New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[Vance]

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).

This has some interesting implications.

Paul, then was a second tier apostle, subordinate to the twelve. This then places his writings as second tier, subordinate to those of the twelve (like James).

Interesting implications indeed.

[Vookman]

I may have missed this, but Barnabas was an apostle, called about the same time as Paul, and never saw Jesus.

He appears to have been among those converted at Pentecost (Acts 4:36), and was definitely an apostle, Acts 14:14 :

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

1 Cor 9:6 and Gal 2:9 seem to reinforce their equal position as apostles of equal authority and honor to the original 12.

He appears to have been called when Paul was apparently called by prophets (no apostle listed among those doing the calling, though Paul and Barnabas seem to have become apostles, sent forth by prophets for the Lord's work, Acts 13:2). It even appears that Barnabas was considered Paul's superior, as the people at Lystra refer to Barnabas as Jupiter (King of the gods), and Paul as Mercurius (messenger of the gods) (Acts 14:12).

I have not exhaustively searched, but I wasn't able to find a citation where Barnabas was an eyewitness of the risen Christ. As noted above, he is first mentioned in Jerusalem by his Hebrew name Joses as among those who shared all things, and they note he is from Cyprus.

But, for some context about what early believers thought, in the Didache, it specifically mentions that Apostles and Prophets would continue to circulated among people (Didache 11:3-6). Since the Didache is universally acknowledged as contemporary with the authorship of the New Testament (some believe Barnabas to be the source of the material, in any case those who date it later usually date books of the NT late as well), the Christian attitude is quite evidently shown to accept non-eyewitness Apostles, whose witness is spiritually based, as unexceptional.

Just my quick research on the subject, but I think it is strained to say that a physical eyewitness was required of even the early apostles based on the rich history we have of Barnabas.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your inference assumes that the Twelve had authority over any other apostles. Paul expressly denies this in Galatians 2, and it is not a logical inference from what I said.

This has some interesting implications.

Paul, then was a second tier apostle, subordinate to the twelve. This then places his writings as second tier, subordinate to those of the twelve (like James).

Interesting implications indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Vookman,

I appreciate the intelligent and detailed nature of your response.

Acts 4:36 says nothing about how Barnabas came to faith in Christ. He was born in Cypria, but this tells us nothing about where he lived prior to Pentecost, since he was of course an adult by that time. The text says nothing about how Barnabas came to faith. Nor does this or any other text indicate that Barnabas did not see the risen Christ (just as no text says specifically that he did). If I were committed to your view, I would have looked at Acts 4:36 for possible support as well, but it doesn't hold up.

Barnabas had become an apostle before Paul did, but the "new kid" quickly became the leading figure of the two. The pagans' supposition that the principal speaker of the two was Hermes and the other Zeus is a slender basis for concluding that Barnabas was Paul's superior!

Acts 13:1-2 shows that the group of prophets, which included Barnabas and Paul themselves, received direction from the Holy Spirit that Barnabas and Paul were to go out on an evangelistic mission. This has nothing to do with Barnabas and Paul becoming apostles, since Acts 9 has already established that Christ himself revealed to Paul that he would be taking the gospel to the Gentiles. In other words, the prophets' action in Acts 13 appears to be a matter of discerning the Lord's timing for the mission to begin, not a matter of commissioning Paul and Barnabas as apostles.

I don't see anything in the Didache to indicate that apostles were not eyewitnesses of the risen Christ. Assuming the Didache was written while some of the first-generation apostles were still alive (a reasonable supposition), there is no problem with any such apostles being such eyewitnesses.

I may have missed this, but Barnabas was an apostle, called about the same time as Paul, and never saw Jesus.

He appears to have been among those converted at Pentecost (Acts 4:36), and was definitely an apostle, Acts 14:14 :

1 Cor 9:6 and Gal 2:9 seem to reinforce their equal position as apostles of equal authority and honor to the original 12.

He appears to have been called when Paul was apparently called by prophets (no apostle listed among those doing the calling, though Paul and Barnabas seem to have become apostles, sent forth by prophets for the Lord's work, Acts 13:2). It even appears that Barnabas was considered Paul's superior, as the people at Lystra refer to Barnabas as Jupiter (King of the gods), and Paul as Mercurius (messenger of the gods) (Acts 14:12).

I have not exhaustively searched, but I wasn't able to find a citation where Barnabas was an eyewitness of the risen Christ. As noted above, he is first mentioned in Jerusalem by his Hebrew name Joses as among those who shared all things, and they note he is from Cyprus.

But, for some context about what early believers thought, in the Didache, it specifically mentions that Apostles and Prophets would continue to circulated among people (Didache 11:3-6). Since the Didache is universally acknowledged as contemporary with the authorship of the New Testament (some believe Barnabas to be the source of the material, in any case those who date it later usually date books of the NT late as well), the Christian attitude is quite evidently shown to accept non-eyewitness Apostles, whose witness is spiritually based, as unexceptional.

Just my quick research on the subject, but I think it is strained to say that a physical eyewitness was required of even the early apostles based on the rich history we have of Barnabas.

[mrmendoza]

jadams,

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.

The problem with this board , (Or maybe the problem is just me!) is that, as opposed to "dialog and discussion", it has become a forum for endless,(AND mostly fruitless!) debate,from which we are ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth! Of course I'm as bad as anyone, because I do like a good argument, I mean debate, or rather discussion!

You say that you read and prayed about the BoM and recieved a negitive reply. That pretty much ends that part of the conversation! We could interrogate you as to how you did that or what you mean by negitive, but that would be disengenouis. Kind of like those who would tell me that I must never have been a "real" Christian in the first place otherwise I would have never become a Mormon! We just have to take you on your word.

Although you've told us that the burden of proof is on us, you don't accept the evedence that we offer, which is the Book of Mormon! That is the strongest and best evedence that we have, without which we're just "Bible bashing" and arguing over interpertation! As such your point of view is no better or worse then ours!

As to your argument, about what you think it takes to be qualified as an apostle, I can only say what I've already said in your other thread

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.

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.

As to Palerider

If one wants to make the claim to Apostleship, stand up and say it. 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!

I don't know of any modern LDS apostles who have not declared it! Again you, like Rob, are seeking to impose your NT views (Which are always subject to interpretation!) on how the Lord would operate in a new dispensation! One of the reasons the Jewish leaders of Christ mortal days were opposed to his teaching was because He sought to reinterpret the scriptures and impose a higher, more spiritual law, then what they understood in the law of Moses. They were offended whenever He did not conform to their narrow minded views of what the Law meant!

And so, it seems, are you!

Mike

[Vance]

Vance,

Your inference assumes that the Twelve had authority over any other apostles. Paul expressly denies this in Galatians 2, and it is not a logical inference from what I said.

And so then, your ASSUMPTION that Paul was not a member of the twelve has no support. It is simply your attempt to avoid admitting that your argument is baseless.

Nice try though.

[Palerider]

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.

Excellent point.

[Palerider]

The problem with this board , (Or maybe the problem is just me!) is that, as opposed to "dialog and discussion", it has become a forum for endless,(AND mostly fruitless!) debate,from which we are ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth! Of course I'm as bad as anyone, because I do like a good argument, I mean debate, or rather discussion!

You say that you read and prayed about the BoM and recieved a negitive reply. That pretty much ends that part of the conversation! We could interrogate you as to how you did that or what you mean by negitive, but that would be disengenouis. Kind of like those who would tell me that I must never have been a "real" Christian in the first place otherwise I would have never become a Mormon! We just have to take you on your word.

Although you've told us that the burden of proof is on us, you don't accept the evedence that we offer, which is the Book of Mormon! That is the strongest and best evedence that we have, without which we're just "Bible bashing" and arguing over interpertation! As such your point of view is no better or worse then ours!

As to your argument, about what you think it takes to be qualified as an apostle, I can only say what I've already said in your other thread

As to Palerider

I don't know of any modern LDS apostles who have not declared it! Again you, like Rob, are seeking to impose your NT views (Which are always subject to interpretation!) on how the Lord would operate in a new dispensation! One of the reasons the Jewish leaders of Christ mortal days were opposed to his teaching was because He sought to reinterpret the scriptures and impose a higher, more spiritual law, then what they understood in the law of Moses. They were offended whenever He did not conform to their narrow minded views of what the Law meant!

And so, it seems, are you!

Mike

Hi Mike,

In case you missed the main thrust of the arguement here, the title "Apostle" (with a capital A to distinguish it from simply "one who is sent") carries with it the strong (and well supported by Rob) implication of being an actual witness of the Savior and His resurrection. The New Testament Apostles made no bones about their commision to bear witness of Him and did so fearlessly and openly before the public and in private. They saw Him personally and felt of the prints of the nails in his hands and feet and they declared it courageously. There is NO ONE in the LDS church doing that today and thus one is lead to question, "Are these men who claim to be "Apostles" of the Lord Jesus Christ truly Apostles after the pattern shown in the New Testament? Then why don't they declare it?

The Missionaries make the case that Pres. Monson is a prophet "just like Moses, who speaks to God "face to face"". And yet he does not openly declare it or confirm it as Moses would and did. Instead LDS leadership hides behind the innuendo of the lower minions so that it can be assumed that they speak with God without ever actually saying that they do. It gives them "deniability". "We never actually TOLD you we were speaking with God" and don't ask us because it's just too sacred to even speak about. How could a person be so obtuse as to ask someone who claims to be a prophet like Moses if they really do talk with God? What an ignorant and indelicate question................................

[Vance]

In case you missed the main thrust of the arguement here, the title "Apostle" (with a capital A to distinguish it from simply "one who is sent") carries with it the strong (and well supported by Rob) implication of being an actual witness of the Savior and His resurrection.

Except that there are no capitals used in the Greek New Testament.

So his argument falls flat, again.

Paul who wasn't an "eyewitness" was called an "apostle", just like Peter who was an "eyewitness" is called an "apostle".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Except that there are no capitals used in the Greek New Testament.

So his argument falls flat, again.

Paul who wasn't an "eyewitness" was called an "apostle", just like Peter who was an "eyewitness" is called an "apostle".

And here we are 7 pages latter. Interesting.

[mrmendoza]

Hi Mike,

In case you missed the main thrust of the arguement here, the title "Apostle" (with a capital A to distinguish it from simply "one who is sent") carries with it the strong (and well supported by Rob) implication of being an actual witness of the Savior and His resurrection. The New Testament Apostles made no bones about their commision to bear witness of Him and did so fearlessly and openly before the public and in private. They saw Him personally and felt of the prints of the nails in his hands and feet and they declared it courageously. There is NO ONE in the LDS church doing that today and thus one is lead to question, "Are these men who claim to be "Apostles" of the Lord Jesus Christ truly Apostles after the pattern shown in the New Testament? Then why don't they declare it?

The Missionaries make the case that Pres. Monson is a prophet "just like Moses, who speaks to God "face to face"". And yet he does not openly declare it or confirm it as Moses would and did. Instead LDS leadership hides behind the innuendo of the lower minions so that it can be assumed that they speak with God without ever actually saying that they do. It gives them "deniability". "We never actually TOLD you we were speaking with God" and don't ask us because it's just too sacred to even speak about. How could a person be so obtuse as to ask someone who claims to be a prophet like Moses if they really do talk with God? What an ignorant and indelicate question................................

When God told Moses to tell the people that He was coming to take them out of bondage, Moses told God that the people would'nt believe him. So The Lord told Moses to show them some kind of sign, whereupon the Lord told moses to to tell them His name, I AM! He also had Him doing other things to convince Pharoh, but none of them had the desired effect. Today the Lord has brought forth, through his prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon as evedence that the restitution has begun. Only Joesph had to produce tangible evedence of his calling for this dispensation, all those who have preceeded him have been called of God, through the hands of those whom God has sent, and given authority to make those calls, as was Aaron. We, each of us, can comunicate with the Lord and recieve communication back as to our individual needs! Our apostles and prophets communicated with the Lord dayly and recieve revelation dayly from God! That doesn't mean that He appears to these men dayly as well, but He speaks to them through his Holy Spirit!

The Theophany that you're talking about may not come but once in a lifetime or not at all to them, but God speaks to them just the same!

Mike

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Except that there are no capitals used in the Greek New Testament.

Thank you, Professor Vance, for sharing your knowledge with the rest of us.

Actually, the oldest Greek manuscripts of the NT use what we would call all "capital" letters; the "lower-case" letters are the later innovation.

Beyond that minor detail, Palerider did not claim that the GNT used the capitalization convention, but simply said that he was using it in reference to the usage of the word in its narrower sense of an apostle of Jesus Christ. That distinction is well supported in the GNT, though not in the same orthographic way.

[Vance]

Actually, the oldest Greek manuscripts of the NT use what we would call all "capital" letters; the "lower-case" letters are the later innovation.

Thank you professor Rob. The point remains.

Beyond that minor detail, Palerider did not claim that the GNT used the capitalization convention, but simply said that he was using it in reference to the usage of the word in its narrower sense of an apostle of Jesus Christ.

He made no such specification.

That distinction is well supported in the GNT, though not in the same orthographic way.

Circular reasoning. You claim that there two kinds of apostles based in their experiences and then you claim that the differences in their experiences requires there be two kinds of apostles. Where as the text makes no distinction between them.

Again, you're just deluding yourself.

[Zakuska]

So which one is the professor?

The one one on the left or the one on the right (With the tall hair)?

[Palerider]

Except that there are no capitals used in the Greek New Testament.

So his argument falls flat, again.

Paul who wasn't an "eyewitness" was called an "apostle", just like Peter who was an "eyewitness" is called an "apostle".

The capitol "A" is a rhetorical device I created and used to aid Mike in a quicker understanding of the arguement. When I wrote it I suspected that you might take it literally but, it was for his benefit not yours.

The arguement stands. And Paul did see the Savior. No reasonable person would actually argue that point.

The only thing that fell flat..............? You...............

[Palerider]

When God told Moses to tell the people that He was coming to take them out of bondage, Moses told God that the people would'nt believe him. So The Lord told Moses to show them some kind of sign, whereupon the Lord told moses to to tell them His name, I AM! He also had Him doing other things to convince Pharoh, but none of them had the desired effect. Today the Lord has brought forth, through his prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon as evedence that the restitution has begun. Only Joesph had to produce tangible evedence of his calling for this dispensation, all those who have preceeded him have been called of God, through the hands of those whom God has sent, and given authority to make those calls, as was Aaron. We, each of us, can comunicate with the Lord and recieve communication back as to our individual needs! Our apostles and prophets communicated with the Lord dayly and recieve revelation dayly from God! That doesn't mean that He appears to these men dayly as well, but He speaks to them through his Holy Spirit!

The Theophany that you're talking about may not come but once in a lifetime or not at all to them, but God speaks to them just the same!

Mike

Mike,

This statement is so fraught with issues to be challenged I don't know where to begin.

But here is one: Can you show me where it states that "only Joseph had to produce tangible evidence of his calling"?

Here's another:

Since the Book of Mormon is one of the elements in question as to the veracity of the restoration, it can't very well be used to PROVE that Joseph was a prophet until it can be verified in it's own right, can it...............

Think about these for awhile and then think some more............

[TAO]

Since the Book of Mormon is one of the elements in question as to the veracity of the restoration, it can't very well be used to PROVE that Joseph was a prophet until it can be verified in it's own right, can it...............

I think the point would be to use the spirit, would it not? I highly doubt one could prove it or disprove it physically.

[Palerider]

I think the point would be to use the spirit, would it not? I highly doubt one could prove it or disprove it physically.

I think one should use a number of tools in his search for truth.

One that comes to mind is a line from an LDS Hymn: "Truth is reason". So the facts (if they can be obtained) are important. "Study it out in your mind" as D&C suggests.

Does the "New revelation" harmonize with already canonized scripture?

And Yes, one should humbly, prayerfully approach the Lord and ask for His confirmation.

Unfortunately (for the LDS Church) I have carefully and honestly gone through this process and arrived at a different conclusion than theirs.

[TAO]

I think one should use a number of tools in his search for truth.

One that comes to mind is a line from an LDS Hymn: "Truth is reason". So the facts (if they can be obtained) are important. "Study it out in your mind" as D&C suggests.

Does the "New revelation" harmonize with already canonized scripture?

And Yes, one should humbly, prayerfully approach the Lord and ask for His confirmation.

Unfortunately (for the LDS Church) I have carefully and honestly gone through this process and arrived at a different conclusion than theirs.

Well considering that information concerning the Book of Mormon is a mess (much based on opinion, not fact), it'd still stand to base it solely on the book, I'd say. Read it, ponder it, pray about it, and receive an answer, that I did. And that's how I know the truth.

Hmm.... truth is reason, but I tell you, it isn't logic. It's a reason, a justification; not reasoning, a process of explaining.

[Palerider]

Well considering that information concerning the Book of Mormon is a mess (much based on opinion, not fact), it'd still stand to base it solely on the book, I'd say. Read it, ponder it, pray about it, and receive an answer, that I did. And that's how I know the truth.

Hmm.... truth is reason, but I tell you, it isn't logic. It's a reason, a justification; not reasoning, a process of explaining.

You're a little cloudy on that last statement.

What on earth makes you think I haven't read The Book of Mormon? Many times in fact................

[TAO]

You're a little cloudy on that last statement.

What it means is that if you took reason to mean logic, you interpreted it wrong.

What on earth makes you think I haven't read The Book of Mormon? Many times in fact................

Didn't assume this. Merely though that basing it off of things outside of the book is rather ridiculous in my mind. Of course, my mind is rather different than most people's, so don't take it in a bad way. It is perfectly normal.

[Vance]

The capitol "A" is a rhetorical device I created and used to aid Mike in a quicker understanding of the arguement. When I wrote it I suspected that you might take it literally but, it was for his benefit not yours.

The arguement stands. And Paul did see the Savior. No reasonable person would actually argue that point.

The only thing that fell flat..............? You...............

Paul does claim to have seen the Lord, but considerably AFTER he was called to the apostleship.

No reasonable person would actually argue that point.

First account of Paul's theophany;

Act 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.

Second account of Paul's theopany;

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.

And then Paul adds this little tidbit, recounting what Ananias said. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

Third account of Paul's theopany;

Acts 26:13 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.

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.

Ananias told him that;

1) He would be "his witness", so not a "witness of" but rather a "witness for" him.

2) He was to witness or tell "all men of what thou hast seen and heard".

ALL three times Paul witnessed or told that he saw a light, and heard a voice. NEVER does he claim that he saw the Lord in his original theopany.

I don't understand why you anti-mormons just won't admit this.

[Vance]

Does the "New revelation" harmonize with already canonized scripture?

YES, it does, and more than any other churches doctrine I have heard of. Thanks for asking.

[Palerider]

Paul does claim to have seen the Lord, but considerably AFTER he was called to the apostleship.

No reasonable person would actually argue that point.

First account of Paul's theophany;

Act 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.

Second account of Paul's theopany;

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.

And then Paul adds this little tidbit, recounting what Ananias said. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

Third account of Paul's theopany;

Acts 26:13 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.

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.

Ananias told him that;

1) He would be "his witness", so not a "witness of" but rather a "witness for" him.

2) He was to witness or tell "all men of what thou hast seen and heard".

ALL three times Paul witnessed or told that he saw a light, and heard a voice. NEVER does he claim that he saw the Lord in his original theopany.

I don't understand why you anti-mormons just won't admit this.

Vance,

I'm not anti-Mormon and I resent the labeling. I didn't call you a cool-aid drinker or Bobble-head doll.

Regarding Paul, I think you have split that hair too many times. Don't demean yourself this way. It doesn't become you or represent your religion well.

[Vance]

Vance,

I'm not anti-Mormon and I resent the labeling. I didn't call you a cool-aid drinker or Bobble-head doll.

Regarding Paul, I think you have split that hair too many times. Don't demean yourself this way. It doesn't become you or represent your religion well.

Short version for you,

Paul was instructed to witness/tell what he had seen and heard. THREE times in the record he "witnessed"/told that he had seen a light and heard a voice. So either Paul saw only a light or he was disobedient to the Lord's (through Ananias) instructions.

I notice that rather than engage, you resort to ad hominem. I will take that as an implict admission of defeat.