New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[TAO]

I have a feeling that there is going to be a 'split the hair' contest here... the poor hair... it's feeling insulted...

[mrmendoza]

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............

As to the first question, I believe the answer is no, not in a literal sense, but we believe that in establishing his calling, and not believing that he fell from that calling, then we accept his authority as real. We also accept as a given, that he was given the authority to pass on through ordenation by the laying on of hands, the

apostleship. We believe that this how the Lord works with us today regardless of how it was in NT times!

As to your second question, I think that you have to remember that we are talking about things of the spirit here. While there has been much scholarly work that , while it hasn't proven beyond a doubt, still provides much compelling evedence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon. No I'm not going to provide you a litney of that evedence, but it's out there, and I'm sure that many of our more scholarly posters can do that for you if you insist.

But the point is that it is the spiritual witness that counts here. Even if we were able to prove beyond a doubt that the BOM was totatly acurate in every detail, there would be naysayers out there that would insist that Joseph somehow cheated in the bringing forth the BOM. As a matter of fact that's what a lot of them do even so!

So it is the spiritual witness of the BOM, when read and prayed about, that tells you that the book is true, and as such it verifys the spiritual witness of JSs calling!

I have thought about it, a lot over these last thirtysix years that I've been a member, and I thought about it a lot before I joined. And while I may not be the most educated apologist on this website, or anywhere for that matter, I know whereof I speak, even if I seem somewhat simplistic in my approach. I'm amazed by how much effort so many like you and Rob go through to do nothing more then to try and cast doubt in the minds of believers!

Having thought (pondered) about it and prayed over it for many years, and my testimony is sure!

Mike

[Vookman]

Rob,

I find your logic more than a little unsatisfying, since your argument depends upon apostles being eyewitnesses. The narrative of Luke for Acts seems pretty clear IMHO. Because Barnabas plays such a key role in the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles with Paul, he tells us enough to know about his faithfulness, when he is found in the Church, and what his activities were. By your argument, Paul, or Simon the sorcerer or Rhoda could have seen Jesus in their "pre-Biblical" life. In fact, this becomes a viable method to "prove" any argument for which data is explicitly lacking.

As for the Didache, the author, like the New Testament, makes no limitation on how long apostles and prophets would be roaming the face of the world. In fact, he assumes their continued presence, thus he provides simple rules for identifying true and false apostles and prophets.

This is perhaps the least viable argument against LDS authority claims I encounter, since it is so dependent upon a limited, selective reading and special interpretive rules of texts. For me, the force of the argument really folds back on non-LDS Christians who not only lack any claim to divine investiture of authority via hierarchical revelation, but actually seem to revel in it. No group of prophets to call and send teachers, whose authority is recognized by the entire body of believers, as we see in Acts 13 or 15.

Interesting topic. Thanks for getting me to study through it. Mormonism comes out looking more than a little good.

[USU78]

Our Jewish cousins call Saul/Paul The Liar, and, indeed, there is a cogent argument to be made that the Angel in Revelations is referring to Saul/Paul here:

Rev 2:2 And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars.

Saul/Paul and his Toady, Luke, the argument goes, wrest the Book of Acts from its original intended review of the lives of all of the original apostles and make it a Saul/Paul apologetic . . . and Saul/Paul's letters are self-serving and disingenuous on the subject of Saul/Paul's true position vis-a-vis Church leadership. Only Saul/Paul's Church trial and ordered penance (including his having to shave his head/beard as a public humilation and enforced payment of witnesses' travel expenses) is credible, the argument goes, not any grand confrontation between James and Saul/Paul or Peter and Saul/Paul where the latter has the upper hand and shames the "so-called Pillars" into seeing things his way. Galatians becomes, from this perspective, a big fat deception practiced upon observant and righteous Jewish Christians and proselytes.

Every time Saul/Paul claims "I lie not," the argument goes, you have to wonder why in the heck he has to be so assertive about the fact. Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't? Maybe just maybe he really was a vicious usurper and murderer. Maybe he is the Apostacy Incarnate.

Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master. JSJr's own vision of Saul/Paul was at best ambiguous and possibly less than positive. We have G-d's modern Prophets and Apostles, as well as our own mini-theophanies via Moroni's Promise. We don't care what short-term, short-lived procedures may have been employed in a single or arguably more instances anciently. G-d's continuing revelations to His servants during the Restoration (which remains ongoing) are of far more importance than quibbles over Matthias and whether Saul/Paul was a capital "A" or lower-case "a" or not an Apostle at all.

[Palerider]

Our Jewish cousins call Saul/Paul The Liar, and, indeed, there is a cogent argument to be made that the Angel in Revelations is referring to Saul/Paul here:

Saul/Paul and his Toady, Luke, the argument goes, wrest the Book of Acts from its original intended review of the lives of all of the original apostles and make it a Saul/Paul apologetic . . . and Saul/Paul's letters are self-serving and disingenuous on the subject of Saul/Paul's true position vis-a-vis Church leadership. Only Saul/Paul's Church trial and ordered penance (including his having to shave his head/beard as a public humilation and enforced payment of witnesses' travel expenses) is credible, the argument goes, not any grand confrontation between James and Saul/Paul or Peter and Saul/Paul where the latter has the upper hand and shames the "so-called Pillars" into seeing things his way. Galatians becomes, from this perspective, a big fat deception practiced upon observant and righteous Jewish Christians and proselytes.

Every time Saul/Paul claims "I lie not," the argument goes, you have to wonder why in the heck he has to be so assertive about the fact. Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't? Maybe just maybe he really was a vicious usurper and murderer. Maybe he is the Apostacy Incarnate.

Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master. JSJr's own vision of Saul/Paul was at best ambiguous and possibly less than positive. We have G-d's modern Prophets and Apostles, as well as our own mini-theophanies via Moroni's Promise. We don't care what short-term, short-lived procedures may have been employed in a single or arguably more instances anciently. G-d's continuing revelations to His servants during the Restoration (which remains ongoing) are of far more importance than quibbles over Matthias and whether Saul/Paul was a capital "A" or lower-case "a" or not an Apostle at all.

Interesting approach and I can see you have studied this out, but to condemn Paul because he couldn't "get his story straight" in light of the three different versions of Joseph Smith's "Theophany" is an Irony that I relish.

[Palerider]

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.

Take it however you wish, It won't make you right or happy........

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Your take on the apostle Paul is not compatible with the teachings of the LDS Church. Nor is it driven by historical concerns; rather, it is itself driven by polemical concerns. I see no reason to take it seriously in this context.

Our Jewish cousins call Saul/Paul The Liar, and, indeed, there is a cogent argument to be made that the Angel in Revelations is referring to Saul/Paul here:

Saul/Paul and his Toady, Luke, the argument goes, wrest the Book of Acts from its original intended review of the lives of all of the original apostles and make it a Saul/Paul apologetic . . . and Saul/Paul's letters are self-serving and disingenuous on the subject of Saul/Paul's true position vis-a-vis Church leadership. Only Saul/Paul's Church trial and ordered penance (including his having to shave his head/beard as a public humilation and enforced payment of witnesses' travel expenses) is credible, the argument goes, not any grand confrontation between James and Saul/Paul or Peter and Saul/Paul where the latter has the upper hand and shames the "so-called Pillars" into seeing things his way. Galatians becomes, from this perspective, a big fat deception practiced upon observant and righteous Jewish Christians and proselytes.

Every time Saul/Paul claims "I lie not," the argument goes, you have to wonder why in the heck he has to be so assertive about the fact. Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't? Maybe just maybe he really was a vicious usurper and murderer. Maybe he is the Apostacy Incarnate.

Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master. JSJr's own vision of Saul/Paul was at best ambiguous and possibly less than positive. We have G-d's modern Prophets and Apostles, as well as our own mini-theophanies via Moroni's Promise. We don't care what short-term, short-lived procedures may have been employed in a single or arguably more instances anciently. G-d's continuing revelations to His servants during the Restoration (which remains ongoing) are of far more importance than quibbles over Matthias and whether Saul/Paul was a capital "A" or lower-case "a" or not an Apostle at all.

[mrmendoza]

USU78,

Your take on the apostle Paul is not compatible with the teachings of the LDS Church. Nor is it driven by historical concerns; rather, it is itself driven by polemical concerns. I see no reason to take it seriously in this context.

I think (At least I hope) that USU78 was speaking "toung and cheek" there to emphisize how easy it is for non-believers to question, twist and try to destroy the credibility of those that believers look to as authorities! It sounded like a mishmash of all the things that are regularly said about Joseph Smith, including, as you pointed out Palerider the three versions of his theophony!

You're right this time Rob, it was totaly polemical in nature, but it proves our point that what can be said about one can be said, with equal riduclous effect, about all!

Mike

[USU78]

Interesting approach and I can see you have studied this out, but to condemn Paul because he couldn't "get his story straight" in light of the three different versions of Joseph Smith's "Theophany" is an Irony that I relish.

"You d@mn people are just like a bunch of d@mn chickens: I give you wheat and chaff, and all you do is eat the chaff!" -- Kimball

[USU78]

I think (At least I hope) that USU78 was speaking "toung and cheek" there to emphisize how easy it is for non-believers to question, twist and try to destroy the credibility of those that believers look to as authorities! It sounded like a mishmash of all the things that are regularly said about Joseph Smith, including, as you pointed out Palerider the three versions of his theophony!

You're right this time Rob, it was totaly polemical in nature, but it proves our point that what can be said about one can be said, with equal riduclous effect, about all!

Mike

Worse than that, Mr. M, RB disingenuously ignores that I was summarizing the Jewish argument against Saul/Paul, whom they see as one of the worst enemies the Jews have ever encountered in their very long list of black hats.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

There was nothing disingenuous about my comments. If you don't agree with that Jewish argument against Paul, what was your point in repeating it? What was the point of your writing, "Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't?" or "Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master." Here you seem to be endorsing the view of Paul you had summarized.

Worse than that, Mr. M, RB disingenuously ignores that I was summarizing the Jewish argument against Saul/Paul, whom they see as one of the worst enemies the Jews have ever encountered in their very long list of black hats.

[mrmendoza]

USU78,

There was nothing disingenuous about my comments. If you don't agree with that Jewish argument against Paul, what was your point in repeating it? What was the point of your writing, "Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't?" or "Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master." Here you seem to be endorsing the view of Paul you had summarized.

Again as I said, he was simply showing how easy it is to discredit those who would seek to alter your preceptions of what you've been brought up to believe.

What was the point of your writing, "Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't?" or "Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master." Here you seem to be endorsing the view of Paul you had summarized.

I would have to say that maybe that was a bit of "overkill", but I don't think that he was really endorsing anything. Just being a bit facitious(sp)! Of course I guess he can answer for himself.

Mike

[USU78]

USU78,

There was nothing disingenuous about my comments. If you don't agree with that Jewish argument against Paul, what was your point in repeating it? What was the point of your writing, "Maybe the Talmud writers knew something RB doesn't?" or "Happily, we Mormon types are untroubled by such arguments, one way or another, since our faith and our covenant with G-d don't rely upon a questionable probable Herodian Toady or distaff relation who can't get his own Theophany stories straight, let alone his later possibly fraudulent claims of face-to-face visitations with the Master." Here you seem to be endorsing the view of Paul you had summarized.

Silly RB: The whole point was that making so much out of a probably minor figure's offerings on various subjects is the problem here. Saul/Paul was at most arguably an apostle, but certainly was not someone whose opinions we ought to cherish more than James' or Peter's. His position is that of a subordinate to the very "Pillars" he so despises, and he had no business as a subordinate aggrandizing himself in his letters. Those are not the acts of a Christian. A Christian is humble and teachable. And a Christian is kind. Saul/Paul? Tough to make that case.

Since Saul/Paul is a subordinate and, therefore, minor figure, it's best we tread carefully in trying to reconstruct early Christianity from his preserved writings. Just because he was prolific (or that folks just happened to preserve his stuff and not others' letters and other writings) doesn't mean he was an actual authority and definitely doesn't necessarily make him right.

My point was obviously (since you appear to have missed my peroration) that continuing revelation on matters procedural is as important as matters doctrinal. There's only one place you're going to find it. And no amount of huffing is going to change the fact that no Evangelical claims revelation from G-d on the subject of procedure or doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You began:

Silly RB:

I am disappointed that this sort of personal denigration is tolerated, and sometimes even applauded, here.

You wrote:

The whole point was that making so much out of a probably minor figure's offerings on various subjects is the problem here. Saul/Paul was at most arguably an apostle, but certainly was not someone whose opinions we ought to cherish more than James' or Peter's.

Straw-man alert! I certainly never suggested that we ought to elevate Paul's views over those of James and Peter. All three were apostles, and the writings of all three in the NT are Scripture, equally the word of God.

You wrote:

His position is that of a subordinate to the very "Pillars" he so despises, and he had no business as a subordinate aggrandizing himself in his letters. Those are not the acts of a Christian. A Christian is humble and teachable. And a Christian is kind. Saul/Paul? Tough to make that case.

Since Saul/Paul is a subordinate and, therefore, minor figure, it's best we tread carefully in trying to reconstruct early Christianity from his preserved writings. Just because he was prolific (or that folks just happened to preserve his stuff and not others' letters and other writings) doesn't mean he was an actual authority and definitely doesn't necessarily make him right.

I stand by what I said previously, which your comments here confirm: what you say about Paul is not consistent with the teaching of your own religion.

You wrote:

My point was obviously (since you appear to have missed my peroration) that continuing revelation on matters procedural is as important as matters doctrinal. There's only one place you're going to find it. And no amount of huffing is going to change the fact that no Evangelical claims revelation from G-d on the subject of procedure or doctrine.

All the revelation in the world is of no value if it's bogus.

[USU78]

All the revelation in the world is of no value if it's bogus.

If you can't muster the respect merely to refer to JSJr's First Vision as a "theophany," as another critic/poster does in this thread, but rather choose to denigrate a fellow Christian community's spiritual offerings as "bogus," then I daresay there isn't much basis for conversation.

So we wonders, yes Precious we does, why are you here?

USU "Respectful is as respectful does" 78

[Ahab]

All the revelation in the world is of no value if it's bogus.

I suggest you focus on learning and teaching all that God has truly revealed in these latter days, and in earlier days, rather than focusing on learning and teaching bogus revelations from God.

We (LDS) want only the good stuff, and we know where to get it.

Get with the program.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

There are Mormons on this forum who don't take offense at honest criticisms and who understand that expressing one's negative conclusion about the other's religion is not the same thing as being disrespectful. I'm here to engage in civil yet spirited discourse with such persons.

If you can't muster the respect merely to refer to JSJr's First Vision as a "theophany," as another critic/poster does in this thread, but rather choose to denigrate a fellow Christian community's spiritual offerings as "bogus," then I daresay there isn't much basis for conversation.

So we wonders, yes Precious we does, why are you here?

USU "Respectful is as respectful does" 78

[USU78]

I'm here to engage in civil yet spirited discourse with such persons.

Saying another's most sacred beliefs are bogus = "civil yet spirited."

Gotcha.

Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Saying another's most sacred beliefs are bogus = "civil yet spirited."

Gotcha.

Thanks.

I have been told that as long as it is told in lurve it is ok.

So, the ends justify the means?

[cdowis]

If you can't muster the respect merely to refer to JSJr's First Vision as a "theophany," as another critic/poster does in this thread, but rather choose to denigrate a fellow Christian community's spiritual offerings as "bogus," then I daresay there isn't much basis for conversation.

So we wonders, yes Precious we does, why are you here?

This is not Social Hall, so I would expect such comments in an *apologetic forum*. Now you are free to ignore him, but don't be so thin skinned.

[USU78]

This is not Social Hall, so I would expect such comments in an *apologetic forum*. Now you are free to ignore him, but don't be so thin skinned.

Can't help it, Charlemagne, RB really bugs me since his actual production is so different from his claimed production hereabouts.

You plainly disagree. So there we are.

[Zakuska]

Can't help it, Charlemagne, RB really bugs me since his actual production is so different from his claimed production hereabouts.

You plainly disagree. So there we are.

I hear that Rob killed USU78's father.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Come on, lets cool down now!

Lets quit trying to take a word, and going a mile with it.

That's what the antis do.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Your religion officially denies that I am validly baptized, denies that I have the gift of the Holy Ghost, denies that I am authorized to preach the gospel, and denies that I am part of the church of Jesus Christ -- all simply on the grounds that I am not a Mormon. Your revered founder labeled my beliefs abominations, my view of God a monster, and on and on. Taking offense at my use of the term "bogus" to describe LDS revelations, given that context, comes off as whining.

Saying another's most sacred beliefs are bogus = "civil yet spirited."

Gotcha.

Thanks.

[USU78]

Your religion officially denies that I am validly baptized

True. Authority matters, the denials by protestants notwithstanding.

denies that I have the gift of the Holy Ghost

True. But that doesn't mean RB is never touched by Him.

denies that I am authorized to preach the gospel

True. Authority is a big deal, the denials by protestants notwithstanding.

denies that I am part of the church of Jesus Christ -- all simply on the grounds that I am not a Mormon.

False. I doubt very seriously that RB is a member of the "Great and Abominable" AntiChrist Church described in the BoM.

Your revered founder labeled my beliefs abominations

False. The Master labeled the "creeds" an abomination and the professors of those creeds "corrupt." JSJr was just the messenger.

my view of God a monster, and on and on.

False. Mistaken. Deceived. Not monstrous. Nobody ever says anything remotely like that . . . at least on this side of the aisle. Indeed, we don't even say that about Mohamed, which apparently bugs RB.

Taking offense at my use of the term "bogus" to describe LDS revelations, given that context, comes off as whining.

As does this thread, given the context. The evidence is far too fragmentary and the marshalling of such evidence as is extant in the primary sources so ad hoc that one cannot view the case RB makes in the OP as anything other than a "hurray for me."