New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[TAO]

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.

Please tell me where Andrew saw the resurrected Christ...

Also, here's a quote from a FAIR response...

The Bible and Apostolic Requirements

Many of our Christian brothers and sisters use this supposed requirement to eliminate the LDS apostles as real apostles, and they attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their rejection. How do we respond? Let us take a look at what the Bible says regarding the matter. Most of the critics will use Acts 1:21-26:

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 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. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The problem here is Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement, yet I've never met a Christian that didn't view Paul as an apostle.

Regarding the replacement of Judas, it appears that there was a group of men who did indeed met this criterion, from which they selected Barsabas and Mathias. Now if this is all we knew about additional apostles, it might be a tough call. But this is not the case.

Most LDS critics will admit that Paul was an exception. And while doing so, declare the requirements stated in Acts 1 null and void for future apostles. Paul did not accompany the original apostles from the baptism by John to the day He ascended into heaven.

For some reason, however, the critics claim that this is the lone exception and thus, the Lord would not allow any others. Certainly, one is free to make such a claim, but the Bible contains no foundation for it.

Additional Apostles?

Regardless, all can usually agree that Paul is an exception.

But were there other Apostles? Did we see the pattern continue? Well, up to now, we are certain of 14 Apostles (the original 12, Matthias and Paul). Let's take a look. First, there was Barnabas. Acts 14:14 records,

"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,"

There was also Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:6-9,

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another

[David T]

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.

Rob, I hope and pray things work out with your daughter.

I also admire your patience. There is much to try it here

While I agree with your assessment that most, and probably all, of the specific individuals referred to as apostles in the New Testament saw the Risen Lord, and that it was most likely a requirement at that time to be termed an apostle, I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows.

I do believe that the modern office of apostle is to be a special witness of Christ, or as it stated in the Modern Church, Special Witness of the Name of Christ (which is actually a significant distinction).

The Church does not teach that "no one need[ed] to see Jesus to become an apostle" in the immediate New Testament era. I know of no resources that teach such a thing.

However, what has been shown, is that the teaching is that currently, meaning at this time, the Lord does not require a personal appearance of the Risen Lord to occur before one is called to the apostolic office today.

I think that's an important distinction to be made.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Again, thank you for your kind concern regarding my daughter. In so many ways, you conduct yourself here in an exemplary way that does credit to your religion.

Your way out of the immediate problem is the only plausible way out for a Mormon, in my opinion. Just agree that LDS apostles serve a different function than NT apostles.

The problem is that this way out leads quickly to a dead end. The supposed strength of the LDS Church is its "restoration" of NT ministries, gifts, doctrines, rites, etc., supposedly lost in the Great Apostasy. But a close examination reveals that LDS apostles aren't really like NT apostles, in at least this one essential function.

In fact, if I'm correct that essential to the function of the NT apostles was that they gave eyewitness testimony to the risen Jesus, then it makes perfectly good sense to view their ministry as a temporary, first-generation ministry. Paul himself observed that his encounter with the risen Jesus was "last of all" and exceptional in its timing ("as to one untimely born"), coming perhaps a year after Jesus' ascension (1 Cor. 15:8 ). This statement, along with the witness function of NT apostles, supports the view that apostles were never intended by Christ to be a living presence on the earth beyond the first generation of the church.

Thanks again. It's always a pleasure to dialogue with you, and I welcome your further comments.

Rob, I hope and pray things work out with your daughter.

I also admire your patience. There is much to try it here

While I agree with your assessment that most, and probably all, of the specific individuals referred to as apostles in the New Testament saw the Risen Lord, and that it was most likely a requirement at that time to be termed an apostle, I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows.

I do believe that the modern office of apostle is to be a special witness of Christ, or as it stated in the Modern Church, Special Witness of the Name of Christ (which is actually a significant distinction).

The Church does not teach that "no one need[ed] to see Jesus to become an apostle" in the immediate New Testament era. I know of no resources that teach such a thing.

However, what has been shown, is that the teaching is that currently, meaning at this time, the Lord does not require a personal appearance of the Risen Lord to occur before one is called to the apostolic office today.

I think that's an important distinction to be made.

[LeSellers]

Please answer the question I asked you in the previous thread.

Sorry, didn't see it. (Which topic?)

Do you consider me a validly baptized member of the true church of Jesus Christ?

No more than the twelve men and their families mentioned in Acts 18 & 19

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: 28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

Just as these men and their families were baptized by someone (Apollos) who had no authority to perform a heaven-recognized baptism, whoever baptized you had no authority to do so.

After all, the church from which he derived his authority has no living Apostles.

Lehi

And all the best in regards to your daughter. Our daughter-in-law's kidney transplant was a touch'n'go thing for a very long time, and we were on tenter hooks for months before, during and after. I think I can empathize with where you are. LS

[cdowis]

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

I will give you the verses, but methinks you will still not see it. Eph 4:11-14.

I'm not interested in having a pharasiacal quibbling with you. It is quite clear and obvious.

[cdowis]

Paul himself observed that his encounter with the risen Jesus was "last of all" and exceptional in its timing ("as to one untimely born"), coming perhaps a year after Jesus' ascension (1 Cor. 15:8 ). This statement, along with the witness function of NT apostles, supports the view that apostles were never intended by Christ to be a living presence on the earth beyond the first generation of the church.

Paul disagrees with you. Paul made it clear that they were a permanent, fundamental component of the church.

The calling of the apostle comes from a prophet who has the keys of the priesthood, as Christ gave to Peter. JS, et al, received those keys and passed them on to his successors. As Paul himself states, it was no longer necessary to have a vision of Christ, but he did not preclude such visions John the Revelator received such a vision after the vision and calling of Paul.

ou have indeed made your views clear, and we appreciate your personal interpretation of the Bible. But we accept JS as a prophet with all of the keys and authority that Christ gave His apostles in earlier time. And they passed on that authority to a modern prophet.

[mrmendoza]

In your other thread, I posted this,

Okay! The questioned has been asked-"Are LDS Apostles required to have seen, with their physical eyes, the risen Lord?" I think that question has been answered as "No!" As to whether all NT Apostles, after Mathais, had that requirement, there is no clear evidence, altho IMO it would seem logical that they might. At least in the first generation, but consider this

Quote

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

CHAPTER 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 cresurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Paul, according to this qualification, didn't qualify either! He had not "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 abe ordained to be a bwitness with us of his cresurrection."! Also they picked Mathais over Joseph Barsabas by casting lots!

Church government obviously operates difrently today then it did back then. My question is "So What?" That was then, and this is now. Their whole culture and way of doing things was different then it is today so the Lord gave us a better system for our times.

While you seemed surprised that I agreed with the primise that LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Lord with their physical eyes, yet I don't see that you've adressed the fact that since Paul had not been a part of Christ followers Prior to the ressurection, he did not meet the criteria that had been set to be an apostle!

As to Paleriders question,

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

Paul didn't say that there would "always" be apostles and prophets, he was saying that Christ church would have these offices and some others, "Until we all come to a unity of the faith, unto a perfect man." If/and when, as prophicied a "falling away" of the church took place you might not expect to find all of the offices he spoke of still exsisting. That would, or should show you that indeed a falling away, or apostasy, had taken place! All of these things would have to be restored along with the Church itself!

So I say again, LDS apostles, not having lived in the time of Christ mortal ministry, could not have the criteria as you seem to think the NT apostles needed.

Mike

[Palerider]

I will give you the verses, but methinks you will still not see it. Eph 4:11-14.

I'm not interested in having a pharasiacal quibbling with you. It is quite clear and obvious.

When he initially posted, he referenced Galatians, not Ephesians. It was later edited to read Ephesians. You're a day late and a dollar short as they say. You're correct however, It is clear for the original church.

[Palerider]

In your other thread, I posted this,

While you seemed surprised that I agreed with the primise that LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Lord with their physical eyes, yet I don't see that you've adressed the fact that since Paul had not been a part of Christ followers Prior to the ressurection, he did not meet the criteria that had been set to be an apostle!

As to Paleriders question,

Paul didn't say that there would "always" be apostles and prophets, he was saying that Christ church would have these offices and some others, "Until we all come to a unity of the faith, unto a perfect man." If/and when, as prophicied a "falling away" of the church took place you might not expect to find all of the offices he spoke of still exsisting. That would, or should show you that indeed a falling away, or apostasy, had taken place! All of these things would have to be restored along with the Church itself!

So I say again, LDS apostles, not having lived in the time of Christ mortal ministry, could not have the criteria as you seem to think the NT apostles needed.

Mike

mrmendoza,

If you had read my previous post more carefully you would have seen that I already agree with the premise of a great Apostacy, so I don't see your point here.

Also, I never claimed that Paul said that there would "always" be apostles in the church. "cdowis" made that claim in HIS post and thankyou for supporting my position regarding that. I'm sure "cdowis" will be dismayed...............

[Vance]

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..........

There is a simple solution, just show where Paul claims to have seen the risen Lord during his first theopany!

I won't hold my breath.

[Vance]

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 bares witness of Christ in verse 23 and 26, 27! ALL chronologically BEFORE verse 29!

[Vance]

I am not surprised that Rob has totally ignored this post.

John 5:32

[mrmendoza]

mrmendoza,

If you had read my previous post more carefully you would have seen that I already agree with the premise of a great Apostacy, so I don't see your point here.

My bad! I should have been more careful in my observation. (Sometimes I don't always read the different post fully, I kind of skim over them to get the gist of what they're saying. As you can see, that sometimes backfires on me!)

Anyway I still get the distinct idea that while you might "agree with the primise of a great apostasty", based on this

. 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"?

You don't seem to understand that the great apostasty was a complete falling away of the church! As to what occured during the previous 1700 years prior to Joseph Smith, then you need to become more then just familier with what that all intailed. If you don't want us to go on regarding the great apostacy then we will never be able to answer your question regarding the 1700 year gap prior to JS!

Also, I never claimed that Paul said that there would "always" be apostles in the church. "cdowis" made that claim in HIS post and thankyou for supporting my position regarding that. I'm sure "cdowis" will be dismayed

Well once again I have to revise what I said. (This is getting embarassing! Even as I wrote that, I wondered if maybe I was misreading what had been said.) cdowis was correct when he said there would always be apostles in the Church, maybe he should have said in the true church of Christ! Anyway, what I was trying to say was that when the apostacy took over, the true church was not still on the earth, nor were the apostles. But Christ true chuch when it was restored, the apostleship would of necessity also have to be restored.

While it's true, some of the criteria, and organization, may have had to be altered for our time, the basic structure-"apostles, prophets, evangilist", etc- is still the same!

Mike

[Thunderfire]

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.

Yet Rob we need to acknowledge that Thomas was called an apostle before he saw the resurrected Christ. He did not believe in his resurrection until he had it proven to him. So in this, technically an apostle was not just a witness of Christ's resurrection. We can say that an apostle is one who is his disciple, one who recognizes his presence in and through all things, or one who also has a special testimony of him.

I think we may be narrowing the nature of apostolic ministry to a point they are ONLY to testify of one aspect of Jesus, his resurrection. In my opinion, the apostolic minister is something much greater, they testify that he is with us always.

[Rob Bowman]

Mike,

The qualification in Acts 1:21-22 that Judas Iscariot's replacement had to be one of Jesus' disciples prior to Jesus' death and resurrection was not specifically a requirement to be an apostle, but to be a member of the body of twelve apostles, as Judas's replacement. I made this point in my opening post.

While you seemed surprised that I agreed with the primise that LDS Apostles are not required to have seen the risen Lord with their physical eyes, yet I don't see that you've adressed the fact that since Paul had not been a part of Christ followers Prior to the ressurection, he did not meet the criteria that had been set to be an apostle!

[jadams_4242]

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

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.

And just how do we know latter day apostles have "not"?

[Bill Hamblin]

When we remember that there were several hundred witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus in the immediate years after his death (1 Cor 15:6), and hundreds (if not thousands) of disciples who had followed him throughout his earthly ministry, is there any reason we would expect the early Church to choose apostles from among those who had't seen the resurrected Christ? The question is: is this a prerequisite for anyone to be an apostle at any time and anywhere (and, as has been noted, there are several NT examples where people are described as apostles who are not expressly said to have seen the resurrected Christ--though they may have), or is this simply an obvious prerequisite for a time when there were hundreds of people who could testify as eyewitnesses of resurrected Christ.

The word apostle, by the way, means "one who is sent" by Christ to represent him to the world (just as Christ is sent from the Father, Jn 17:. It does not mean one who has seen the resurrected Christ. There is another perfectly good NT term for the later: witness or martyr (martus).

Since JS and many other early LDS apostles claim to have seen the Risen Christ, are you willing to grant them the title of Apostle? (Of course your real objection is not that some contemporary LDS apostles do not claim to have seen the resurrected Christ, but that those who do make that claim are lying or delusional, right?)

[Rob Bowman]

jadams,

You wrote:

And just how do we know latter day apostles have "not"?

Your question shifts the burden of proof to those who don't accept your latter-day apostles, instead of putting the burden of proof where it belongs. It does so in two ways.

First, for 1700 years there were no apostles, even by LDS reckoning. Then, in the 1830s, Joseph Smith claimed that he had been appointed as an apostle, and a new order of apostles was introduced. The burden of proof is on Mormons to show that these latter-day apostles are what they claim to be.

Second, my reading of the evidence is that very few of the LDS apostles since the days of Joseph Smith have even claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. I have cited several sources in which LDS apostles have denied the necessity of such encounters. It is common to read the theological rationale that the witness of the Spirit is superior to the witness of seeing Jesus with one's physical eyes. That theological rationale would be unnecessary and irrelevant if many or most, let alone all, of the LDS apostles had seen Jesus with their eyes. Some LDS leaders have also explained that even if they had seen Jesus it would not be something normally appropriate to tell to others, either because it's too sacred (odd, since the NT apostles boldly told everyone who would listen) or because "unbelievers" would ridicule them (ditto; as if true apostles should be at all concerned about the criticism or ridicule of unbelievers!). All of this leads me to conclude that the truth is that few if any of the LDS apostles of the past 160 years or so have claimed or even believed that they had seen the risen Christ. I have solid, factual evidence from the testimonies of LDS apostles as again summarized here to support my conclusion. My evidence is not "anti-Mormon" propaganda; it comes directly from your own apostles. So I put the burden of proof on you to show that contrary to the evidence I have presented the LDS apostles have seen the risen Jesus, or at least claim to have seen him.

Arguing "maybe they saw him but they are not telling and you can't prove they didn't" is really a form of the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance. From the fact that I cannot absolutely prove that most LDS apostles never saw the risen Jesus, it does not follow that it is reasonable to think that they did. Such an argument is logically equivalent to arguing that because it's impossible to prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist that it is reasonable to conclude that it does; or because I can't prove that there are no alien bodies in Area 51 that we should accept or even take seriously the claim that there are; or because it's difficult to disprove that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and ran off with her to France and started a royal bloodline that this makes for good history.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I presented evidence from the NT that the fact that the apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus was not just a happenstance or incidental fact about the apostles but that this was a primary function of Jesus' apostles in the NT. Your argument, although it sounds plausible in the abstract, does not engage that evidence.

You assert that Joseph Smith "and many other early LDS apostles" claimed to see the risen Christ. Many? I hope you don't mind if I issue a CFR here. I am happy to be corrected, but I'm not aware of "many" that made such a claim. Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but I can only recall off the top of my head Joseph and Oliver making that claim.

You are correct that I reject Joseph and Oliver's claims to have seen the risen Christ. However, the line of argument I have been making (across at least three threads now) has to do with supposed apostles and prophets since Joseph's death. Whether Joseph was a prophet and apostle is a distinct question.

When we remember that there were several hundred witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus in the immediate years after his death (1 Cor 15:6), and hundreds (if not thousands) of disciples who had followed him throughout his earthly ministry, is there any reason we would expect the early Church to choose apostles from among those who had't seen the resurrected Christ? The question is: is this a prerequisite for anyone to be an apostle at any time and anywhere (and, as has been noted, there are several NT examples where people are described as apostles who are not expressly said to have seen the resurrected Christ--though they may have), or is this simply an obvious prerequisite for a time when there were hundreds of people who could testify as eyewitnesses of resurrected Christ.

The word apostle, by the way, means "one who is sent" by Christ to represent him to the world (just as Christ is sent from the Father, Jn 17:. It does not mean one who has seen the resurrected Christ. There is another perfectly good NT term for the later: witness or martyr (martus).

Since JS and many other early LDS apostles claim to have seen the Risen Christ, are you willing to grant them the title of Apostle? (Of course your real objection is not that some contemporary LDS apostles do not claim to have seen the resurrected Christ, but that those who do make that claim are lying or delusional, right?)

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

It's probably hopeless to try any further to explain this to you. The issue is whether "bore witness" or "testified" in John 1:32 refers to John testifying to something he actually saw with his eyes. It does. Just read it! "John testified, saying, 'I have seen...'"

In no text in John's Gospel does John the Baptist "bear witness" to something he hasn't seen. Quite the contrary: John "bore witness" to what he saw, as John 1:32 and 1:34 state explicitly.

John 1:23, 26, 27 do not use any "witness" language, and they refer to John's message that someone would come after him who would be the Messiah. When Jesus showed up, John bore witness that he was the one.

Sorry but John bares witness of Christ in verse 23 and 26, 27! ALL chronologically BEFORE verse 29!

[Vance]

Vance,

It's probably hopeless to try any further to explain this to you. The issue is whether "bore witness" or "testified" in John 1:32 refers to John testifying to something he actually saw with his eyes. It does. Just read it! "John testified, saying, 'I have seen...'"

In no text in John's Gospel does John the Baptist "bear witness" to something he hasn't seen. Quite the contrary: John "bore witness" to what he saw, as John 1:32 and 1:34 state explicitly.

John 1:23, 26, 27 do not use any "witness" language, and they refer to John's message that someone would come after him who would be the Messiah. When Jesus showed up, John bore witness that he was the one.

So his "testimony" isn't a "witness"? What is it that a "witness" actually gives?

[Vance]

Rob,

You still have this insurmountable problem that the original twelve were chosen and ordained apostles long before they witnessed the risen Lord.

You have tried to explain this away, but it is impossible to do so.

[Vance]

So Rob has come and gone again and is still ignoring these verses

John 5:32

[David T]

it also destroys the doctrine of the trinity as understood by creedal christians.

I'm sure many highly intelligent, thinking Trinity-believing Christians have been aware of that verse for millennia without it shattering their belief, Vance. I'd say there's a greater chance that you don't understand "the doctrine of the trinity as understood by creedal christians" than that they who have this belief some how have never contemplated this verse.

[Vance]

I'm sure many highly intelligent, thinking Trinity-believing Christians have been aware of that verse for millennia without it shattering their belief, Vance. I'd say there's a greater chance that you don't understand "the doctrine of the trinity as understood by creedal christians" than that they who have this belief some how have never contemplated this verse.

I suppose that they were also aware of these verses too.

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Are you saying that you think the creedal doctrine of the trinity was Biblically derived and not the Hellenized philosophies of men mingled with a few verses?