LDS apostles do not need to have seen the risen Christ

[Rob Bowman]

Sky,

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.

I wonder if the current Apostles would just come right out and say that they have seen the Risen Lord if that would suddenly convince the unbelievers? Somehow I doubt it.

I think we would all do well to remember the story of the doubting Thomas in the New Testament. I find it interesting to note that he doubted, but yet he was still an Apostle.

From John 20: 25-29:

[Mark Beesley]

The issue I am raising here is what the LDS Church teaches about this, not whether it is true.

The LDS Church does not teach anything with regard to this topic. Individual members may have made statements, some of which you have quoted, and all of which are subject to interpretation. But The Church has not canonized any statement with regard to this issue. Hope that helps.

[mrmendoza]

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.

It seems to me that you are using the same type of reasoning that most EVs use, in that if it was said in the NT or anywhere else in the Bible, that it becomes the last word for all time. IMO is that in the New Testement times there was a large body of men who had been with them for some time, whom the Apostles knew and trusted, and had been with them when the risen Saviour appeared to them. It would only be natural for them to call a replacement for Judas from that group. I don't think that just because they used that critera for their selection, that they were making that a rule for all time. That was then, this is now! The apostles today are called from men who have proven themselves true to the gosple in every way. and are known by the President of the Church to be be worthy of his calling, and is called through revelation by the presidency of the Church! It is not as importent to see something with your visible eye, as with your spiritual eyes!

Mike

[Obiwan]

Sky,

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.

The "LDS Church" nor it's members teach NOT A THING about this......

Other than members sometimes mentioning that some have apparently seen Christ and the rest we don't know. Period! Making molehills out of nothing.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You have inadvertently confirmed my point. Let me explain why. What you say may be put this way:

P. The LDS Church does not teach anything with regard to whether men must have seen the risen Lord to qualify to serve as apostles.

From P, we may infer:

Q. The LDS Church does not teach that men must have seen the risen Lord to qualify to serve as apostles

Now simply accept the following reasonable premise:

R. What the LDS Church does not teach is required, the LDS Church does not require.

From Q and R, we may safely draw the following conclusion:

S. The LDS Church does not require that men must have seen the risen Lord to qualify as apostles.

So far as I can see, the only escape from the above argument for you is to deny R by asserting that the LDS Church may be secretly requiring things of its prospective apostles that it does not teach its members are requirements. But so far no one seems to be making that claim.

The LDS Church does not teach anything with regard to this topic. Individual members may have made statements, some of which you have quoted, and all of which are subject to interpretation. But The Church has not canonized any statement with regard to this issue. Hope that helps.

[Rob Bowman]

Mike,

So, you agree with my point, then, that the LDS apostles are not required to have seen the risen Jesus with their physical eyes. Is that correct?

It seems to me that you are using the same type of reasoning that most EVs use, in that if it was said in the NT or anywhere else in the Bible, that it becomes the last word for all time. IMO is that in the New Testement times there was a large body of men who had been with them for some time, whom the Apostles knew and trusted, and had been with them when the risen Saviour appeared to them. It would only be natural for them to call a replacement for Judas from that group. I don't think that just because they used that critera for their selection, that they were making that a rule for all time. That was then, this is now! The apostles today are called from men who have proven themselves true to the gosple in every way. and are known by the President of the Church to be be worthy of his calling, and is called through revelation by the presidency of the Church! It is not as importent to see something with your visible eye, as with your spiritual eyes!

Mike

[Rob Bowman]

Obiwan,

See my reply to Mark. Help you understand my position, it will.

The "LDS Church" nor it's members teach NOT A THING about this......

Other than members sometimes mentioning that some have apparently seen Christ and the rest we don't know. Period! Making molehills out of nothing.

[David T]

My $0.02?

The original CFR was dumb. This thread is so lost, I'm not even sure who is trying to prove what.

It can be summed up like this:

1. Some modern apostles/prophets have gone on record saying they saw the risen Lord.

2. Most haven't made such a claim.

3. There is nothing in published Church documents that state a vision of the Risen Lord is required for a call to the Apostleship today.

4. Notwithstanding, many members still like to think the prophet (and even some if not all of the apostles) has regular face-to-face time with Jesus.

What is still being argued about? Really?

[Sevenbak]

My $0.02?

The original CFR was dumb. This thread is so lost, I'm not even sure who is trying to prove what.

It can be summed up like this:

1. Some modern apostles/prophets have gone on record saying they saw the risen Lord.

2. Most haven't made such a claim.

3. There is nothing in published Church documents that state a vision of the Risen Lord is required for a call to the Apostleship today.

4. Notwithstanding, many members still like to think the prophet (and even some if not all of the apostles) has regular face-to-face time with Jesus.

What is still being argued about? Really?

From his point of view, perhaps a better question Rob should be asking is... "Do those Apostles and Prophets who have written or said they have seen the Lord, lie on purpose or are they deceived?"

[Sevenbak]

Actually, Elder Haight has seen the Savior and told about it in General Conference. It was 21 years ago, it was amazing and ranks as my #1 General Conference of all time. I could hardly believe he was sharing the vision he had.

It was reprinted in the April 2007 Ensign. The link is below, if I copied it correctly.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9b7b6f708ee71110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

That was amazing. Although there are those who would think he was just delirious as he was so close to death.

Close to the veil in all actuality. The tender mercies of the Lord, and the prophets who share them!

[mrmendoza]

Mike,

So, you agree with my point, then, that the LDS apostles are not required to have seen the risen Jesus with their physical eyes. Is that correct?

Yeah, pretty much. Based on my studies, I don't believe that it is a requirement to have seen Him prior to the calling to be an Apostle. Nor do I believe that it is important that they see him with their physical eyes at all! There have been many people through the years who claim to have seen the Saviour, Oral Roberts comes to mind!

The thing is, in the NT times, the followers of Jesus had known Him before his death. They knew what He looked like, so when He reappeared to them after the resurection they could recognise Him. How would you know who he was if some man you'd never seen before just came up and started talking to you and told you He was Jesus?

Yet these men who are called to be Apostles are given the keys, after their ordenation, that allows them to have a spiritual depth that most of us cannot imagine. When they testify that they "know that He lives", that's good enough for me!

Mike

[Vance]

My $0.02?

The original CFR was dumb.

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.

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. 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 (

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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.

A negative finding (no LDS source says that apostles must have seen the risen Jesus) is proof of the negative statement (LDS apostles are not required to have seen the risen Jesus). I explained this to you, but you kept insisting I had failed to answer your CFR. Your inability to follow the logic of my argument was the problem, not my supposedly failing to answer your CFR.

In any case, I proved the negative in a more direct manner with the documentation provided in this thread, none of which you have even tried to address. Instead, you now attempt a bit of misdirection of your own by suggesting a different CFR:

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.

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?

[Vance]

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 think you need to re-read my post. NOWHERE in my post OR IN SCRIPTURE is "eyewitness" a requirement for an Apostle.

You FABRICATED that requirement plain and simple.

They must be a witness of Christ's resurrection but how they must gain that witness is NEVER specified.

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

[Vance]

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?

There is NO New Testament (or other scripture) requirement for an apostle to have seen the risen Christ, and so LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ.

[Obiwan]

Obiwan,

See my reply to Mark. Help you understand my position, it will.

Yes, but your "position" is flawed when it comes to trying to make some sort of judgement against the Church.

Reason being is because the LDS Church accepts ALL TRUTH from ALL SOURCES.

It not teaching all truth of the universe doesn't somehow translate into something "not being required" (even if unsaid) by the LDS Church. You are thus trying to force again YOUR OWN anti-mormon viewpoint onto the Church.

The only view on this issue you and anyone should have is what I've stated. Again, some have seen Him, have all, we don't know?

That's it.... That's the ONLY Judgement you should be making.

[Zakuska]

Intresting... the B ible never claims Saul/Paul "Saw" Jesus.

Acts 9

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Acts 27

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. <A name=14> 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

No mention of "seeing", only "hearing" his voice.

[zerinus]

Intresting... the B ible never claims Saul/Paul "Saw" Jesus.

Acts 9

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Acts 27

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. <A name=14> 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

No mention of "seeing", only "hearing" his voice.

Thank you. Those are valid points. The Bible does in fact mention Paul seeing Jesus (Acts 23:11); but that event took place long after He had been called an Apostle. So your original point is still valid. Seeing Jesus was not a requirement of his Apostleship; but a consequence of it many years afterwards.

[Zakuska]

Thank you. Those are valid points. The Bible does in fact mention Paul seeing Jesus (Acts 23:11); but that event took place long after He had been called an Apostle. So your original point is still valid. Seeing Jesus was not a requirement of his Apostleship; but a consequence of it many years afterwards.

Acts 23

11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome

The verbage does not dictate "seeing".

The Angel of the Lord "stood by" Baalam and the talking Donkey, but only the Donkey saw him.

Num 22

22

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

There is NO New Testament (or other scripture) requirement for an apostle to have seen the risen Christ, and so LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ.

This is hilarious! 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.

So I appear to have persuaded you!

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska and Zerinus,

The Bible explicitly says that Paul saw the risen Christ:

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1).

"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also" (1 Cor. 15:5-8 ).

"So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 9:17).

"And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.... It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance, and I saw Him saying to me, 'Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me'" (Acts 22:14, 17-18).

"But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you" (Acts 26:16).

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

This is hilarious! 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!

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".

The only difference between us now is that you claim this was also not a requirement for NT apostles.

Right! You made a false claim and I believed you.

Fine, I understand why that would be your view, but my original statement, which you challenged with a CFR, you have now affirmed explicitly!

Not exactly, your original claim was

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.

Clearly meaning that LDS Apostles DO NOT meet the NT requirement which you falsely claimed was "to be an eyewitness".

And now with more investigation we find that this whole incident was caused by your FALSE CLAIM, which I believed.

We trusted you and see where it got us?

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.

So I appear to have persuaded you!

Yes, you have persuaded me that;

1) you are untrustworthy in your claims.

2) LDS Apostles DO meet NT requirement.

Techinically speaking the original CFR was against your claim that LDS Apostles "That isn't the case with your LDS apostles" meaning they didn't meet NT requirements.

You couldn't show that they didn't meet NT requirements because you misrepresented what those actual requirements were.

[zerinus]

Zakuska and Zerinus,

The Bible explicitly says that Paul saw the risen Christ:

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1).

"...He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also" (1 Cor. 15:5-8 ).

"So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 9:17).

Jesus did indeed "appear" to Paul on the road to Damascus; but that "appearance," as per the quotes that Zak had given, was not a visual or interpersonal appearance. Paul did not physically see Jesus, in the same way that Thomas saw Him after His resurrection for example, when he conversed with Him interpersonally, handled Him, felt the prints in His hands and feet etc. The word "appear," as used for the experience on the road to Damascus, does not have that kind of meaning. The "appearance" was in knocking him down blind and nearly dead, until he recovered from it in Damascus under the hand of Ananias.

"And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.... It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance, and I saw Him saying to me, 'Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me'" (Acts 22:14, 17-18).

"But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you" (Acts 26:16).

Jesus did indeed appear to Paul later on on a more interpersonal level according to the scripture that I had cited (and probably on more than one occasion); but those experiences happened to him quite some time after his appointment to the ministry as Apostle of Jesus. The scriptures do not suggest that he had such an experience prior to his appointment to that ministry.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I will review the entire exchange between us to clarify the real issue here. Your original CFR was in another thread that I had started. Here is the entirety of your CFR in that post:

"That isn't the case with your LDS apostles."

CFR

That was rather cryptic. In my reply to you, I gave a full quotation of my statement in context (emphasis added here):

"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."

The whole paragraph is explicitly clear that what I was saying "isn't the case with your LDS apostles" was that they "had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus." I responded to your CFR on the understanding that you were calling for a reference supporting that point. You then replied by claiming, without explanation:

Sorry, but that doesn't address the CFR. I understand why you have to avoid this CFR. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your statement.

Showing more patience with you than you deserve, I then replied (emphasis added):

"I answered your CFR. The issue is, Does the LDS claim that its apostles have all seen the risen Jesus? If the answer is yes, then we should be able to find places in LDS publications where they make this claim. I can't find any such places. Therefore, the answer, based on the LDS publications I have examined is not yes. (I gave you two very good examples of such publications.) If the answer is not yes, then the answer is no (by the law of excluded middle).

Now it's your turn to refute my argument by citing references where the LDS Church does make this claim."

In your next reply, you seem to understand the claim you wanted me to defend was the claim that the LDS apostles need not have seen the risen Christ. Thus, you wrote:

You claimed, ". . . each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles." Now, either back it up (address the CFR) or retract it.

Notice that the way you present your quotation from me, the only possible way of construing your CFR was as a CFR that LDS apostles do not need to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus.

When I commented that I saw no need to continue the debate, you replied:

NOWHERE, is the requirement that those called to the Apostleship reveal the intimate details of their calling to the world and open themselves and others to the ridicule of the wicked. Now, you need to either support your claim, or retract it.

Here again, you still seem to have been taking exception to my statement that LDS apostles need not be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus. Your objection amounts to saying that they might all be expected to have had such encounters but refrain from making them public to avoid ridicule from the wicked. You reiterated the same criticism in yet another post.

Then, without warning, Skylla closed the thread, claiming as one reason "CFR not answered" (which is not true).

In the first post of this thread, I carefully and thoroughly documented in a more direct and positive way that LDS apostles need not have seen the risen Christ. As far as I could tell in the four rounds of posts between us in the other thread on your CFR, that was the claim for which you had issued the CFR. I stated each time that such was what I understood you to be challenging, and not once did you claim that the CFR was for a different claim.

In your first attempt to respond in this thread, you offered the following reply:

The CFR was 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. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles."

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.

In the above comment, you apparently misconstrued me as asserting that no LDS apostle has ever seen Christ, which of course I did not assert.

I explained my point, which has never changed, in the following statement (emphasis original):

"My argument was not that we lack explicit records of every LDS apostle having an encounter with the risen Jesus and therefore they didn't all have such experiences (much less than none of them did). My argument was that we lack records of any living LDS apostle having such an encounter and we have multiple statements indicating that such is not a requirement to be an apostle in the LDS Church."

Later, in response to nackhadlow, you admitted that he might be right in saying that "the original CFR was dumb," and you commented:

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.

Here you acknowledge that this would have been a different CFR, for a different statement that I made than the one you challenged with your original CFR. In my response, I offered to discuss this issue with you if we could first settle the original controversy between us represented by your original CFR. Thus, I asked (emphasis added):

"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?"

Your response to the above question was as follows (last emphasis added):

There is NO New Testament (or other scripture) requirement for an apostle to have seen the risen Christ, and so LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Christ.

As anyone can plainly see, you said exactly the same thing that I did. I then replied:

"This is hilarious! 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."

You now claim, against the mountain of evidence just reviewed:

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".

I did make that point as well, but your CFR was not for me to support that point (which you even concede at the time you accepted) but rather the point that this is not something required to be an apostle in the LDS Church. That was the point you challenged in your CFR in the other thread. That is the point I defended several times in that thread and that you challenged repeatedly. That is the point I defended with conclusive documentation in the opening post of this thread. Yet you claim:

Techinically speaking the original CFR was against your claim that LDS Apostles "That isn't the case with your LDS apostles" meaning they didn't meet NT requirements.

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

Vance, you are so anxious to avoid admitting you were mistaken that you are spiraling into deeper and deeper confusion and self-contradiction. The fact is that you have now conceded the point against which your original CFR was issued. Man up and admit it!

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I've had my fill for the afternoon of people moving the goalposts to try to save their faulty claims. Find someone else with whom to play that game.

Jesus did indeed "appear" to Paul on the road to Damascus; but that "appearance," as per the quotes that Zak had given, was not a visual or interpersonal appearance. Paul did not physically see Jesus, in the same way that Thomas saw Him after His resurrection for example, when he conversed with Him interpersonally, handled Him, felt the prints in His hands and feet etc. The word "appear," as used for the experience on the road to Damascus, does not have that kind of meaning. The "appearance" was in knocking him down blind and nearly dead, until he recovered from it in Damascus under the hand of Ananias.

Jesus did indeed appear to Paul later on on a more interpersonal level according to the scripture that I had cited (and probably on more than one occasion); but those experiences happened to him quite some time after his appointment to the ministry as Apostle of Jesus. The scriptures do not suggest that he had such an experience prior to his appointment to that ministry.