New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[Palerider]

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

On the contrary Acts 26:16 is a description of what had occured in Paul's original theophany....read carefully sir.....

[Vance]

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

Can a building survive without its foundation?

Eph 4:13 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:

That is basically "always".

[urroner]

C'mon people, Rob is playing some music and you aren't dancing. What is your problem?

Matthew 11:17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

[Palerider]

Eph chapter 4

O.K. I give up.....want to be more specific? A verse might even help because I'm not seeing it.....................

[Vance]

On the contrary Acts 26:16 is a description of what had occured in Paul's original theophany....read carefully sir.....

You are right that it Act 26:26 was his original experience. But you need to read carefully verse 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.)

Although the Lord "appeared", Paul NEVER claims to have seen him in his original theopany. Read all three accounts carefully.

Edited to add, for your viewing pleasure.

Act 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.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

So the light blinded Paul. Humm.

[LeSellers]

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.

"Presumed"? Presumed by whom?

By what authority do those who presume this do so? There is nothing in the Bible that makes the claim that the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, only that they were witnesses of His divinity. That's a huge difference.

You case is eisegeis, based on the preconception that there are no living Apostles of the Lord, Jesus Christ today. It is, mincing no words, false.

Paul says the Church of Jesus Christ rests on the foundation of Apostles and prophets. Without living oracles of God, any church claiming to be His is in error.

Lehi

[Palerider]

Can a building survive without its foundation?

Eph 4:13 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:

That is basically "always".

Sorry, I could have sworn I just saw "Galatians". So then can you explain what occured during the previous 1700 years prior to Joseph Smith? Please don't go on regarding the great apostacy. I'm very familiar with it and agree with the premise. I'm asking you if they were "always" supposed to be there why did the Church "disappear"?

[Zakuska]

Sorry, I could have sworn I just saw "Galatians". So then can you explain what occured during the previous 1700 years prior to Joseph Smith? Please don't go on regarding the great apostacy. I'm very familiar with it and agree with the premise. I'm asking you if they were "always" supposed to be there why did the Church "disappear"?

Becuase the woman fled into the wilderness.

[Palerider]

Becuase the woman fled into the wilderness.

Precisely, and she was and still is being nourished there until He comes whose right it is to reign.

[Palerider]

You are right that it Act 26:26 was his original experience. But you need to read carefully verse 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.)

Although the Lord "appeared", Paul NEVER claims to have seen him in his original theopany. Read all three accounts carefully.

Edited to add, for your viewing pleasure.

Act 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.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

So the light blinded Paul. Humm.

Sorry, To not equate Paul's experiences with the equivalent of having seen the risen Lord is worse than splitting hairs, it's just totally bald..........

[Rob Bowman]

cdowis,

Hey, there's only one of me. I've responded to numerous arguments against my views on this forum.

When I catch my breath and have a chance, I'll post something that responds to your argument.

Rob,

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

[Palerider]

Rob, I think you have made an excellent point on this thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Thunderfire,

You wrote:

I found the opening post well written and thought out.

I appreciate your gracious and generous words.

You wrote:

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.

My claim is not that all people need to see Jesus in order to believe. My claim is that to be a witness of Christ's resurrection in the sense in which the NT speaks of the apostles as witnesses of Christ's resurrection, one needed to see the risen Jesus. Thus, my argument has nothing to do with what is necessary for people to believe in Christ. I believe in him even though I've never seen him. But I don't claim to be an apostle.

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

Thanks for implicitly conceding that you have no rebuttal to the argument.

OK,

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

Agreed.

Rhetorical point scored.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

There's more to my argument than texts showing that all the apostles saw the risen Jesus. I also showed that this was a requirement for Judas Iscariot's replacement (Acts 1:21-26) and that Paul backed up his claim to be an apostle by pointing out that he had seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1). That isn't enough?

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

John 1:15 is part of the Prologue to the Gospel (John 1:1-18). It does not come chronologically before John 1:29.

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?

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

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

Please read my post again. I cited six texts that state that Paul saw the risen Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

Obiwan,

What a wasted effort you made. (1) Your first point has absolutely no relevance to my argument. (2) Your second argument is also irrelevant, doubly so, because my claim is not that all LDS apostles have not seen the risen Christ. My claim (explained and documented in my previous thread) is that LDS apostles need not have seen the risen Christ.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Zak,

The relevance of your post escapes me.

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

[Zakuska]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Please read my post again. I cited six texts that state that Paul saw the risen Christ.

Yes you did Rob. But you missed the fact that ALL of those verses that claim he had saw Jesus. Came AFTER the scales were removed from his BLIND eyes and AFTER he had been called to be an Apostle. On the road he "saw" a light that made him blind and he "HEARD" a voice. He never claims to have SEEN Jesus in his initial encounter, (in all three accounts of it) only HEARD his voice. Becuase his eyes were burned and he was blinded.

[Zakuska]

Zak,

The relevance of your post escapes me.

Joseph Smith meets your definition of an Apostle. For just as Paul SAW Jesus. (How be it after his calling to be an Aposlte) So did Joseph Smith.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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

This is ridiculous. I cited Acts 9:17 and 9:27 in my opening post, both of which refer to Paul's first encounter with the risen Christ when he was converted and called to become the apostle to the Gentiles (see 9:15 in the same context. Acts 26:16 is part of Paul's account before Agrippa of the same encounter, and again is in the same context as Christ's statement to Paul telling him of his commission to take the gospel to the Gentiles (26:17-18).

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Please answer the question I asked you in the previous thread. Do you consider me a validly baptized member of the true church of Jesus Christ?

"Presumed"? Presumed by whom?

By what authority do those who presume this do so? There is nothing in the Bible that makes the claim that the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, only that they were witnesses of His divinity. That's a huge difference.

You case is eisegeis, based on the preconception that there are no living Apostles of the Lord, Jesus Christ today. It is, mincing no words, false.

Paul says the Church of Jesus Christ rests on the foundation of Apostles and prophets. Without living oracles of God, any church claiming to be His is in error.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Palerider,

Thanks!

Rob, I think you have made an excellent point on this thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Joseph Smith might meet my definition of an apostle if he had truly seen Jesus Christ. But I take it as axiomatic that not everyone who claims to have seen Jesus Christ is telling the truth. This means that we need to exercise discernment to know which of these individuals who claim to be apostles really did see Jesus and which did not.

In any case, if my definition is valid, then the LDS Church is teaching error, because, as I carefully documented in my previous thread, it teaches that no one needs to see Jesus to become an apostle.

Joseph Smith meets your definition of an Apostle. For just as Paul SAW Jesus. (How be it after his calling to be an Aposlte) So did Joseph Smith.