Jump to content

Archived

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

Rob Bowman

New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

Recommended Posts

In the New Testament, anyone who claimed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ is presumed to have been an eyewitness to the risen Jesus. That is, only men who had seen Jesus alive after his resurrection were qualified to be apostles. Some of the evidence for this conclusion is in certain respects indirect, but the evidence in its totality is reasonably conclusive.

Luke uses the term

Share this post


Link to post

So LDS apostles are not really apostles according your narrowly defined criteria?

Agreed.

Rhetorical point scored.

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing like conflating "witness" into "eyewitness". Masterfully constructed strawman.

Share this post


Link to post

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

So LDS apostles are not really apostles according your narrowly defined criteria?

Agreed.

Rhetorical point scored.

Apparently, all you wished to do here was score a "rhetorical point" of your own. After all, the entirety of my post presents a reasoned argument from the New Testament for the single criterion that you loosely and rhetorically dismiss as my "narrowly defined criteria." Instead of engaging that argument, you attempted to dismiss it with this bit of sleight-of-hand.

Share this post


Link to post

John the Baptist was a "witness" for Christ BEFORE His resurrection. And John did it BEFORE he saw Christ.

Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John 1:15

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You wrote:

Nothing like conflating "witness" into "eyewitness". Masterfully constructed strawman.

That's it? That's your brilliant refutation?

:P

Not a good start.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

No one said it was impossible in any and every context to be a "witness" without being an eyewitness. You are ignoring the evidence I presented that the apostles were witnesses to the resurrection in the sense that they testified to having actually seen Jesus with their physical eyes.

Oddly, though, your attempt to back up your premise (which is irrelevant, as I have just explained) falls flat. John 1:15 does not say that John the Baptist bore witness before he saw Jesus. John 1:15 reports that John "spake" about Jesus before he saw him, and then after he saw him, John "bare witness" about him.

John the Baptist was a "witness" for Christ BEFORE His resurrection. And John did it BEFORE he saw Christ.

Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John 1:15

Share this post


Link to post

John 5:32

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, all you wished to do here was score a "rhetorical point" of your own. After all, the entirety of my post presents a reasoned argument from the New Testament for the single criterion that you loosely and rhetorically dismiss as my "narrowly defined criteria." Instead of engaging that argument, you attempted to dismiss it with this bit of sleight-of-hand.

OK,

LDS Apostles are not really Apostles according to your "reasoned argument from the New Testament".

Agreed.

Rhetorical point scored.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

When are you going to deal with Paul's statement that there would always be prophets and apostles in the church?

Share this post


Link to post

I found the opening post well written and thought out. For some (like Thomas), they NEEDED to see in order to believe. But is this a necessity for all people? For some yes and for others no.

Think about this for a moment, would your testimony and belief in Jesus be greater if you saw him? If so, then we are saying we still have doubts in the resurrection and that our witness of Jesus is "faulty" because we haven't seen him. While I would like to take the position that by its very nature, an apostle will have this type of experience due to the calling. But I do not believe it is necessary, because you believe in the resurrection without any wavering as do they.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

Are you aware of any verse that tells us that one needs to see the resurrected Savior in order to be an Apostle?

I am looking for a specific verse that explicitly tells us that only true apostles are those that have physically seen Jesus. I am not looking for an amalgamation of texts that tell me all the apostles have seen Jesus and that that is proof that you must have seen the risen Lord to qulifiy for that office.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

No one said it was impossible in any and every context to be a "witness" without being an eyewitness. You are ignoring the evidence I presented that the apostles were witnesses to the resurrection in the sense that they testified to having actually seen Jesus with their physical eyes.

But, as shown above, to be an "eyewitness" was not essential to be a "witness".

Oddly, though, your attempt to back up your premise (which is irrelevant, as I have just explained) falls flat. John 1:15 does not say that John the Baptist bore witness before he saw Jesus. John 1:15 reports that John "spake" about Jesus before he saw him, and then after he saw him, John "bare witness" about him.

Sorry, but John (the apostle) calls John (the baptist) a "witness" (vs.15) before he tells us that "the next day" (vs. 29) John (the Baptist) saw Christ. Are you saying John (the apostle) got it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

Rob Bowman:

The Apostle Paul was not a eyewitness to the resurrected Chris in the literal sense you are using. He merely heard a voice.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob Bowman:

The Apostle Paul was not a eyewitness to the resurrected Chris in the literal sense you are using. He merely heard a voice.

This was established in the prior thread and Rob has failed to acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Yet, Christ seems to indicate that the witness of the "spirit" is a HIGHER witness. For flesh and blood did not reveal it.

2. There is no evidence that "all" LDS Apostles "haven't" seen the Christ, at least at some point.

Thus, still trying to grasp at any ol straw to try and discount the Restored Gospel. Sad you people are.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

No one said it was impossible in any and every context to be a "witness" without being an eyewitness. You are ignoring the evidence I presented that the apostles were witnesses to the resurrection in the sense that they testified to having actually seen Jesus with their physical eyes.

Hmmm....

JSH

16 But, exerting all my powers to acall upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into bdespair and abandon myself to destruction

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

Are you aware of any verse that tells us that one needs to see the resurrected Savior in order to be an Apostle?

I am looking for a specific verse that explicitly tells us that only true apostles are those that have physically seen Jesus. I am not looking for an amalgamation of texts that tell me all the apostles have seen Jesus and that that is proof that you must have seen the risen Lord to qulifiy for that office.

I believe you would denounce this type of logic if any one claimed that Christ never personally said that homosexuality was a sin and therefore other biblical references supporting it are invalid.

Share this post


Link to post

But it is still a valid point.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are correct! :P

Share this post


Link to post

I believe you would denounce this type of logic if any one claimed that Christ never personally said that homosexuality was a sin and therefore other biblical references supporting it are invalid.

??????

Are you trying to say that the non-existence of any verses declaring the requirements for an apostle are equivalent to the non-existence of any statements of Jesus regarding homosexuality (disregarding, of course, the statements of others)?

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Rob Bowman:

The Apostle Paul was not a eyewitness to the resurrected Chris in the literal sense you are using. He merely heard a voice.

This is inaccurate. See Acts 23:11 and also Acts 26:16

Share this post


Link to post

Act 23:11 and 26:16 occurred LONG AFTER Paul was called to the apostleship. The point remains valid.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

When are you going to deal with Paul's statement that there would always be prophets and apostles in the church?

Do you have a reference stating that there will "always be" apostles and prophets in the church?

Share this post


Link to post

Do you have a reference stating that there will "always be" apostles and prophets in the church?

Eph chapter 4

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...