been a history of people following false prophets rather than the true, living prophets.  But Joseph Smith and his successors are not among those false prophets.  They have testified of their witness of Christ and have held all the keys of the Priesthood – all the way down to our current prophet, Thomas S. Monson.  You don’t just have to take my word for it, but you can know this for yourself, too.  I hope that some day you will realize this and accept it, rather than continue to fight it and rationalize it all away.

[Vance]

Palerider, on 08 November 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

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?

Edited by Vance, 08 November 2010 - 08:33 PM.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 08 November 2010 - 07:31 PM, said:

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.

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:

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:

Sky, on 08 November 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

The issue isn’t just a matter of which beliefs I find attractive - but which beliefs I find the most useful and relevant to my life.  I want to hear what God has to say today – not just what He said in the ancient past.

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

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

You wrote:

Quote

People have interpreted the Bible in so many different ways that I wouldn’t know where to start in trying to figure it all out on my own.  They can’t all be right - hence the need for a living prophet and an open cannon of scripture.

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).

You wrote:

Quote

As for false prophets – yes – there has been a history of people following false prophets rather than the true, living prophets.  But Joseph Smith and his successors are not among those false prophets.  They have testified of their witness of Christ and have held all the keys of the Priesthood – all the way down to our current prophet, Thomas S. Monson.  You don’t just have to take my word for it, but you can know this for yourself, too.  I hope that some day you will realize this and accept it, rather than continue to fight it and rationalize it all away.

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.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:

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.  

Edited by Vance, 08 November 2010 - 09:19 PM.

[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.

TAO, on 08 November 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

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?

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 09:14 PM, said:

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

[TAO]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

[Vance]

TAO, on 08 November 2010 - 09:18 PM, said:

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.

  

[ebeddoulos]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 09:37 AM, said:

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. This extremely rare usage is exemplified by Romans 8:30 (and to be honest I don't know of any other examples off the top of my head), where "these he also glorified" uses an aorist verb apparently to express the certainty of an event that remains future. This cannot apply in Ephesians 4:11 because, as everyone agrees, the church actually did have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers prior to Paul writing Ephesians.

The addition of the words "to be" in many English versions expresses the idea that in each case "some" were given to serve in this or that capacity. Thus, Christ gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, etc. Other versions express the exact same idea using as: "he gave some as apostles, some as prophets," etc. (NAB, NASB, etc.). Still others express the idea in a more literal fashion by simply placing a comma between "some" and the term of ministry: "and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets," etc. (KJV). Others mix these ways of expressing the idea. None of these translations mean that the five ministries did not exist in Paul's day but would certainly begin to exist at some time in the future. This isn't even the point of the Worldwide English NT rendering, though I can see how you could take it that way. Again, everyone (that I know!) agrees that apostles, prophets, etc., existed already in Paul's day.

As you put it, nice try, though!

Rob,

Now if I understand you correctly (I think I do but I do not wish to put words in your mouth) you are saying that since “the church actually did have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers prior to Paul writing Ephesians” that means that the Ephesians’ ?????? (edoken) or “giving” event cannot be an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.  The converse is that because the Romans' ???????? (edoxaoen) or “glorified” event did not happen “prior to Paul writing” Romans 8:30 it therefore is an example of an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.

If that is your argument then your argument is in deep trouble. Let me explain why.  I am sure if you have conducted a wordstudy of “glory” that you know what it is and you also know that a “glorifying” event actually took place prior to Paul being called to the apostleship and therefore before he wrote Romans.  But before we go to the event, let us look at how Paul describes the mechanics of the resurrection and the integral part that “glory” plays in it:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
(1Corinthians 15:42-44 - KJV - Emphasis added by Ebed)

Matthew records that prior to Paul entering onto the stage and following Christ's own resurrection, others who were dead were raised in glory as resurrected beings:

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 27:52-53 KJV)

The Bible does not provide us with further details as to what happened to these glorified beings but the Ante-Nicene Fathers do.

“And Thaddæus said: For the present I will be silent; but, because I have been sent to preach the word of God, assemble me tomorrow all the people of thy city, and I will preach before them, and sow amongst them the word of life; and will tell them about the coming of Christ, how it took place; and about His mission, for what purpose he was sent by His Father; and about His power and His deeds, and about the mysteries which He spake in the world, and by what power He wrought these things, and about His new preaching, and about His abasement and His humiliation, and how He humbled and emptied and abased Himself, and was crucified, and descended to Hades, and broke through the enclosure (Eph_2:14) which had never been broken through before, and raised up the dead, and descended alone, and ascended with a great multitude to His Father. (Comp. Mat_27:52)” (“Ancient Syriac Documents - The Story Concerning the King of Edessa”, Ante-Nicene Fathers - 8.07.02)

It also seems to be the consensus of the commentaries that the resurrected and glorified multitude ascended to heaven.  You can see a representative sample by perusing them HERE.  Their arguments are far more eloquently stated than anything of which I am capable.

Now according to you reasoning “the church actually did have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers prior to Paul writing Ephesians”.  Also according to your reasoning that means that the Ephesians’ ?????? (edoken) or “giving” verb cannot be an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.  Therefore, by applying your own reasoning to Romans 8:30, since there were people raised in glory as resurrected beings prior to Paul writing Romans that must also mean that Romans 8:30 cannot have an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.  This is because just like there can be no more than the original prophets and apostles, there can be no more resurrections other than those which were resurrected immediately following Christ own resurrection. Rob, your reasoning provides some pretty stark and bleak conclusions.

Another alternative is to concede that both Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 4:11 contain an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb and that future apostles and prophets will be called and glorifying resurrections will surely happen.  Personally I am much more comfortable with this latter option.  

That said, past experience indicates that anti-Mormons who advance this particular argument end up going with door number three by denying that the resurrections immediately following Jesus’ ever took place.  Sometimes it is just hard for some people to let go of a cherished idea.  

Just remember when you are formulating your response that both verbs in question are AAI-3S, both refer to an event that took initially took place before Paul's advent and both express the certainty that the associated activity will be completed but in order to do so it must be completed in our future.  As I told you in my first response, any argument against either Romans 8:30 or Ephesians 4:11 will impinge on the other and your argument fails.

You rated my chances; how do you rate your own chances?  Don’t feel too bad.  As I said you made a nice try.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

Thanks for your response; let me explain why I do not find it persuasive.

1. There is no reason to think that Paul has the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 in view when he says "these he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30). We don't even know if Paul knew about this particular incident, which is recorded only in Matthew (written almost certainly after Romans) and is at best a minor and obscure footnote even in Matthew's account.

2. There is no reason to think that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 were "glorified." I accept as most likely the view that the passage does refer to a resurrection of some departed saints near Jerusalem (alternate exegesis of the text is possible), but even so the text says nothing about them being resurrected to immortal, glorious life. They were more likely resurrected in the same mode as Lazarus, returning to mortal life. Paul's description of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the eschatological resurrection, not the historically past resurrections such as those that Jesus performed prior to his death and resurrection. In fact, Paul's teaching that Christ is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:20, 23) has to do precisely with the point that Christ was the first person resurrected to glorified, immortal life. Thus, Paul's teaching strongly supports the conclusion that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 were not "glorified" at that time.

3. I see no reason to consider the theological explanations or speculations of church fathers concerning this matter, certainly not where they are not supported by what the NT says. I am sure if I were to cite church fathers to support my view you would object to such an appeal to persons you regard as part of the Great Apostasy!

4. Paul's wording in Romans 8:30 is generalized, affirming the glorification of all those whom God predestined and justified. It is not referring to a select group of people who had already been glorified.

5. The theological contexts of Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 4:11 are significantly different. Romans 8:30 in context reflects the characteristic Pauline tension between the two ages -- this age and the age to come -- in which our salvation has been decisively accomplished (the "already" aspect) but not consummated (the "not yet" aspect). This already-not yet tension dominates Romans 8 and is directly relevant to Paul's affirmation that those whom God justified he also glorified. No such perspective is at play in Paul's statement that Christ gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). There is no reason to inject such a perspective or theological motif into Ephesians 4:11. Christ "gave" those gifts after he ascended to heaven and soon afterward poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see Eph. 4:7-10 for the ascension as the context in Paul's explanation; cf. Acts 2).

6. Ephesians 4:11 makes perfectly good sense taking the aorist indicative in its usual sense as a simple past-tense verb. This is the customary (virtually uniform) usage of the aorist indicative, and its usage throughout this passage ("were called," v. 1; "were called," v. 4; "was given," v. 7; "took captive," v. 8; "gave," v. 8; "ascended," v. 9; "descended," v. 9). We should not look for any other meaning unless the text itself drives us to consider another understanding of the verb, which is simply not the case here.

ebeddoulos, on 09 November 2010 - 12:14 AM, said:

Rob,

Now if I understand you correctly (I think I do but I do not wish to put words in your mouth) you are saying that since “the church actually did have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers prior to Paul writing Ephesians” that means that the Ephesians’ ?????? (edoken) or “giving” event cannot be an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.  The converse is that because the Romans' ???????? (edoxaoen) or “glorified” event did not happen “prior to Paul writing” Romans 8:30 it therefore is an example of an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.

If that is your argument then your argument is in deep trouble. Let me explain why.  I am sure if you have conducted a wordstudy of “glory” that you know what it is and you also know that a “glorifying” event actually took place prior to Paul being called to the apostleship and therefore before he wrote Romans.  But before we go to the event, let us look at how Paul describes the mechanics of the resurrection and the integral part that “glory” plays in it:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
(1Corinthians 15:42-44 - KJV - Emphasis added by Ebed)

Matthew records that prior to Paul entering onto the stage and following Christ's own resurrection, others who were dead were raised in glory as resurrected beings:

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 27:52-53 KJV)

The Bible does not provide us with further details as to what happened to these glorified beings but the Ante-Nicene Fathers do.

“And Thaddæus said: For the present I will be silent; but, because I have been sent to preach the word of God, assemble me tomorrow all the people of thy city, and I will preach before them, and sow amongst them the word of life; and will tell them about the coming of Christ, how it took place; and about His mission, for what purpose he was sent by His Father; and about His power and His deeds, and about the mysteries which He spake in the world, and by what power He wrought these things, and about His new preaching, and about His abasement and His humiliation, and how He humbled and emptied and abased Himself, and was crucified, and descended to Hades, and broke through the enclosure (Eph_2:14) which had never been broken through before, and raised up the dead, and descended alone, and ascended with a great multitude to His Father. (Comp. Mat_27:52)” (“Ancient Syriac Documents - The Story Concerning the King of Edessa”, Ante-Nicene Fathers - 8.07.02)

It also seems to be the consensus of the commentaries that the resurrected and glorified multitude ascended to heaven.  You can see a representative sample by perusing them HERE.  Their arguments are far more eloquently stated than anything of which I am capable.

Now according to you reasoning “the church actually did have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers prior to Paul writing Ephesians”.  Also according to your reasoning that means that the Ephesians’ ?????? (edoken) or “giving” verb cannot be an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.  Therefore, by applying your own reasoning to Romans 8:30, since there were people raised in glory as resurrected beings prior to Paul writing Romans that must also mean that Romans 8:30 cannot have an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb.  This is because just like there can be no more than the original prophets and apostles, there can be no more resurrections other than those which were resurrected immediately following Christ own resurrection. Rob, your reasoning provides some pretty stark and bleak conclusions.

Another alternative is to concede that both Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 4:11 contain an AAI verb used as Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist verb and that future apostles and prophets will be called and glorifying resurrections will surely happen.  Personally I am much more comfortable with this latter option.  

That said, past experience indicates that anti-Mormons who advance this particular argument end up going with door number three by denying that the resurrections immediately following Jesus’ ever took place.  Sometimes it is just hard for some people to let go of a cherished idea.  

Just remember when you are formulating your response that both verbs in question are AAI-3S, both refer to an event that took initially took place before Paul's advent and both express the certainty that the associated activity will be completed but in order to do so it must be completed in our future.  As I told you in my first response, any argument against either Romans 8:30 or Ephesians 4:11 will impinge on the other and your argument fails.

You rated my chances; how do you rate your own chances?  Don’t feel too bad.  As I said you made a nice try.

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 06 November 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

The major prooftext that Mormons (and others) use to prove that apostles and prophets are needed perpetually in the church is Ephesians 4:11-13. These verses read as follows (all biblical quotations are taken from the KJV):

for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”

Yes for this reason (Highlighted)

and for this reson most of all...

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

(unless I missed it) Interesting you would leave this scripture out…or telling is more like it.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

I do not appreciate insinuations of this kind. The maturing process of which verse 13 speaks will continue until it is finished, when people in the church will no longer be subject to deception, as verse 14 says. Going on to verse 14 in no way undermines my exegesis of verses 11-13.

May I also point out that the emergence of the LDS Church has not brought spiritual deception to an end? Far from it.

Pa Pa, on 09 November 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

Yes for this reason (Highlighted)

and for this reson most of all...

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

(unless I missed it) Interesting you would leave this scripture out…or telling is more like it.