New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

You wrote:

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

I already did: Andrew was one of the eleven, and I cited several references to the eleven seeing the risen Christ.

[CV75]

(1) if a general authority, LDS apostle or other officer of the church hears a member of the church testifying ...and does NOTHING to correct that testimony, then he is assumed to consent and be in agreement with that testimony.

(2) Don't hide behind the "It's too sacred to speak of" construct. Don't tap dance around with innuendo and winks and nods. Man up!

These are the times of the Gentiles. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Gentiles will receive the testimony by the Spirit, but not by the personal ministry of the Lord. That would not make a Gentile any less eligible to be an apostle, which by definition is to be "special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world." The apostles have the keys to do this, the "name of the Lord" being all the doctrines, covenants, ordinances, testimonies and deeds that are rightfully done in His name. Now when the time of Jews arrives, Christ will minister personally.

The transition between the fulfilling of the times of the Gentiles and the ushering in of the times of the Jews will not be so cut and dried that there will not be some who are and some who are not personally ministered to by Christ Himself during these last days. The precedent is that, after the Lord's ascension, He visited the remnant of Israel personally while the apostles began ministering to the Gentiles by the Spirit. So we may not easily discern or be told which GAs have seen the physical Christ and which haven't.

The early apostles saw Jesus as recorded in the Bible, and so did Joseph Smith and others as recorded in the D&C. In either case, the apostles were commanded to say no more or no less than what they did. The same is true today, and for the Lord's own good reason.

(1) Maybe the GA honestly doesn't know the testifiers' or President Monson's subjective experiences. There is no reason he should.

(2) Whether something is too sacred to speak of truly depends on the audience. The real intended, converting message is carried by the Spirit into the spirits of those who are prepared to receive it. The message is that the Lord lives, regardless of how we come to know that, and whether we feel the defining moment is too scared to share, or would distract the hearer from receiving a converting spiritual witness themselves, or put the focus on "our experience" rather than on the Lord's reality, which is best discerned spiritually. Something else to consider is, if we in the latter days are the most valiant of God's children, the physical evidence required for our perception of the truth is virtually nil, and detailed, factual descriptions of sacred experiences by our leaders become virtually unnecessary.

[Rob Bowman]

TAO,

Thanks for bringing up the FAIR article.

As I have already explained, Acts 1:21-22 provides qualifications for a man to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles. A man could be an apostle of Jesus Christ and not be one of the Twelve, as was the case with both Paul and Barnabas (not just Paul, as the FAIR article asserts that orthodox critics of LDS apostles claim). However, a good number of other texts show that all apostles were called to serve as witnesses to the risen Christ by virtue of their encounter with him, as is especially clear in 1 Corinthians 9:1.

Contrary to what the FAIR article states, Apollos was probably not an apostle. The connection between verses 6 and 9 in 1 Corinthians 4 is too slender a basis for concluding that Apollos was an apostle. I also don't think Timothy was an apostle, for reasons explained in my opening post. However, no text denies that they saw the risen Christ, so if I'm mistaken and they were apostles it would not disprove my conclusion that apostles functioned as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ.

There were indeed other apostles besides the original twelve, and besides the original eleven and Matthias. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the number of apostles was no limited to twelve. As of Acts 14, there appear to have been at least thirteen apostles (the twelve minus John the son of Zebedee, plus Paul and Barnabas). If we count Silas, Timothy, and Apollos, as the FAIR article proposes, that's as many as sixteen that may have been alive and serving as apostles at the same time, and this doesn't even count Andronicus and Junias.

[Vance]

The problem with your work Rob, is that you only see what you want to see.

In biblical law, a decision in a criminal case required the testimony of at least two

[David T]

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.

Rob,

It appears to me, from the New Testament, that the roles we observe that the Apostles specifically filled were the following:

1. Responsible for serving as a living unique and special Witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel. (In the New Testament, specifically as personal eyewitnesses of the person of Jesus of Nazareth - prior to his death and Resurrection as a witness to his teaching, ministry, and miracles - and following, as an eyewitness to his Resurrection)

2. Responsible for the Missionary effort (

[Palerider]

The problem with your work Rob, is that you only see what you want to see.

Deut. 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

That verse doesn't support your claim!

Deut. 19:15

[Vance]

Likewise, Acts 1 emphasizes that Jesus had personally, visibly appeared to his apostles on a number of occasions in the forty days following his resurrection (Acts 1:1-3).

True but irrelevant.

It is in this context that Luke reports Jesus telling them,

[TAO]

TAO,

You wrote:

I already did: Andrew was one of the eleven, and I cited several references to the eleven seeing the risen Christ.

Sorry, yah I just realized that =P

[Vance]

In the above passage, Peter twice refers to the apostles as

[Vance]

Vance, You need to calm down a little..........or we may have to restrict your use of explanation points. Deep breaths. Honestly you'll appear to be more convincing that way.

"explanation points"?

You don't like my point by point explanations?

[Palerider]

"explanation points"?

You don't like my point by point explanations?

Sorry....late night last night and I'm not spelling so well.........it comes with age....."exclamation points"

[TAO]

TAO,

Thanks for bringing up the FAIR article.

No prob... I have to start from the basic stuff if ya' know what I mean... then we can get going somewhere. I didn't just wanna write the material, since I didn't do the research or thinking, so I just posted the parts of the article that were applicable (I'd feel like I was stealing if I didn't put a reference to FAIR).

As I have already explained, Acts 1:21-22 provides qualifications for a man to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles. A man could be an apostle of Jesus Christ and not be one of the Twelve, as was the case with both Paul and Barnabas (not just Paul, as the FAIR article asserts that orthodox critics of LDS apostles claim).

Ok, I see this...

However, a good number of other texts show that all apostles were called to serve as witnesses to the risen Christ by virtue of their encounter with him, as is especially clear in 1 Corinthians 9:1.

I disagree here. You are assuming that the separate clauses are all requirements of being an apostle. Also, were you aware that seeing means not only visions, but also revelations? See 2 Corinthians 12:1.

Also, take a look at Acts 9:17. It also states that 'sight' is something different than what one might think. In this case, it is the veil. And man cannot see Christ with the veil on, so how could Saul have seen Christ if he still had the veil at the time you say he saw Christ?

Contrary to what the FAIR article states, Apollos was probably not an apostle. The connection between verses 6 and 9 in 1 Corinthians 4 is too slender a basis for concluding that Apollos was an apostle.

I disagree... read them right next to each other...

6 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 ^apuffed up for one against another.

9 For I think that God hath set forth us the ^aapostles last, as it were ^bappointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

No, not all that slim. Why do you think it is?

I also don't think Timothy was an apostle, for reasons explained in my opening post. However, no text denies that they saw the risen Christ, so if I'm mistaken and they were apostles it would not disprove my conclusion that apostles functioned as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ.

Well no text denies that modern apostles have not all seen the Christ, so how is this effecting at all?

There were indeed other apostles besides the original twelve, and besides the original eleven and Matthias. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the number of apostles was no limited to twelve. As of Acts 14, there appear to have been at least thirteen apostles (the twelve minus John the son of Zebedee, plus Paul and Barnabas). If we count Silas, Timothy, and Apollos, as the FAIR article proposes, that's as many as sixteen that may have been alive and serving as apostles at the same time, and this doesn't even count Andronicus and Junias.

Have you ever wondered what 1 Corinthians 15:14-15 means about witnesses?

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. UAdd a Note

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have ^atestified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

How can a crowd who has never seen God witness of God? The we refers to both Paul and his brethren... which not all of where in the crowd of about 500 earlier.

[Vance]

Sorry....late night last night and I'm not spelling so well.........it comes with age....."exclamation points"

You think that only one exclamation point after each exclamation is excessive?

[Vance]

As I have already explained, Acts 1:21-22 provides qualifications for a man to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles.

Technically that is inaccurate. It doesn't provide the qualifications but rather the characteristics. There is a difference.

[TAO]

Technically that is inaccurate. It doesn't provide the qualifications but rather the characteristics. There is a difference.

You might also point out that it is the characteristics of that individual apostle as well...

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I don't feel inclined to spend more time engaging this sort of "reasoning," if one can call it that.

And to make your claim is ridiculous! Basically you are saying that if one overheard the converstion of others in the dark they would not qualify as a "witness" even if they recognized the voices.

[cdowis]

Did so -- and the answer was in the negative.

Thank you for your honesty. I received a very different answer.

If you can say that you received a personal revelation that the Book of Mormon is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet... I guess there is really nothing more for us to talk about.

I sincerely wish you all the best.

[Deborah]

Because latter-day Apostles and prophets aren't going to tell the world details of what they did or didn't see this whole question is moot. Apostles and prophets in the Latter-days have spoken with great authority that they "know" without doubt that Christ lives. We can debate all we want but Rob Bowman is never going to believe even if one of them comes out and says he saw the Savior and felt the marks in his hands.

I find it interesting that we look at the scriptures and assume the Prophets shouted all their sacred revelations to the masses, but that is simply not so. If you read the scriptures the accounts we have of such revelations are recorded as an account of the prophet's or apostles' lives but what they taught to the public were the teachings of God, not their personal revelations.

[Vance]

Vance,

I don't feel inclined to spend more time engaging this sort of "reasoning," if one can call it that.

Because it shows how silly your whole argument is.

You accused me of not engaging your agrument. And when I did a point by point refutation, this is the most damaging thing you can provide against it?

That's it?

So in other words, YOU LOST!

[Palerider]

Thank you for your honesty. I received a very different answer.

If you can say that you received a personal revelation that the Book of Mormon is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet... I guess there is really nothing more for us to talk about.

I sincerely wish you all the best.

cdowis,

I'm sorry to see you end the discussion in this way. Even if you don't agree with Rob, I believe you have more in common than there are differences. I think the recent collaberation between more traditional Christians and LDS Christians in California's "gay marriage" issue is a good example of what can be accomplished by working together. It just sounds like you're burning a bridge that might actually benefit you some day.

[Palerider]

Thank you for your honesty. I received a very different answer.

If you can say that you received a personal revelation that the Book of Mormon is false, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet... I guess there is really nothing more for us to talk about.

I sincerely wish you all the best.

cdowis,

I'm sorry to see you end the discussion in this way. Even if you don't agree with Rob, I believe you have more in common than there are differences. I think the recent collaboration between more traditional Christians and LDS Christians in California's "gay marriage" issue is a good example of what can be accomplished by working together. It just sounds like you're burning a bridge that might actually benefit you some day.

[why me]

When Christ was dying on the cross, only John was there. The other apostles were no where to be found. I assume that they were in hiding being fearful for their lives. It would seem that these apostles did need to see the risen christ. If not, they would have drifted away. Even when christ appeared he needed to show his hands for them to believe. And this says much about human faith...it can be fleeting.

And I would assume that this is why christ returned to visit them. He knew that the human being is weak and that his apostles were not the greatest human beings on earth. He needed to shore up their faith to begin the work that needed to be done.

[why me]

As for receiving a witness to the book of mormon, I think that it would be impossible to argue with someone who claims that they did not receive one or received a witness that it is false. I see no point in arguing with someone about it. I can only accept what they say. And perhaps ask them to pray again. But even then, it would come across as forcing a witness to the book.

[cdowis]

cdowis,

I'm sorry to see you end the discussion in this way.

Well, it's just one of those things with me == no hard feelings at all. I personally invited Rob to come to this forum, and still consider him a good friend and very honest and fair in his dealings with the church. he certainly understands that I did not mean that we cannot work together on common projects, just our discussions in apologetics are at an end.

Anyway, I decided on this policy twenty years ago when I started my participation in apologetics, and have invoked it only twice. There are certain subjects that I do not discuss as well. Perhaps someday I will revisit this, but not today.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

So is this a "back door" approach to suggest we don't have Apostles? Do you believe that anyone in our time can see the risen Christ? If not you are wrong. There are many testimonies of such events.