Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JeffreyLloyd

The Great Apostasy?

Recommended Posts

Dogger,

Can anyone today say that they physically walked with Jesus? Can anyone today say that they were an eyewitness to his death and resurrection?

Well there goes Paul out of the Apostleship! :P

Of course... if you're willing to grant Joseph Smiths first vision. And all the others who saw Christ in vision in the Kirtland temple...

The answer to your question is... yes. Nothing is immpossible with the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
"ALL the inhabitants of the earth worship it."

You shouldn't disect Scripture like that. Read the whole thing in context.

All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain.

You only quoted 1/4 of the sentence. The remaining 3/4 of the sentence qualifies the first statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Well there goes Paul out of the Apostleship! :P

Hmmm...then answer me this question. Was Christ Himself one of the Twelve Apostles? A simple yes or no please.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes... context is everything. It puts blinders on the fact that the saints are conquered( prevailed against), which calls your interpretation of Matt. 16:18 into question.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course... if you're willing to grant Joseph Smiths first vision. And all the others who saw Christ in vision in the Kirtland temple...

The answer to your question is... yes. Nothing is immpossible with the Lord.

I'm not willing to grant Joseph Smith's first vision...otherwise I would be LDS.

Did Joseph Smith physically accompany Christ from the baptism of John until the ascension of Christ? Simple yes or no please.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Did Paul?

No. Paul was not one of the Twelve.

Was Christ one of the Twelve Apostles?

Share this post


Link to post

Was not Paul an apostle?

So here we have 2 Apostles called after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Was not Paul an apostle?

Absolutely he was...he was an apostle but not an Apostle.

The word apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts, 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Rom., 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil., 2:25), two unknown Christians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (II Cor., 7:23). We know not why the honourable name of apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would equally merit it.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
So here we have 2 Apostles called after the fact.

You don't ever see Paul being ordained as one of the Twelve.

Share this post


Link to post

Did not Paul See the Lord in vision? Would that not make him an "Apostle"? According to your earlier definition?

Heck... under that definition... the 500 who saw him at one time would all be Apostles.

So there goes your definition of an apostle/Apostle... "that they had to walk and talk with Christ and be special witness to his life".

Share this post


Link to post
I think you might be missing my point.  The office of the Twelve Apostles could not be a permanent one.  It is impossible.  To be one of the Twelve Apostles a person needed to be an eye witness to Christ's ministry, death and resurrection.  That requirement is spelled out so clearly in Scripture.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Let me explain. Verse one and part of verse two is only a description of the men from whom an apostle will be chosen. Nowhere is it stated that it is a requirement that all apostles must have known Jesus from the beginmning.

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,

The rest of verse two, then tells us what the apostle will be a witness of:

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

An apostle is a witness to the world of Christ and His resurrection. This is why Paul was able to be numbered as an apostle.

Can anyone today say that they physically walked with Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Did not Paul See the Lord in vision? Would that not make him an "Apostle"? According to your earlier definition?

Heck... under that definition... the 500 who saw him at one time would all be Apostles.

So there goes your definition of an apostle/Apostle... "that they had to walk and talk with Christ and be special witness to his life".

Yes Paul did see the Lord in vision.

But no it would not make him a canidate for one of the Twelve Apostles.

The requirement as set forth in Scripture is:

To accompany Christ the whole time from the baptism of John until the day of Christ's ascension.

Not just merely seeing Christ at some point. You would have had to be there and witness it all from the beginning of His ministry until His ascension. No exceptions.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post

T-Shirt,

Who was it that Killed Peter and Paul?

Dogger.,

See T-shirts post above. Your reading of the verse is questionabel... just as with Matt 16:18.

The saints where concquered.

Share this post


Link to post
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,

The rest of verse two, then tells us what the apostle will be a witness of:

With all due respect, you didn't finish quoting verse 22

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

I think it certainly does lay down a requirement that all of the Twelve Apostles must have accompanied Jesus from the beginning of His Ministry.

Here is another translation:

Acts 1

21

Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,

22

beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

So no Zakuska, it is not questionable. It is written in Scripture.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Can anyone today say that they were an eyewitness to his death and resurrection?

For starters, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, Lorenzo Snow, and probably many others.

T-Shirt,

I understand your point, however they were not witness to His death and resurrection. LDS believe that these people saw the risen Christ, but they certainly were not there 2000 years ago.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post

So whos the Greek Guru...

1:21 dei oun twn sunelqontwn hmin andrwn en panti cronw en w eishlqen kai exhlqen ef hmas o kurios ihsous

1:22 arxamenos apo tou baptismatos iwannou ews ths hmeras hs anelhfqh af hmwn martura ths anastasews autou genesqai sun hmin ena toutwn

1:23 kai esthsan duo iwshf ton kaloumenon barsaban os epeklhqh ioustos kai matqian

Share this post


Link to post
T-Shirt,

Who was it that Killed Peter and Paul?

I believe it was Nero who was emperor.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
So whos the Greek Guru...
1:21 dei oun twn sunelqontwn hmin andrwn en panti cronw en w eishlqen kai exhlqen ef hmas o kurios ihsous

1:22 arxamenos apo tou baptismatos iwannou ews ths hmeras hs anelhfqh af hmwn martura ths anastasews autou genesqai sun hmin ena toutwn

1:23 kai esthsan duo iwshf ton kaloumenon barsaban os epeklhqh ioustos kai matqian

1...2...3...NOT IT!

Share this post


Link to post

And heres the ASV version:

1:21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,

1:22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.

That throughs a hitch in both LDS and Catholic interpretation of this verse. :P

Share this post


Link to post
...

What happens when the foundation of a building is taken away?

....

... Council after council to determine disputed policy.

Apparently the foundation of the apostles and prophets was not enough in 325 AD (Nicea)

Just think if the apostleship had continued.

Nicea 325 AD: Great council of the church gather's to listen to the apostles. They universally vote that Nicea's shakes and gyros are indeed world famous.

Confusion over the Godhead? Hardly... There would be more confusion over the relative merits of long versus short tennis rackets.

Bishops would not have to pay to be assigned to their post's etc....

Lots of other things would have been avoided as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Can anyone today say that they were an eyewitness to his death and resurrection?

For starters, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, Lorenzo Snow, and probably many others.

T-Shirt,

I understand your point, however they were not witness to His death and resurrection. LDS believe that these people saw the risen Christ, but they certainly were not there 2000 years ago.

Peace be with you.

They where comparable to Paul and his apostleship. They saw the ressurected Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
To be one of the Twelve Apostles a person needed to be an eye witness to Christ's ministry, death and resurrection. That requirement is spelled out so clearly in Scripture.

cite verse please :P

simply

Share this post


Link to post
With all due respect, you didn't finish quoting verse 22

Go back and read my post, I didn't leave anything out. I divided verse two into two parts, look at the second part, it is all there.

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

I think it certainly does lay down a requirement that all of the Twelve Apostles must have accompanied Jesus from the beginning of His Ministry.

Let me explain another way. Peter is standing before 150 believers and tells them that in order to fulfill prophecy, they "must" ordain a new apostle to replace Judas. He then tells them, from among all the men that have been with us from the beginning, we have chosen two candidates. From these two we will choose one to be a witness of Christ and His resurrection. He does not say they will be a witness of His life nor His death, only of His resurrection. His resurrection was the definitive proof of who He was, not His life. (see Acts 1:3) Having known Christ from the time of John was not a requirement.

Here is another translation:

Acts 1

21

Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,

22

beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

This doesn't change anything. The only part that was necessary was for them to be a witness of His resurrection. They simply chose to choose a man from among those who had been with them from the beginning.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
So here we have 2 Apostles called after the fact.

You don't ever see Paul being ordained as one of the Twelve.

Actually, yes we do:

2 Timothy 2:7

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...