What is the best evidence for Christianity?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This is the first post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

So I will begin by stating what I, as an informed unbeliever, think is the best evidence for Christianity.

1) The Bible Wheel: This is far and away the best evidence I have ever seen. It is a multifaceted body of evidence that simultaneously supports both the message of Scripture as well as specific collection of books that comprise it. It is the only objectively verifiable evidence that supports the 66 book canon as far as I know. It is of prime importance since Evangelical (Protestant) Christians assert that the Bible is their only authority, but have no way to objectively determine what books it should contain. Of course, the Bible Wheel is relatively unknown and has played little role in the faith of any Christians, so it's pretty irrelevant to the general question of why anyone should believe in Christianity.

2) Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple: Most Christians say that prophecy is the best evidence for the Bible, but that's not true at all. Most so-called "fulfilled prophecies" fall into two categories: 1) Fulfillments that could could have been just made up after the fact, such as the application of Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus (which in context has nothing to do with the Messiah), or the assertion that he was born in Bethlehem. 2) Prophecies that are too ambiguous and ill-defined to be understood with any certainty, such as the destruction of Babylon. The integrated prophetic complex centered on the Olivet Discourse, Daniel, and Revelation is different than most other prophecies. Daniel said that a "messiah" would come and die before the Temple was destroyed. Christ specifically predicted the destruction of the Temple and referenced Daniel. Revelation speaks of the destruction of the "Great Harlot" which is specifically identified as Jerusalem (Rev 11:8). Putting all these pieces together, I have concluded that this is far and away the best evidence of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. The joke is, of course, that the vast majority of Christians reject this evidence! I can't think of a greater irony. And that is why I don't find this line of evidence compelling.

3) Typological Prophecy: Many of the elements of the Gospel were anticipated in subtle ways in the Old Testament. The sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham's "only beloved son" in Genesis 22, the crucifixion in Psalm 22, Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine (elements of communion), the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, etc. It looks like the primary elements of the Gospel were "prepared" in the Old Testament. And as an aside, these elements have strong correlations with the Bible Wheel. But this evidence is only convincing to those who want to believe. It's not sufficiently objective because it involves a lot of interpretation.

It is important to note that arguments for the existence of God are pretty much irrelevant to Christianity because they apply only to the abstract concept of God which is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for the truth of Christianity.

Unfortunately, looking at my list I see that I have rather glibly rejected the kinds of "prophecies" that Christians take to be the best evidence for Christianity. But there is a reason for that. I truly do not believe that is the "best evidence" at all. And this has been confirmed by the fact that every time I have challenged "fulfilled prophecy" on this forum the conversation quickly proves that there is no objectively verifiable evidence that would convince a rational skeptic.

This brings up a variation on my theme. It is not just what I think is the best evidence, but I must also show an understanding of what Christians think is the best evidence. That brings us to another point:

4) The Witness of the Apostles: This involves the psychology of believers. "Why would the disciples die for a lie?" What explains the dramatic change from cowards to bold apostles?" And similar questions. I don't think this line of argument works at all because for two reasons. 1) It is based on a circular argument of assuming the Bible is true (that's where the testimony about the apostles comes from). 2) It is contradicted by evidence of modern religions where we see believers doing and saying all sorts of crazy things. Think of Mormonism and UFO cults where the believers all killed themselves to get on the spacecraft. There are a lot of crazy people in the world, especially in apocalyptic cults (like Christianity) so we cannot make any conclusions about the "truth" of their beliefs merely from their behavior.

5) The Empty Tomb: This is pure assertion backed up with a lot of words. There is no real evidence for it.

Well, that's enough for a start. If anyone thinks I have missed one of the best arguments, please post it.

Richard

[duxrow]

:typing:
Duxrow's 'Evidence for Christianity..' -- these 4 points 'for starters'..

1. BookEnds. Many have judged the Bible based on their casual read of some or a few of the books (and usually judged wrong IMO), but I'm convinced that all 66 books must be read and studied. Then, comparing Genesis to Revelation, we begin to see many common threads which argues against multiple authors, and against the ideas from before the Bible was published, (but FOR the Trinitarian Holy Ghostwriter, 2Pet1:21), and his purpose in "leading us into all truth", John 16:13.

2. Tropes. The Confounding of the Language in Gen11:7 leads to the 'speaking in an unknown tongue' in Acts2. Multiple allegories and figures of speech are involved, in Bibles from many countries, yet they all tell of Adam & Eve "having their eyes opened" by 'eating', as though they were newborn puppie dogs. (The inference is that we'll 'get our eyes opened' by reading the Word of God -- by 'eating' Jesus).

The multiple metaphors used for God, Jesus, Satan, the Saints, etc, add perplexity and ambiguity, just as a mystery author like Ellery Queen leaves out details until the closing chapters. (Don't know about E.Q. faith personally, but see humanity as a very diverse species having great imagination and 'gifts')

3. Patterns. Starting with the 'powers of 3' in the alignment of 39+27, we see many Number patterns (incl. Gen41:32 & Dan8:13). The 2K period from Adam to Moses; followed by a 2K period of the LAW for the Jew, and a 2K period for the Gentile, fits the pattern of 'Six days for Mankind', when a thousand years are as one day, 2Pet3:8. This pattern also fits the 'infant/children/adult' stage of LIFE, and the Two Covenants of Gal 4:24 get their due respect, or highlight.

4. Sowing/Reaping. It's clear to me that Jesus was the Seed sown at Calvary for the purpose of raising Sons (not referring to Leaven here..), and how all that agrees with God being a 'husbandman' (as well as a husband), who 'planted Jesus in the womb and tomb' just as Joseph in Egypt planted his personal cup in his brother Benjamin's sack.
It doesn't stop there (tho I'm going to..), but God planted a garden in Genesis, and He plans a harvest in Revelation, and for me: that's Gospel! :thumb:

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

If anyone thinks I have missed one of the best arguments, please post it.

Evidence for the Resurrection.

Fact, if there was no resurrection, there is no Christianity at all. The apostle Paul said very clearly in 1 Cor. 15:17 “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." He goes on to say "If we have hoped in Christ for this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” So the issue is very significant, did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? If he did then Christianity is a reasonable faith, and a solid reason to hold to it.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Evidence for the Resurrection. Fact, if there was no resurrection, there is no Christianity at all. The apostle Paul said very clearly in 1 Cor. 15:17 “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." He goes on to say "If we have hoped in Christ for this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” So the issue is very significant, did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? If he did then Christianity is a reasonable faith, and a solid reason to hold to it. God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry, :yo:

I agree that the historicity of the resurrection is of central importance for Christianity, but that's not the same as saying it is the "best evidence." I don't think it is evidence at all because there is no way for me to directly verify that it happened. I know, of course, that folks can make elaborate arguments for it, but those arguments are not and never have been convincing to me in the sense of "evidence." They are more like plausibility arguments based on a lot of questionable assumptions woven together with speculation. Such arguments are not what I'm talking about when I say "evidence." I've never seen an argument for the resurrection that would be sufficient to convince a rational skeptic.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:typing:
Duxrow's 'Evidence for Christianity..' -- these 4 points 'for starters'..

1. BookEnds. Many have judged the Bible based on their casual read of some or a few of the books (and usually judged wrong IMO), but I'm convinced that all 66 books must be read and studied. Then, comparing Genesis to Revelation, we begin to see many common threads which argues against multiple authors, and against the ideas from before the Bible was published, (but FOR the Trinitarian Holy Ghostwriter, 2Pet1:21), and his purpose in "leading us into all truth", John 16:13.

2. Tropes. The Confounding of the Language in Gen11:7 leads to the 'speaking in an unknown tongue' in Acts2. Multiple allegories and figures of speech are involved, in Bibles from many countries, yet they all tell of Adam & Eve "having their eyes opened" by 'eating', as though they were newborn puppie dogs. (The inference is that we'll 'get our eyes opened' by reading the Word of God -- by 'eating' Jesus).

The multiple metaphors used for God, Jesus, Satan, the Saints, etc, add perplexity and ambiguity, just as a mystery author like Ellery Queen leaves out details until the closing chapters. (Don't know about E.Q. faith personally, but see humanity as a very diverse species having great imagination and 'gifts')

3. Patterns. Starting with the 'powers of 3' in the alignment of 39+27, we see many Number patterns (incl. Gen41:32 & Dan8:13). The 2K period from Adam to Moses; followed by a 2K period of the LAW for the Jew, and a 2K period for the Gentile, fits the pattern of 'Six days for Mankind', when a thousand years are as one day, 2Pet3:8. This pattern also fits the 'infant/children/adult' stage of LIFE, and the Two Covenants of Gal 4:24 get their due respect, or highlight.

4. Sowing/Reaping. It's clear to me that Jesus was the Seed sown at Calvary for the purpose of raising Sons (not referring to Leaven here..), and how all that agrees with God being a 'husbandman' (as well as a husband), who 'planted Jesus in the womb and tomb' just as Joseph in Egypt planted his personal cup in his brother Benjamin's sack.
It doesn't stop there (tho I'm going to..), but God planted a garden in Genesis, and He plans a harvest in Revelation, and for me: that's Gospel! :thumb:
Good morning Bob, :tea:

I can understand how those four points might seem significant to you as an already convinced believer, but do you really think they are the "best evidence" to convince a rational skeptic of the truth of Christianity? In my opening post, I was talking about objectively verifiable evidence that would convince a rational skeptic. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

One of the problems with the points you present is that they are based on stories that almost certainly did not happen, such as the Tower of Babel and the creation of Adam six thousand years ago. Without good evidence for the historicity of those events, a rational skeptic must reject the arguments based upon them.

All the best,

Richard

[duxrow]

Good morning Bob, :tea:
I can understand how those four points might seem significant to you as an already convinced believer, but do you really think they are the "best evidence" to convince a rational skeptic of the truth of Christianity? In my opening post, I was talking about objectively verifiable evidence that would convince a rational skeptic. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

One of the problems with the points you present is that they are based on stories that almost certainly did not happen, such as the Tower of Babel and the creation of Adam six thousand years ago. Without good evidence for the historicity of those events, a rational skeptic must reject the arguments based upon them.
All the best,
Richard

:sEm_ImSorry:
Well, RAM, You may be beyond reach, since you won't accept the 2 thieves and 2 malefactors, or the 6 denials by Peter, or the 66 generations, and are oblivious then to the way the Holy Ghostwriter has infused the 7x9=63 cryptogram using the second Enoch and second Lamech to lead to the second Jabob, preceding Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Oblivious to the way Jude ignores protocol by referencing Enoch '7th from Adam', instead of Enoch 'son of Jared' or Enoch 'father of Methuselah'.

It's a paradox to me, how your Hebrew learning and Triple Acrostic has reversed your stance on the Bible. When the NT says those early times were "for our learning", and that "they were a school teacher" -- and about the different administrations and different operations, but the same LORD -- haven't you ever played a game where there was a 'time-out'? (plz no nonsequitur)

We know how America has gone from Columbus to space travel in under 500 years, but you're denying time for Adam and Eve to become a thriving ziggurat building nation, in over 1600 years! Maybe communist too. You think? :yo:

[sylvius]

the best evidence for Christianity

What exactly do you want to be proven?

Christianity is a given fact.






1) The Bible Wheel: This is far and away the best evidence I have ever seen.
Evidence of what?
Weren't you yourself the inventor of it?
Since you invented it the books had to fit in the wheel.



2) Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple: (...) Putting all these pieces together, I have concluded that this is far and away the best evidence of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.
I think it proves that the Gospels were written after the year 70.


3) Typological Prophecy: Many of the elements of the Gospel were anticipated in subtle ways in the Old Testament.
I think it is the other way round. New Testament is shaped after "the old".



what Christians think is the best evidence.

Gematria of "yom shishi".

[Twospirits]

Hey there Henry, :yo:

I agree that the historicity of the resurrection is of central importance for Christianity, but that's not the same as saying it is the "best evidence." I don't think it is evidence at all because there is no way for me to directly verify that it happened. I know, of course, that folks can make elaborate arguments for it, but those arguments are not and never have been convincing to me in the sense of "evidence." They are more like plausibility arguments based on a lot of questionable assumptions woven together with speculation. Such arguments are not what I'm talking about when I say "evidence." I've never seen an argument for the resurrection that would be sufficient to convince a rational skeptic.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

I brought up Resurrection because your #5 The Empty Tomb is tightly tied together with the Resurrection, which together helps establish the historical facts of both the empty tomb and the Resurrection which went on to establish Christianity. You really cannot separate the historical event of the Empty Tomb and the historical event of the Resurrection, they go hand in hand.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I brought up Resurrection because your #5 The Empty Tomb is tightly tied together with the Resurrection, which together helps establish the historical facts of both the empty tomb and the Resurrection which went on to establish Christianity. You really cannot separate the historical event of the Empty Tomb and the historical event of the Resurrection, they go hand in hand.

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry,

I agree. When I mentioned the "Empty Tomb" as point #5 in my OP, I was thinking of that as a reference to the resurrection. As stated in my comment on that point, I do not think that the resurrection is good evidence for Christianity because it is "pure assertion backed up with a lot of words. There is no real evidence for it." I know that sounds dismissive, but it is an honest statement of my personal evaluation of the strength of that argument. Even when I was a Christian, I never thought that the resurrection served as "good evidence" for Christianity because there was no direct evidence for it, and so the arguments depended upon a lot of assumptions and speculations about unknowns. And your conclusions are strongly challenged by the psychology of believers, as discussed in the other thread where you presented this argument. The argument is very weak because it ultimately depends upon the assumption that the Bible is true, which is the very thing we are supposed to be proving.

Do you understand why I think the "argument from the resurrection" is not very good evidence? It's not really evidence at all since there is nothing I can do to determine for sure if it really happened or not.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:sEm_ImSorry:
Well, RAM, You may be beyond reach, since you won't accept the 2 thieves and 2 malefactors, or the 6 denials by Peter, or the 66 generations, and are oblivious then to the way the Holy Ghostwriter has infused the 7x9=63 cryptogram using the second Enoch and second Lamech to lead to the second Jabob, preceding Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Oblivious to the way Jude ignores protocol by referencing Enoch '7th from Adam', instead of Enoch 'son of Jared' or Enoch 'father of Methuselah'.

It's a paradox to me, how your Hebrew learning and Triple Acrostic has reversed your stance on the Bible. When the NT says those early times were "for our learning", and that "they were a school teacher" -- and about the different administrations and different operations, but the same LORD -- haven't you ever played a game where there was a 'time-out'? (plz no nonsequitur)

We know how America has gone from Columbus to space travel in under 500 years, but you're denying time for Adam and Eve to become a thriving ziggurat building nation, in over 1600 years! Maybe communist too. You think? :yo:
Hey there Bob,

I am mystified by your comment that I might be "beyond reach" for rejecting your idiosyncratic interpretations. I have given you good reasons for my rejection of those things. The real mystery is why you continue to hold on to things that have been proven false. There are numerous problems with the 66 generations that you cannot answer. Your idea that the malefactors were different people than the thieves, and that there were four people crucified with Christ is obviously false because the words were merely synonyms for the same two people. And such things are "fringe" at best. They cannot serve as any kind of "evidence" that would convince a rational skeptic. Indeed, they wouldn't convince me even if I were still a believer.

The evidence of the Bible Wheel is entirely different. It is solid objectively verifiable evidence that no one has been able to refute after eleven years on the internet.

It was not my "Hebrew learning and Triple Acrostic" that "has reversed my stance on the Bible." On the contrary, the Bible Wheel remains the best evidence I have seen for the Bible. My stance was "reversed" when I began to admit what the Bible really says about God. I cannot believe that the Biblical record is true because it would make god into any irrational, brutal, Bronze age tribal war god. What's a man to do? I can't deny what I see. :dontknow:

I never denied that the population could grow from Adam and Eve "to a thriving ziggurat building nation, in over 1600 years." What are you talking about?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What exactly do you want to be proven?

Christianity is a given fact.

And Atheism is a "given fact." Does that mean it's true?

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the title of this thread. The topic is "What is the best evidence for the truth of Christianity?".




1) The Bible Wheel: This is far and away the best evidence I have ever seen.
Evidence of what?
Weren't you yourself the inventor of it?

Evidence for supernatural design of the Bible.

Yes, I was the one who "invented" it, though I feel it's more accurate to say that I "discovered" it. Only the initial act of "rolling up" the Bible was an "invention." Everything that followed from that singular act was "discovery."



Since you invented it the books had to fit in the wheel.

That's not true. The books either fit or don't fit. It has nothing to do with who discovered it.

I don't think you know anything about the Bible Wheel or the evidence that supports it.



I think it proves that the Gospels were written after the year 70.

Yes, that's the skeptical position, although many think that Mark was written around 66 AD when he could see what was coming down and so put the "prophecy" in the mouth of Jesus. And that's the weakness of this evidence. We don't know if the prophecies were written after the fact. But there is one exception - we know Daniel was written before the fact, and Daniel said a messiah would come, be "cut off" (karat - the word for "cutting a covenant"), and then the Temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed. No one can say that was written "after the fact." But they can dispute the meaning of the passage, and many if not most Christians reject it as evidence because they have invented a Futurist eschatology with a rebuilt temple that will be redesecrated and a "second coming of Elijah" to re-proclaim the second coming of Messiah .... bleh. So, given that the best evidence for the Bible is rejected by Christians, I must conclude that the evidence is not so good after all. But it's still the "best" - and that's what proves there is no reason to believe in Christianity.




3) Typological Prophecy: Many of the elements of the Gospel were anticipated in subtle ways in the Old Testament.
I think it is the other way round. New Testament is shaped after "the old".

OK - so you reject this evidence to. That's fine. I wonder, why do you believe anything in the Bible? Do you have any evidence at all, or do you just believe in whatever you want? The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Jesus?



Gematria of "yom shishi".
Ah, man ... I went to the Bible and tried to find "yom shishi" but it's not written! :bawl:

Excuse me ... I gotta go gather some wood ...

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

Do you understand why I think the "argument from the resurrection" is not very good evidence? It's not really evidence at all since there is nothing I can do to determine for sure if it really happened or not.


In any case let me present this article to you and the readers, to view, read and decide, thanks.

http://contendforthefaith2.com/res3.html

Evidence for the Resurrection.

The way historians determine the truth of an event is by weighing the evidence. A method commonly used today is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.

“The case will be established by three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these truths are so strong that they are accepted by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.


The three truths are:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.


To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?

First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity by saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.

Why is this important? Remember that the Jews were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."

Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.

Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that the burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. You see, Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as fraud's. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.

But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best.

Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.

Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!

Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."

I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town!

Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...”

It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."

Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ

Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But on this view, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie?

Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?

The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that! Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.

Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.

Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? There are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.

Could it have been Christian influences? Craig writes, "Since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later product of Christianity." Further, as we saw, if the disciples made it up, then they were frauds and liars--alternatives we have shown to be false. We have also shown the unlikeliness that they hallucinated this belief.

But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that these mystery religious had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century. Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example, one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions were abhorrent to God.

Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced the resurrection hypothesis.

So we see that if the resurrection did not happen, there is no plausible way to account for the origin of the Christian faith. We would be left with a third inexplicable mystery.

God bless---Twospirits

[duxrow]

:yes:

The real mystery is why you continue to hold on to things that have been proven false. There are numerous problems with the 66 generations that you cannot answer. Wrong. Your non-acceptance noted, but I have answered them. Doubt if you'll check, but they're on record.:p at http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm


Your idea that the malefactors were different people than the thieves, and that there were four people crucified with Christ is obviously false because the words were merely synonyms for the same two people. And such things are "fringe" at best. As I've said before, yeah it's fringe; but it puts a different slant on the POV, affecting other subjects.


My stance was "reversed" when I began to admit what the Bible really says about God. I cannot believe that the Biblical record is true because it would make god into any irrational, brutal, Bronze age tribal war god. What's a man to do? Sounds like you've been hearing from Rose. ha. Do you speak in tongues?

Ziggurat: There are different schools of thought concerning the Tower of Babel, because hardly anyone wants to take it literally at face-value; viz., that they were actually trying to build it high enough to reach heaven and the stars.

1. It was a ziggurat: an astronomical observatory for studying the stars, based on the zodiac (Hebrew 'mazzaroth', Job 38:32) of 12 constellations. A domain for astronomy or astrology.
2. That the people were concerned about another Flood, and wanted to build it high enough to exceed the high-water mark. But if that were so, why didn't they build it on high ground?
3. That it was purely symbolic to show that the people weren't following after God, and were only interested in making a name for themselves, with their 'common' conversation.
4. He didn't want them to be one, but wanted them to be divided, so He could separate out some to be peculiar people for himself.

So the Lord did confound their language, and that's when they left off building the tower and scattered into all the world; presumably to speak Chinese, Sanskrit, Swahili, etc. The narrative is curtly brief at this point, and doesn't furnish any details, so we can only surmise that they woke up one morning and couldn't make out what their neighbors were saying. Great shades of Pentecost! All those folks together, speaking the first polyglot.. :lol:

[duxrow]

:alien011:
The POV of the reader is important because
once you see how the Great Author has woven his Book into a mystery with clues scattered here and there, you have to appreciate the overwhelming skill and intricacy that's beyond men's capability (and aliens don't know the language) ha.
"The Foolishness of God", 1Cor1:25, will take a nuance providing many more humorous perspectives of scripture. :winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In any case let me present this article to you and the readers, to view, read and decide, thanks.

http://contendforthefaith2.com/res3.html

Evidence for the Resurrection.

The way historians determine the truth of an event is by weighing the evidence. A method commonly used today is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.

“The case will be established by three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these truths are so strong that they are accepted by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.


The three truths are:

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

Hey there Henry,

Thanks for posting this. I agree with the statements about historical evidence. I think that is a good approach. But there is one problem. The page you linked is to an anonymous site. I don't even know who wrote the article you linked. It is signed only with the initials "MP" and when I click on the home page there is nothing about who put up the site or who wrote the articles. I wonder why the author hides his identity. It makes it difficult to find out how his arguments have been received by others when I don't even know his name. And it's hard to take an anonymous argument seriously. But I'll try ...



To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?

First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

This argument is based on the assumption that the Biblical record fully accurate in all its details. But there are many problems with this assumption. First, it is the very thing we are supposed to be proving! This is why the "argument for the resurrection" is not a good argument for Christianity. It only works if we begin by assuming the conclusion.

Second, we know that the Bible cannot be true in all its details because it contains many contradictions. No rational skeptic could justify this assumption.

Third, the gospels are religious tracts with the express purpose of convincing people to become believers: "these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31) Would you accept the Mormon stories about Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph Smith and commissioning him to found the LDS church? No? Me neither. And so neither should we simply accept the Gospels, especially since they were written decades after the events they purport to describe. Consider the evidence for the dates of the Gospels from this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating):



Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism) to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-20)) view as follows:


Mark: c. 68–73,[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-Brown-21) c. 65–70[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-ReferenceB-22)
Matthew: c. 70–100.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-Brown-21) c. 80–85.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-ReferenceB-22)
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-Brown-21) c. 80–85[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-ReferenceB-22)
John: c. 90–100,[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-ReferenceB-22) c. 90–110,[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-23) The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus), generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64/5 that had such impact on the early church.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#cite_note-France-24) Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV_Study_Bible):


Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._T._Robinson), a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29).

I think John Robinson's argument for a pre-70 AD date of the entire NT is pretty good, but it doesn't solve the problem at hand. The Gospels do not look like accurate historical reports at all. On the contrary, they read more like historical novels because they are filled with detailed records of conversations that supposedly occurred some 20 to 50 years earlier. This presents all sorts of problems. How did the authors get their data? It sound like they were making up stuff. And how would we know if their report of a private conversation was accurate? There is no way at all for us to know. So this whole line of argument will never lead to any certainty about what really happened.

If you want to make rational arguments, you need to be a little skeptical. The case of the formation of a modern religion makes the problems very clear. Jospeh Smith founded his religion in the 1840s. They mythology of that religion concerning visitations from angels and Jesus Christ, the golden tablets (with 12 witnesses!), and all that crap were part of the religion from the beginning. Many of the people Smith talked to knew he was a con man, but that didn't stop him from spreading his lies and finding thousands of followers. If it weren't for the newspapers and other documents that prove he was a conman, we would be in the same situation as with Christianity. We would have no way to verify what really happened or why Joe Smith was willing to risk (and lose) his life for his lies. There is no reason to think that the foundation of Christianity was any different. We don't have hardly any documents from that period, and we know that the church destroyed and doctored many documents that would have been contrary to their religion.

If you really want to think about the formation of Christianity with honesty and truth, you will need to compare it with the foundation of Mormonism. A conman was able to get a huge following of people who then propagated his lies. There are now millions of them who "fervently believe" in Mormonism.



Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity by saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.

Why is this important? Remember that the Jews were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."

Hostile witnesses are indeed very good. But the Toledoth Yeshu doesn't qualify as a witness at all since it was written much too late to function that way. It contains no evidence that first century Jews believed the tomb was empty. Here is what the wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu) about it:


A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu#cite_note-Ben_Ezra-9) The earliest stratum of composition was probably in Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic). There are recensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recension) extant in Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew), and later versions in Judeo-Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Persian) and Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic) as well as Yiddish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish) and Ladino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladino_language) (Judeo-Spanish).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu#cite_note-gero-10)

The date of composition cannot be ascertained with certainty, but the earliest source is unlikely to be prior the 4th century, far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus. For instance, the Toledot refers to Christian festivals and observances that only originated after the 4th century.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu#cite_note-mass-12) It is unlikely that one person is the author, since the narrative itself has a number of different versions, which differ in terms of the story details and the attitude towards the central characters. Even individual versions seems to come from a number of storytellers.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu#cite_note-Judaica-0)

The fact that this "witness" is presented as if it were an authentic remembrance of first century Jewish thought without any mention of its late date shows that the author of the article is not trustworthy.

And the second "witness" is not even named! MP merely asserts "we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew." No rational skeptic could justify belief in the resurrection on these flimsy arguments.



Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.

This argument is fallacious for two reasons. First, it is based on the purely speculative "pre-Markan source" that is not even named. If he's referring to Q then we know it doesn't exist and so is purely speculative. His lack of detail on these critical points makes his arguments meaningless. Second, there could be any number of reasons the high priest was not named. It is absurd in the extreme to take a speculation like this as "evidence" for an early date of the tradition. No rational skeptic would use this as evidence for an early date.



Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that the burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. You see, Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as fraud's. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.

But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best.

There are a number of flaws in this argument. First, we have no way to know if there really was a member of the Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea. And even if there were, there is no reason to think that the Gospel writers weren't free to make up whatever they wanted. People do this every day. We saw this in the modern religion of Mormonism. The circulation of the Gospels was in the churches amongst believers, and believers are not known for being big on "fact checking" if you know what I mean. This is because "belief" is antithetical to skepticism. The argument that people can't go around making up stories is the most ridiculous assertion I could imagine. It reveals a profound depth of gullibility.



Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!

What a load of crap! The gospels are full of mythology. Walking on water. Turning water to wine. Casting demons into pigs. Etc., etc., etc.



Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."

Yes, this is a reasonable point, but it's nothing anyone could use to establish the truth of an extraordinary event like the resurrection.



I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town!

Why was Joseph Smith willing to risk his life for a lie? The psychology of believers answers these questions. But they are just speculation anyway, and that's speculation based on the assumption that the Bible is true. So this argument fails on multiple points.



Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:

This leads to more speculations about the motivations of characters in a story that may or may not have actually happened. It is pure vanity to think it could lead to any certain knowledge about the truth of Christianity.



Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? There are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.

That is absurd. Does the "existence of the Mormon church" give "strong proof" for its authenticity?

And it is absurd to assert that "the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave." The most skeptical scholars don't "admit" even that the disciples were all real people! John's Gospel doesn't even mention James who figures so prominently in the other three. Not one mention! How can John be considered "reliable history" if he doesn't even mention James?

CONCLUSION: The article gave no rational "evidence for the resurrection" that would justify the belief that it really happened.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:alien011:
The POV of the reader is important because
once you see how the Great Author has woven his Book into a mystery with clues scattered here and there, you have to appreciate the overwhelming skill and intricacy that's beyond men's capability (and aliens don't know the language) ha.
"The Foolishness of God", 1Cor1:25, will take a nuance providing many more humorous perspectives of scripture. :winking0071:
That is precisely the argument that Muslims give as proof of the Quran (http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=114432)!



The Quran is truly a living miracle. Going deeper into it, one finds amazing characteristics from every perspective.

The Arabs of the 6th and 7th centuries CE were masters of the Arabic language. Eloquence and rhetoric were their lifeblood. The liveliness that marked their gatherings, the gaiety of their fairs, and the virtues of which they boasted, all found expression through poetry and literature. They were so proud of their literary accomplishments that they disdainfully dubbed all the other peoples of the world as “’Ajam” or “Dumb.” It was in this atmosphere that there appeared on the scene an unlettered person, Muhammad. He presented before them an oration, and declared it to be the Word of Allaah, which claimed (what means):

“If mankind and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could never produce the like thereof, even if they backed up one another.” [Quran 17:88]

Such a proclamation was an amazing thing. It came from a person who had never learned anything from the renowned poets and scholars of the time, had never recited even a single piece of poetry in their congregations, and never attended the company of soothsayers. And far from composing any poetry himself, he did not even remember the verses of other poets. This proclamation, repeated several times in the Quran, was therefore the greatest challenge to their literary expertise, and at the same time a fatal stab at their polytheist creed and beliefs. Following this, a hush fell over the whole galaxy of these stirring orators and fiery poets. Not a soul stepped forward to accept the challenge of producing the like of the Quran. They persecuted the Prophet called him insane, a sorcerer, poet and soothsayer, but failed utterly in composing even a few sentences like the Quranic verses. To this day, the challenge has remained unmet, although throughout history and even in modern times, many people have made feeble attempts to do so.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yes:
Wrong. Your non-acceptance noted, but I have answered them. Doubt if you'll check, but they're on record.:p at http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm (http://www.cswnet.com/%7Eduxrow/webdoc5.htm)

You gave me nothing to "accept." You simply asserted that the Gospel of Luke is wrong when it includes the name Canaan in the genealogy of Jesus. That's not an "answer." That's a mere assertion, and if it is true that Luke was wrong, then why should we trust the rest of the genealogies which have all sorts of other problems?

Likewise, you asserted that Mary's father was named "Joseph" when the text actually refers to him as her "aner" which is never used for father. So again, your theory directly contradicts the text and you never gave a legitimate answer for this point. And there are other problems that you have just skipped over by declaring that no one can see the patterns unless the "Holy Ghostwriter" reveals them. If that's not an admission that the patterns are not really there, I don't know what is.



As I've said before, yeah it's fringe; but it puts a different slant on the POV, affecting other subjects.

Right. So you admit it doesn't serve as "evidence." That's what this thread is supposed to be about.




My stance was "reversed" when I began to admit what the Bible really says about God. I cannot believe that the Biblical record is true because it would make god into any irrational, brutal, Bronze age tribal war god. What's a man to do?
Sounds like you've been hearing from Rose. ha. Do you speak in tongues?

Ziggurat: There are different schools of thought concerning the Tower of Babel, because hardly anyone wants to take it literally at face-value; viz., that they were actually trying to build it high enough to reach heaven and the stars.

1. It was a ziggurat: an astronomical observatory for studying the stars, based on the zodiac (Hebrew 'mazzaroth', Job 38:32) of 12 constellations. A domain for astronomy or astrology.
2. That the people were concerned about another Flood, and wanted to build it high enough to exceed the high-water mark. But if that were so, why didn't they build it on high ground?
3. That it was purely symbolic to show that the people weren't following after God, and were only interested in making a name for themselves, with their 'common' conversation.
4. He didn't want them to be one, but wanted them to be divided, so He could separate out some to be peculiar people for himself.

So the Lord did confound their language, and that's when they left off building the tower and scattered into all the world; presumably to speak Chinese, Sanskrit, Swahili, etc. The narrative is curtly brief at this point, and doesn't furnish any details, so we can only surmise that they woke up one morning and couldn't make out what their neighbors were saying. Great shades of Pentecost! All those folks together, speaking the first polyglot.. :lol:
I think it makes perfect sense that they were trying to "reach the stars" because they thought that there was a solid dome firmament up there just beyond their reach ... if only they could climb a little higher.

The real problem with the story is that it is a false mythological account of the origin of language.

But let's not clutter this thread with all these fringe questions. This thread is for the BEST EVIDENCE for Christianity.

[jce]

Hi Richard

This is a very interesting thread and as usual, you deserve a "Thank-you" for your valuable skeptical contributions. As I read through the argument postulating reasons why the resurrection is difficult to refute, most of which you seem to reject, I wondered what could have happened to the body of Christ. It appears to me that one of the worst things that could have happened for the ruling Romans and Jews in this situation was the possibility that this body would disappear. It seems a foolish proposition that either of these powerful and influential groups would have been sloppy in their oversight of this concern. With that thought in mind, how could it have been stolen? And if it was not stolen... where did it go? It has disappeared completely from history.

So, I'm curious Richard, even with your predisposed bias against the story, you must have some idea as to what happened to the dead body of Christ? With all of the time you have had to consider this topic, you must have a rational, believable explanation, so please, by all means.... proceed.

Your friend and brother,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard

This is a very interesting thread and as usual, you deserve a "Thank-you" for your valuable skeptical contributions. As I read through the argument postulating reasons why the resurrection is difficult to refute, most of which you seem to reject, I wondered what could have happened to the body of Christ. It appears to me that one of the worst things that could have happened for the ruling Romans and Jews in this situation was the possibility that this body would disappear. It seems a foolish proposition that either of these powerful and influential groups would have been sloppy in their oversight of this concern. With that thought in mind, how could it have been stolen? And if it was not stolen... where did it go? It has disappeared completely from history.

So, I'm curious Richard, even with your predisposed bias against the story, you must have some idea as to what happened to the dead body of Christ? With all of the time you have had to consider this topic, you must have a rational, believable explanation, so please, by all means.... proceed.

Your friend and brother,

John
Hi John,

I appreciate the tone of your post. Thanks.

Your questions are based on assumptions I don't share. Your suggestion that "the ruling Romans" would have had an interest in the body of Jesus doesn't make any sense from an historical point of view. There is no record that they knew anything about him. How many criminals were crucified by the Romans? How much thought did they give to what happened to their bodies? It appears that you are basing your ideas upon the presumption that the Bible is true history. But if we begin with that presumption then our work is already done. If the Bible is simply assumed to be true without evidence then there is no need to "prove" the resurrection.

I'm surprised how many Christians seem to get this backwards. They think they are trying to prove Christianity by proving the resurrection, but they actually begin by assuming the truth of the Bible and so they haven't "proven" anything at all.

It's curious that you would say that I have a "predisposed bias against the story." What would make you think that? Did any of my answers show such a bias? If so, how? Personally, I think am taking a balanced skeptical approach - exactly the same as I would with Mormons and Muslims. If it seems "biased" to you it is probably because your religion is on the receiving end of my skepticism. If I questioned the authenticity of the book of Mormon or the Quran, would you feel I was biased?

So what happened to the body of Jesus? How could I have an opinion about that? The gospels were written decades after the events. Think of the claims made by Mormons. Their religion was made up out of whole cloth. The founders of that religion lied through their teeth. So the presumption that the records "must be true" because folks couldn't go around making up stuff is a false presumption. Now there is no need to think that the early Christians were as bad as the Mormons, but then again, we have no evidence they were any different than the founders of any other religion. All we have to go on is their own words about the "miraculous" birth of their own religion. In that sense, they are identical to Mormons. Joseph Smith told stories about Jesus appearing to him and angels and the golden plates. So if you wonder why folks are skeptical of Christian claims, all you need to do is ask yourself why you are skeptical of Mormon claims.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Timmy]

Hello again Rich! amigo... bon ami

...and out of the blue, the man from the purple sky enters the picture briefly, not so much to skirt the issues as to give a full fledged les than half a wooden pence comment in regards to True truth seeking.

It's not recalled if it were the lues of Captain Morgan...or if it was Jack Sparrow, or old Redbeard or some other notorious mariner where the quote of there being only two ruLes to living came from but the general concept stands firm as these two rules are irrefutable:


1. THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN [not] DO
and
2. THERE ARE THINGS YOU CANNOT DO...
(yet the questions remain, "Who is to say which is which and why or why not?")

...and from the fringe arena in the B.W.F. Acropolis, the thread (started by yours truly) "???HOOZ WIFF US IN DISS???", post #8, the youtube vid, "In The Garden Of Allah" seems to say it all so suscintly.
(Go to about the 5 minute mark and listen from there if interested: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/search.php?searchid=43667)t

So, what is reality and the nature of nothing therein?
Timmy's stumped; but just because of that, please don't dress me up as a fire hydrant and take me to a dog show.




Anyway, oh Big Kahuna, in response to your queries in this thread, just read, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

This is the man from the purple sky
having checked in,
signing out
for the time being

....and it is strongly agreed that it isn't arguing a point from an individuated perspective that progresses anyone further down the path toward light shining in the mind. Actually, it is wisdom that can see things from as many possible ramifications of perspective as can be found...and yet...well, just read the new sig. line.


AYR,
Timmy bin Laden

[sylvius]

Hey there Henry,

(...)

There are a number of flaws in this argument. First, we have no way to know if there really was a member of the Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea. And even if there were, there is no reason to think that the Gospel writers weren't free to make up whatever they wanted. People do this every day. We saw this in the modern religion of Mormonism. The circulation of the Gospels was in the churches amongst believers, and believers are not known for being big on "fact checking" if you know what I mean. This is because "belief" is antithetical to skepticism. The argument that people can't go around making up stories is the most ridiculous assertion I could imagine. It reveals a profound depth of gullibility.




I do assume Mark is the original synoptic, also in his mentioning of Joseph of Arimathea.

Mark never mentions the name Joseph as being Jesus's (step)father, like Matthew and Luke do.

So I do think Mark is the "inventor" of Joseph of Arimathea as "father" of the resurrected Jesus, he being the one to put Jesus's body in the grave as kind of a womb.
So called after Joseph son of Jacob and after Elkanah, "a certain man from Ramathaim" (1Samuel 1:1), father of Samuel.
Mark adds that "he was expecting the kingdom of God".

cf. 1Corinthians 15:37-38,
And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body

[David M]

Hello again Rich! amigo... bon ami
Anyway, oh Big Kahuna, in response to your queries in this thread, just read, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
AYR,
Timmy bin Laden

Hello Timmy

Thank you for your reference to the book. Via another link, I was just reading an article by Josh McDowell, so I was interested to look for the book title you name. For those interested, the book can be found on-line at: http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidence.html I have read part, but not all before posting this reply.

BTW Timmy, I have read your other posts though I have not got around to writing a reply. Your one post on how "we" the proletariat set up and allow governments to rule over us and we become slaves to the dictates of a few and in some cases one dictator, is interesting. I need time to think of a suitable response, but I appreciate what you are saying.

Re Tesla, He is credited with many inventions and a being a genius, but as to power generation no-one has proven (as far as I know) his theories. We should all be able to generate our own electricity or 'the state' should be able to generate electricity for "free" once the generators have been built, but this has not happened. Of course, the reason this has not happened causes all sorts of conspiracy theories. If we could all generate our own electricity for the cost of the equipment to do so, that would put an enormous amount of power (energy) into the hands of terrorists who would not use that energy for peaceful purposes. It is just as well if Tesla's theoretical machines can never be made or the world would have something to panic about.
All the best,

David

[Timmy]

Hello Timmy
ALOHA!


Thank you for your reference to the book. Via another link, I was just reading an article by Josh McDowell, so I was interested to look for the book title you name. For those interested, the book can be found on-line at: http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidence.html I have read part, but not all before posting this reply.
You are quite welcome, bon ami. Josh M. seems to have covered so many of the angles that once were questions to me and certainly has said more than a mouthful concerning the issues debated and perpetrated in this thread (and many others). It was not even consiodered to check for it online as i have the hardcopy, so thanks for the link bro!


BTW Timmy, I have read your other posts though I have not got around to writing a reply. Your one post on how "we" the proletariat set up and allow governments to rule over us and we become slaves to the dictates of a few and in some cases one dictator, is interesting. I need time to think of a suitable response, but I appreciate what you are saying.

Is that a nice way of saying, "There are problems with your analysis Timmy?"

From current perspective, humans have become pack animals an this figures into "The Mystery Of Iniquity" as God has given us the whole earth to be fruitful and multiply upon, yet how much of it is inhabited? (Here, this phenomena figures into the confusion of the languages at the Tower of Bavel, and even the percecution of the first church in "Yeru-Shalom."

Oh the repercussions of going our own humanly devised ways are right there to see in the history books...repeat after repeat ad infinitum.


Re Tesla, He is credited with many inventions and a being a genius, but as to power generation no-one has proven (as far as I know) his theories. We should all be able to generate our own electricity or 'the state' should be able to generate electricity for "free" once the generators have been built, but this has not happened. Of course, the reason this has not happened causes all sorts of conspiracy theories. If we could all generate our own electricity for the cost of the equipment to do so, that would put an enormous amount of power (energy) into the hands of terrorists who would not use that energy for peaceful purposes. It is just as well if Tesla's theoretical machines can never be made or the world would have something to panic about.
Ya' know, there are a few things i have found through Tesla's ingenuity, and in kind, there is no felt need whatsoever to prove any of it, save that if it works, use it.
For example,running it in reverse, the Tesla coil is actually better used extracting radian electrical current from the air rather than creating huge sparks look like mini-lightning bolts?
???Was this one of his jokes on the general public???
One secret that becomes obvious from reading all his texts and working through several of his known patented schematics, the guy had an innate understanding of light: the way it moves, functions, and affects life as we currently misunderstand it. (Everything is spinning in circles, and only because of our foolish archaic notions of symetry we try to make everything with straight lines.)


This windgen work is first towards the EU... and this being the case, the system being developed is meant to be low profile and totally operational just by plugging in without the need for additional gizmos, what-cha-ma-call-its, widgets or thing-a-ma-jigs. (North American Mains power is sleightly varied from European operating at 60 hertz AND FAR HIGHER VOLTAGE.)

Having taken Europe by storm, Amerika is next...with just a few simple variations in stepping-down the electrical output.

If one does it themselves, the costs are reduced so considerably, it can and most likely will create a greater expense to the independent tying into the grid.
( The first generator built here was simply from parts of electrical devices freely given from other peoples so called "TRASH.")
Technological illiteracy seems to abound in the case of the masses soothed to indolence and lulled into hypnotic routines by the empty promises and token care packages of their leaders.

As far as terrorists are concerned, presently, there are far fewer of them than us...and it's considered here that this scenarioc ideation fits into the whole socio-political schemata of which is intended to find needful assistance in becoming obsolete in the first place. (What will terrorists terrorize when there is no central figurehead anyway?)

The notion of panic seems far fetched when the various modes of power are removed from the hands of the few.

Extracate thyself and see...and by all means, continue questioning everything.

There is no sense in downing, dumping on, or even trying to correct the current systems of jurisdiction and government. It has never worked.

The only way to fix it is to flush it all away...that applies to the accepted system of logic behind moreso than what are it's observable manifestations.




All the best,

David

DITTO!
Timmy

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello again Rich! amigo... bon ami

...and out of the blue, the man from the purple sky enters the picture briefly, not so much to skirt the issues as to give a full fledged les than half a wooden pence comment in regards to True truth seeking.

Bon ami! Such a wonderful greeting. :hug:

Speaking of the "man from the purple sky" - I resemble that remark. Here is my Official Rainbow Omniform I wore at last years Rainbow Gathering here in Washington State:

495



It's not recalled if it were the lues of Captain Morgan...or if it was Jack Sparrow, or old Redbeard or some other notorious mariner where the quote of there being only two ruLes to living came from but the general concept stands firm as these two rules are irrefutable:


1. THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN [not] DO
and
2. THERE ARE THINGS YOU CANNOT DO...


(yet the questions remain, "Who is to say which is which and why or why not?")

...and from the fringe arena in the B.W.F. Acropolis, the thread (started by yours truly) "???HOOZ WIFF US IN DISS???", post #8, the youtube vid, "In The Garden Of Allah" seems to say it all so suscintly.
(Go to about the 5 minute mark and listen from there if interested: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/search.php?searchid=43667)t

So, what is reality and the nature of nothing therein?
Timmy's stumped; but just because of that, please don't dress me up as a fire hydrant and take me to a dog show.

Beginning with the presumption that those are the two possibilities, the distinction seems to be not lost in confusion but verily standing on the very precipice of clarity. Specifically, the things you "CANNOT DO" are those things that are impossible, whereas the things you "CAN [not] DO" are those things where choice would be the only prohibiting factor.

And now for the $64,000 Q: What's your point?



Anyway, oh Big Kahuna, in response to your queries in this thread, just read, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

Thou most assuredly must be kidding the self that is mine. Have you read that book? Do you think it could withstand a sneeze from my humble intellect? If so, please present but one argument - the cream o' the crap - and let me present you with a full scatological analysis of what it containeth within its quivering bowels.

But before you tease me by tossing such easily digestible raw meat at my feet, you may want to see what some other humble intellects have done with his book. Every chapter of the book has been thoroughly reviewed by skeptics who don't share the presumptions that blind people to the problems in the Bible. The articles are collected under the rubric of The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/). Note the use of "scare quotes" around the word "evidence." I think that pretty much tells you the nature of their verdict.





Introduction (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/intro.html) (1997) by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/) Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict (hereafter, "ETDAV") is arguably one of the most influential Christian apologetic books today. The purpose of Jury shall be to evaluate how well it does.
Chapter 1. The Uniqueness of the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/unique.html) (1997) by Farrell Till (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/) In ETDAV, McDowell begins his defense of the Bible with the claim that it is unique. He parades before us an array of "scholars" to testify to various features of the Bible that qualify it to be considered "different from all others" [books], as if anyone would seriously try to deny that the Bible is unique, i.e., different from all others. At the very beginning of my analysis of this chapter of ETDAV, I will concede that the Bible is undeniably unique. Certainly, there is no other book like it, but this fact, as we will see, becomes more of an embarrassment to the Bible than proof of its divine origin.
Chapter 3. The Canon of the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html) (1999) by Larry Taylor (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/) A critical reply to chapter three of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
Chapter 4. Reliability and Belief (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html) (1999) by James Still (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/) In this essay, the author reacts to Josh McDowell's Chapter 4 entitled "Reliability of the Bible" in his book ETDAV. He first distinguishes between Pauline faith and McDowell's insistence that the Bible reveals historically true propositions, which the author calls the "reliability doctrine." McDowell's reliability doctrine is then examined from three perspectives: biblical criticism, archaeology, and philosophy. The author concludes that the gospel narratives are not to be understood as factually true propositions of history, but rather they communicate the theological meaning of faith in Christ.
Chapter 5. Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus: Is It Reliable? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html) (2000) by Jeffery Jay Lowder (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/) In the fifth chapter of ETDAV entitled, "Jesus--A Man of History," Josh McDowell lists a series of "sources for the historicity of Jesus." According to the table of contents of ETDAV, this chapter lists "documented sources of the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth apart from the Bible." In this chapter I shall consider each of McDowell's sources. Although I agree with McDowell that there was a historical Jesus, I shall argue that most of McDowell's sources do not provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
Chapter 6. A Rejoinder to "Jesus - God's Son" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/son.html) (1997) by Robert M. Price (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/) Virtually all the rest of McDowell's sixth chapter is taken up with defending what no one challenges: that various New Testament writers believed Jesus Christ was a heavenly being come to earth. That McDowell can for a moment imagine that such scripture prooftexting even begins to address the objections of nonbelievers shows once again that he really has no intention of engaging them. He is simply a cheer-leader for fundamentalism, preaching to the choir.
Chapter 7. The Trilemma - Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html) (1995) by Jim Perry (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/) A critique of chapter seven of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
Chapter 8. The Great Preposterous (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/preposterous.html) (1997) by Robert M. Price (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/) If anyone needed further proof that apologetics as practiced by Josh McDowell is merely an exercise in after-the-fact rationalization of beliefs held on prior emotional grounds, I welcome him to Chapter 8 of ETDAV. One can only say again that McDowell is the worst enemy of his own faith: with defenders like this, who needs attackers? The more seriously one takes him as a representative of his faith, the more seriously one will be tempted to thrust Christianity aside as a tissue of grotesque absurdities capable of commending itself only to fools and bigots.
Chapter 9. Did "Top Psychics" Predict Jesus? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/psychics.html) (1999) by Robert M. Price (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/) As I will try to show in this article, defenders of the fundamentalist Christian faith, like Josh McDowell, have in fact lost the luxury of an easy appeal to fulfilled prophecy even if they remain stubbornly oblivious of the advances of modern biblical scholarship; this is because biblical scholarship has thrown their appeals to the "proof from prophecy" so seriously into question that their task is now to defend it, no longer to use it as a powerful defense for something else, i.e., the true messiahship of Jesus. Any appeal to "proof from prophecy" today only lengthens the line of defense rather than shortening it.
Chapter 10. Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/) (2004) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/) [ Index ] As a historian with a good knowledge of Greek, Richard Carrier is finally qualified to make a professional judgement in the matter. Now the fifth edition of a project that began in 1998, this essay explains why he finds the Resurrection to be an unconvincing argument for becoming a Christian.
Chapter 11. Critique of Josh McDowell's Non-Messianic Prophecies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_carr/non-messianic.html) (n.d.) by Steven Carr (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_carr/) 'Sceptics' are not interested in bashing the Bible as such. They use the Bible and contemporary documents which shed light on the Bible to try to find out what was really happening, what the Biblical writers really meant to say. If it turns out that they were divinely inspired prophets, then that would be accepted. It just so happens that they weren't and the archeological evidence discovered this century and the Biblical texts themselves show that they weren't.
Chapter 12. The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/experience.html) (1999) by Edward T. Babinski (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/) In his chapter on "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" (a chapter that McDowell or his editorial staff chose to delete from the latest edition of ETDAV (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/newetdav.html)), he made a variety of sweeping claims about the "Christian Experience," and also argued for the uniqueness of the Christian experience in history, but McDowell did not investigate history very deeply, nor the lives and writings of the Christians whom he cited, some of whom came to hold different views on a wide variety of theological subjects. Lastly, McDowell seems to have only examined superficially his own youthful conversion experience (any reasonable analysis of which would seem to confirm how young and emotionally unstable he was when he converted).



I would be very interested if you can find any legitimate refutations of these articles. The upper right corner of the page itself contains a series of links to an interaction with the maniacal self-caricature of a cartoon-apologist Bob Turkel (who changed his name to the monumental "James Patrick Holding" apparently because his primary apologetic schtick is to mock the names of his opponents, which doesn't work so well if your own name is "Turkel") has REMOVED the linked "refutation" from his site. I found this out when the intelligent and honest critics put a link to his "refutation" which is now dead. But you can get a pretty good idea of the kind of drooling dreck that Turkel spewed out by reading the highly intelligent responses by the skeptics that are still online. It is interesting to note that Turkel himself puts no links to the articles he refutes, whereas his opponents always do. And just to be sure that no one can ever see the crap he wrote, he put a robot.txt file on his site that stops the Wayback Machine from crawling it (link (http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tektonics.org))! Talk about "evidence that demands a verdict." Turkel is anything but honest. And he is anything but reputable scholar or apologist by any stretch of that term.



This is the man from the purple sky
having checked in,
signing out
for the time being

....and it is strongly agreed that it isn't arguing a point from an individuated perspective that progresses anyone further down the path toward light shining in the mind. Actually, it is wisdom that can see things from as many possible ramifications of perspective as can be found...and yet...well, just read the new sig. line.


AYR,
Timmy bin Laden
"it is wisdom that can see things from as many possible ramifications of perspective as can be found" - very well stated! The poverty of fundamentalism is that it constrains the mind to a single point of view. It's like having a one-pixel camera. A healthy mind should be able to hold millions of points of view, all in a "dynamic tension" that holds open the "eye" like a portal to reality.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I do assume Mark is the original synoptic, also in his mentioning of Joseph of Arimathea.

Mark never mentions the name Joseph as being Jesus's (step)father, like Matthew and Luke do.

So I do think Mark is the "inventor" of Joseph of Arimathea as "father" of the resurrected Jesus, he being the one to put Jesus's body in the grave as kind of a womb.
So called after Joseph son of Jacob and after Elkanah, "a certain man from Ramathaim" (1Samuel 1:1), father of Samuel.
Mark adds that "he was expecting the kingdom of God".

cf. 1Corinthians 15:37-38,
And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body
Most scholars agree that Mark is the earliest. But it's really hard to establish with any certainty. It's all based on presumptions and speculations.

I've noticed that your reference Mark a lot. Personally, that makes no sense to me. If the other Gospels and Paul's writings and the book of Hebrews are all suspect, why believe any of it? You have never answered this question. I don't even know why you believe in the Old Testament.

Where did you get the idea that Joseph of Arimathea was the "father of Jesus"? I've never heard that before.

[Timmy]

Bon ami! Such a wonderful greeting. :hug:
Good friend? Why not?
Though we could possibly hit it off as birds of a feather, time constraints hinder this one from more interaction here if anywhere else in cyberspace save looking up remembered music on youtube.


Speaking of the "man from the purple sky" - I resemble that remark. Here is my Official Rainbow Omniform I wore at last years Rainbow Gathering here in Washington State:

495


Beginning with the presumption that those are the two possibilities, the distinction seems to be not lost in confusion but verily standing on the very precipice of clarity. Specifically, the things you "CANNOT DO" are those things that are impossible, whereas the things you "CAN [not] DO" are those things where choice would be the only prohibiting factor.

And now for the $64,000 Q: What's your point?
EXACTLY !!!

Have you ever watched "The Princess Bride" and note the fellow who repeatedly states "INCONCEIVABLE?"



Thou most assuredly must be kidding the self that is mine. Have you read that book? Do you think it could withstand a sneeze from my humble intellect? If so, please present but one argument - the cream o' the crap - and let me present you with a full scatological analysis of what it containeth within its quivering bowels.

But before you tease me by tossing such easily digestible raw meat at my feet, you may want to see what some other humble intellects have done with his book. Every chapter of the book has been thoroughly reviewed by skeptics who don't share the presumptions that blind people to the problems in the Bible. The articles are collected under the rubric of The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/). Note the use of "scare quotes" around the word "evidence." I think that pretty much tells you the nature of their verdict.
Oh my, and the request was not to be dressed up as a fire hydrant.
We deserve it.




I would be very interested if you can find any legitimate refutations of these articles. The upper right corner of the page itself contains a series of links to an interaction with the maniacal self-caricature of a cartoon-apologist Bob Turkel (who changed his name to the monumental "James Patrick Holding" apparently because his primary apologetic schtick is to mock the names of his opponents, which doesn't work so well if your own name is "Turkel") has REMOVED the linked "refutation" from his site. I found this out when the intelligent and honest critics put a link to his "refutation" which is now dead. But you can get a pretty good idea of the kind of drooling dreck that Turkel spewed out by reading the highly intelligent responses by the skeptics that are still online. It is interesting to note that Turkel himself puts no links to the articles he refutes, whereas his opponents always do. And just to be sure that no one can ever see the crap he wrote, he put a robot.txt file on his site that stops the Wayback Machine from crawling it (link (http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tektonics.org))! Talk about "evidence that demands a verdict." Turkel is anything but honest. And he is anything but reputable scholar or apologist by any stretch of that term.
Yes, it has been read twice, yet we prefer Ravi Zacharias as apologist.
Man you are taking me to the dogshow now...because your throwing down the guntlet and working through this material presently is just not going to happen or alter current schedules. Me and my big mouth; yet me, my selfs, and my i would be interested in your critique rather than us sidestepping to "skeptics who don't share the presumptions that blind people to the problems in the Bible."

...anyway...
:fencing:
<<<TOUCHE'>>>


"it is wisdom that can see things from as many possible ramifications of perspective as can be found" - very well stated! The poverty of fundamentalism is that it constrains the mind to a single point of view. It's like having a one-pixel camera. A healthy mind should be able to hold millions of points of view, all in a "dynamic tension" that holds open the "eye" like a portal to reality.

You have perked interst enough to tar the info provided nd read through it as time permits though. This page will be copied and sometime in the near or distant future it is desired to be discussed.

Yes, the perspective of ETDAV appears to be slanted: agreed. However, infidels have much in common with those who adhere to fundament. They both tend pick out the points of disagreement, center on those things tending to ignore what cannot be disagreed with.

i never said i knew what i did not know and i never said i did not know what i did not know.

Loosely Exacting
and
oxymoronically awaiting if not a sneeze, a wiffle.


Thank you,
Timmy
p.s. If there are exceptions to every rule, it follows that there are rules to every exception. This allows for the inclusional fact that there are exceptions to the rules of exception as well.

[sylvius]

Where did you get the idea that Joseph of Arimathea was the "father of Jesus"? I've never heard that before.

Father of the resurrected Jesus.

As a respected member of the council he was reponsible for Jesus's death. (Mark 14:64)

The name Joseph meaning: "May Hashem add to me another son" (Genesis 30:24).

The place of Hashem being the entrance of sabbath, where was added a "hey" to "shishi".

"hey" like kind of a seed, the seed of the sower, the quintessence of Joseph's measures in Egypt:
Genesis 47:23, הֵא לָכֶם זֶרַע, "hey lachem zèra", "hey is seed for you".

Egypt being the sphere of duality, twoness, like expressed in the name Mitsrayim, a (pseudo-)dualis-form, like also Ramatayim, the double Ramah.

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”


Elkanah, "a certain man from Ramatayim" (1Samuel 1:1), became the father of Samuel, the prophet who anointed David.

Jesus being Christ (anointed one) only through his death and resurrection.

(Mark 14:8, She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.)

[David M]

Originally Posted by The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"


•Chapter 10. Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (2004) by Richard Carrier [ Index ] As a historian with a good knowledge of Greek, Richard Carrier is finally qualified to make a professional judgment in the matter. Now the fifth edition of a project that began in 1998, this essay explains why he finds the Resurrection to be an unconvincing argument for becoming a Christian.

Hello Richard

I have read a little from the links you provided and selected the one above to comment on as an example, as this is the most relevant to the topic under discussion here. Have you critiqued the work of Richard Carrier in the same way as you hold every Christian to account on this forum? Are you using works like this to support your own reason to disbelieve everything you once believed in? I think if you rubbished the arguments of Richard Carrier and all the other opponents of McDowell, you might be taking a more honest and open approach to searching for truth. Reading works such as this one is such a waste of my time and that is why I think it is futile reading the works of self-proclaimed professionals who want to be spiritually blind.

Carrier is not answering the questions in the way the McDowell does. Carrier uses a lot of words like "probably" "it seems". All he is doing is attempting to cast doubt rather than give factual answers, and what evidence he presents is couched in ways which are dishonest. Here is one extract to illustrate my point (so others do not have to waste their time) and I will not be reading anymore of his writings just to find I cannot accept what he says.


Yet Paul never mentions Jesus having been resurrected in the flesh. He never mentions empty tombs, physical appearances, or the ascension of Jesus into heaven afterward (i.e. when Paul mentions the ascension, he never ties it to appearances in this way, and never distinguishes it from the resurrection event itself). In Galatians 1 he tells us that he first met Jesus in a "revelation" on the road to Damascus, not in the flesh, and the Book of Acts gives several embellished accounts of this event that all clearly reflect not any tradition of a physical encounter, but a startling vision (a light and a voice, nothing more).[26] Then in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reports that all the original eye-witnesses--Peter, James, the Twelve Disciples, and hundreds of others--saw Jesus in essentially the same way Paul did. The only difference, he says, was that they saw it before him. He then goes on to build an elaborate description of how the body that dies is not the body that rises, that the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and how the resurrected body is a new, spiritual body. All this seems good evidence that Paul did not believe in the resurrection of a corpse, but something fundamentally different.[27]

Carrier mentions much of what Paul "did not" do and is avoiding the things Paul "did" do and teach. Of course Carrier is using Paul's words in a way to support his case. What "seems good evidence" to Carrier is not good evidence at all.

It is a false statement that the 500 people alive at the time of Paul saw Jesus the same way as Paul did. Jesus spoke to Paul, did Jesus speak to those people individually or was Jesus just see of them in his physical form? As McDowell says, those 500 people were alive and Paul's readers could go and search them out and ask if what Paul was saying was true. Carrier is saying that 500 people all had hallucinatory visions at the same time, and this has already been explained as inconceivable. And why would so many have hallucinated when they had no expectation of Jesus rising from the dead?

All of Paul's faith rested on this one point; "Jesus crucified" and that implies from all other writings of Paul that he believed Jesus was raised from the dead. Without this hope of the same resurrection, as Paul says; "if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" Resurrection and the life to come in the kingdom of God on earth was Paul's belief and hope and it is the same hope that is throughout the Old Testament because it is the same "hope of Israel" that Paul expressed.

This is what we read later in this same chapter 1 Corinthians 15 written by Paul:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?


Paul's central belief is that Christ (the Saviour) is risen from the dead and will be the same for Paul and others who confess that Jesus is the Son of God. Paul speaks of Jesus handing back the kingdom. Paul's understanding would be the same as that taught by Jesus that the kingdom of God is upon the earth, hence this is where Jesus has to come and reign till sin and death are done away with and then Jesus becomes subject to his Heavenly Father haven given up the power God gave him to accomplish Jesus' work (evidence that Jesus cannot be equal with God).

Failure to appreciate the whole of Paul's' writings and understand what Paul believed is what gives rise to works like Carrier in attempting to diminish Paul's writings. Paul was privileged to have had a special revelation from God after his road to Damascus revelation of Jesus. Paul was a special Apostle chosen by God to spread God's word to the Gentiles. Not to attempt to understand the importance and truth of Paul's writings as the inspired word coming from God (because of the revelations God made to Paul) is a BIG mistake. Why would God choose Paul and give Paul and inconsistent message to give to the Gentiles? It would make no sense, so those who do not look for the consistent and coherent message of God in Paul's writings are making a grave error.

Richard, I implore you to stop promoting this literature and reason everything out yourself from the Bible. Mixing the Bible up with intellectuals like Carrier who do not have the spiritual eyes (filters) to recognize the truth of God's word is preventin you being the free-thinker you say you are. This is why I am not wasting my time reading anymore of the links you have given. Everything you produce like this as evidence to support your case, I am rejecting, so it will be futile presenting any other works of men to me in replies to my posts.

Let's see how we get on when you begin to reason things out more clearly for yourself from the Bible, and not believe in the same way as people like Carrier.

Its all my opinion about Carrier, so let see who draws the same conclusions as I do..

Regards

David

[Twospirits]

David M wrote,

Hello Richard

I have read a little from the links you provided and selected the one above to comment on as an example, as this is the most relevant to the topic under discussion here. Have you critiqued the work of Richard Carrier in the same way as you hold every Christian to account on this forum? Are you using works like this to support your own reason to disbelieve everything you once believed in? I think if you rubbished the arguments of Richard Carrier and all the other opponents of McDowell, you might be taking a more honest and open approach to searching for truth. Reading works such as this one is such a waste of my time and that is why I think it is futile reading the works of self-proclaimed professionals who want to be spiritually blind.

Carrier is not answering the questions in the way the McDowell does. Carrier uses a lot of words like "probably" "it seems". All he is doing is attempting to cast doubt rather than give factual answers, and what evidence he presents is couched in ways which are dishonest.

Hi David,

So true, the opponents of the Bible give much opinion and speculation with no written evidence to bolster their empty allegations. With regard to the New Testament there are NO extant personal letters, copies of personal letters, or official documents from the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century from eyewitnesses that dispute that Jesus was born, lived, and died according to the details of the widely circulated gospels. Such a lack of refutation is all but inconceivable if all the Messianic details had been fictionalized by the apostles.

Let me put this question to the skeptic: Where are the thousands of extant Old Testament scrolls that have built up over the centuries showing that the earliest scrolls did not have prophecies but that the prophecies were only added into the latest ones? Where are the thousands of extant letters from the residents (the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc.) of Jerusalem to their friends and families in other countries debunking the growing legend about the man named Jesus who had supposedly lived, performed miracles, died, and resurrected in their home town?

As for the real Bible, the thousands of its genuine extant copies and fragments all demonstrate the same thing: it has remained consistent and unchanged in content from Moses until today.

Skeptics do not like the Bible as evidence, because it demonstrates a supernatural origin. Skeptics have a presupposition that the supernatural does not and cannot exist. Therefore, they cannot investigate whether any evidence demonstrates the supernatural or not because they have predetermined that anything that demonstrates the supernatural is already false. They have drawn their conclusion before they have done the investigation and so they cannot and will not allow any evidence that could lead to a possible conclusion that the Bible is a book of supernatural revelation. One cannot perform an investigation if one has already rejected all outcomes they do not desire.

God bless---Twospirits

[jce]

Hi John,

I appreciate the tone of your post. Thanks.

The provocative invitation was intended to generate a brilliant counter point. Evidently I missed the mark, or else you were simply out of creative ideas as to the question, "what happened to the body of Christ?". On the other hand, I commend you for your patience and mental endurance keeping up with everything going on here.

You really do quite well for a formally educated hippie chap!!!:yo:


So what happened to the body of Jesus? How could I have an opinion about that?

How could you not? The eternal implications of His resurrection from the grave, demonstrating the reality of life beyond the grave, should elicit at the very least, an opinion. How can you discount the resurrection as "not believable" with no opinion on an alternative explanation?


The gospels were written decades after the events.

Does that disqualify them from being historical?


Think of the claims made by Mormons. Their religion was made up out of whole cloth. The founders of that religion lied through their teeth. So the presumption that the records "must be true" because folks couldn't go around making up stuff is a false presumption. Now there is no need to think that the early Christians were as bad as the Mormons, but then again, we have no evidence they were any different than the founders of any other religion. All we have to go on is their own words about the "miraculous" birth of their own religion. In that sense, they are identical to Mormons. Joseph Smith told stories about Jesus appearing to him and angels and the golden plates. So if you wonder why folks are skeptical of Christian claims, all you need to do is ask yourself why you are skeptical of Mormon claims.

The Book of Mormon could not withstand the depth of ongoing scrutiny that has been applied to the New Testament over the last 1500 years.

I have more to add regarding your stated reasons to dismiss the accounts of history's witnesses who beheld the living resurrected Christ based on the suggestion that they were all experiencing identical psychological problems simultaneously, but will leave that for another post in the interest of brevity here.


Great chatting!

Richard

Your friend and evangelical bio-brother,

John

PS: Cool pic of you at the Rainbow Gathering.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You really do quite well for a formally educated hippie chap!!!:yo:

I resemble that remark!

:hippie:

Thanks for the kind words. I very much appreciate your posts and that you are willing to "go the distance" with me.




So what happened to the body of Jesus? How could I have an opinion about that?
How could you not? The eternal implications of His resurrection from the grave, demonstrating the reality of life beyond the grave, should elicit at the very least, an opinion. How can you discount the resurrection as "not believable" with no opinion on an alternative explanation?

I explained "how I could not." The assertions of any religion would have "eternal implications" if true. I don't have an opinion about what happened to the body of Jesus because there is insufficient historical evidence for me to form such an opinion, like I explained.




The gospels were written decades after the events.
Does that disqualify them from being historical?

No. But it does mean that they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." There were no newspapers or fact-checkers putting any limitations on them. That's the error in the argument for the resurrection. Apologists say that the Gospels accounts must be true because the apostles were walking around Jerusalem immediately after Christ died proclaiming that he rose from the dead, and that they could not have done this if the tomb were not really empty. This whole argument rests upon the assumption that the Biblical record is true and the disciples really did that. But the record was not written until decades after the supposed events, so there was nothing stopping them from just making up stuff like every other religion. Indeed, Joe Smith made up crap that could (and was) easily contradicted by his contemporaries. Did this stop him from writing the crap? Did it stop him from gathering a huge followers who believed his crap? No. And today there are millions of Mormons despite the fact that it is so easily refuted. So if you want this argument to work, you will have to tell me what would have stopped the writers of the Gospels from making up crap just like every other religion.



The Book of Mormon could not withstand the depth of ongoing scrutiny that has been applied to the New Testament over the last 1500 years.

What makes you think the New Testament has "withstood" anything? I think it has been proven false just like the book of Mormon.



I have more to add regarding your stated reasons to dismiss the accounts of history's witnesses who beheld the living resurrected Christ based on the suggestion that they were all experiencing identical psychological problems simultaneously, but will leave that for another post in the interest of brevity here.

I never said anything about them "experiencing identical psychological problems simultaneously." If you argue against that point, you will be doing nothing but burning a straw man. You need to address the actual arguments that I have presented.



Your friend and evangelical bio-brother,

John

PS: Cool pic of you at the Rainbow Gathering.
Yeah, that was a great time. :sunny:

Great chatting bio-bro! I love working with you on these questions.

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

No. But it does mean that they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." There were no newspapers or fact-checkers putting any limitations on them. That's the error in the argument for the resurrection. Apologists say that the Gospels accounts must be true because the apostles were walking around Jerusalem immediately after Christ died proclaiming that he rose from the dead, and that they could not have done this if the tomb were not really empty. This whole argument rests upon the assumption that the Biblical record is true and the disciples really did that. But the record was not written until decades after the supposed events, so there was nothing stopping them from just making up stuff like every other religion. Indeed, Joe Smith made up crap that could (and was) easily contradicted by his contemporaries. Did this stop him from writing the crap? Did it stop him from gathering a huge followers who believed his crap? No. And today there are millions of Mormons despite the fact that it is so easily refuted. So if you want this argument to work, you will have to tell me what would have stopped the writers of the Gospels from making up crap just like every other religion.

Hi Richard,

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth and lies or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that 1 Corinthians was written about 55 A.D. Making this writing about 25 years after Christ's resurrection. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3-8 about the witnesses who saw Christ after his resurrection. Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.

God bless---Twospirits

[jce]

Hi Richard,

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth and lies or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that 1 Corinthians was written about 55 A.D. Making this writing about 25 years after Christ's resurrection. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3-8 about the witnesses who saw Christ after his resurrection. Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.

God bless---Twospirits

Well stated Twospirits!

God's best to you!

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I have read a little from the links you provided and selected the one above to comment on as an example, as this is the most relevant to the topic under discussion here. Have you critiqued the work of Richard Carrier in the same way as you hold every Christian to account on this forum? Are you using works like this to support your own reason to disbelieve everything you once believed in? I think if you rubbished the arguments of Richard Carrier and all the other opponents of McDowell, you might be taking a more honest and open approach to searching for truth. Reading works such as this one is such a waste of my time and that is why I think it is futile reading the works of self-proclaimed professionals who want to be spiritually blind.


Hey there David,

Thanks for taking time to work with me on this. Your contribution is very valuable. But I must take exception to your implicit assumption when you asked "Have you critiqued the work of Richard Carrier in the same way as you hold every Christian to account on this forum?" That question implies that I do not hold myself to the same standards as others. I thought you knew me better than that. I hold myself and everyone to the same standards. And I trust that you will hold my feet to the fire if I fall from this high standard.



Carrier is not answering the questions in the way the McDowell does. Carrier uses a lot of words like "probably" "it seems". All he is doing is attempting to cast doubt rather than give factual answers, and what evidence he presents is couched in ways which are dishonest. Here is one extract to illustrate my point (so others do not have to waste their time) and I will not be reading anymore of his writings just to find I cannot accept what he says.


Yet Paul never mentions Jesus having been resurrected in the flesh. He never mentions empty tombs, physical appearances, or the ascension of Jesus into heaven afterward (i.e. when Paul mentions the ascension, he never ties it to appearances in this way, and never distinguishes it from the resurrection event itself). In Galatians 1 he tells us that he first met Jesus in a "revelation" on the road to Damascus, not in the flesh, and the Book of Acts gives several embellished accounts of this event that all clearly reflect not any tradition of a physical encounter, but a startling vision (a light and a voice, nothing more).[26] Then in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reports that all the original eye-witnesses--Peter, James, the Twelve Disciples, and hundreds of others--saw Jesus in essentially the same way Paul did. The only difference, he says, was that they saw it before him. He then goes on to build an elaborate description of how the body that dies is not the body that rises, that the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and how the resurrected body is a new, spiritual body. All this seems good evidence that Paul did not believe in the resurrection of a corpse, but something fundamentally different.[27]

Carrier mentions much of what Paul "did not" do and is avoiding the things Paul "did" do and teach. Of course Carrier is using Paul's words in a way to support his case. What "seems good evidence" to Carrier is not good evidence at all.

It is a false statement that the 500 people alive at the time of Paul saw Jesus the same way as Paul did. Jesus spoke to Paul, did Jesus speak to those people individually or was Jesus just see of them in his physical form? As McDowell says, those 500 people were alive and Paul's readers could go and search them out and ask if what Paul was saying was true. Carrier is saying that 500 people all had hallucinatory visions at the same time, and this has already been explained as inconceivable. And why would so many have hallucinated when they had no expectation of Jesus rising from the dead?

David, it is a very serious accusation to say that Carrier was being "dishonest." Such charges should be avoided if you cannot support them since they could backfire and make you appear to be the one who is dishonest.

Carrier gave good reasons for his assertion that there "seems good evidence that Paul did not believe in the resurrection of a corpse, but something fundamentally different." He admits it is a speculation, but so is everything else concerning this topic so that can't be counted against him. The question about the meaning of the resurrection didn't even originate with him. You need to educate yourself about the history of the interpretation of the meaning of the resurrection. A good place to start would be with Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/080280053X/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=thebibwhe-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=am1&creativeASIN=080280053X&adid=08NY7G3HKWHRDP0VTS4S&) by Murray Harris. He was the professor of New Testament Exegesis and Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL. He discusses the same points as Carrier and confirms that Carriers argument is perfectly legitimate though not conclusive by any means. Believing scholars have been speculating and debating along these lines for many years. I see no problem with his argument. It may not pan out, but it certainly is not "dishonest." Personally, I consider it quite irrelevant relative to the larger issues at hand which can be settled with certainty (as opposed to nit-picking speculative arguments).

So let's get to the real issues. Carrier is just a man. I don't care about him. I care about the argument he presented which I believe is quite powerful. I'm speaking of his main argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html) on his first page. I independently formulated a very similar argument. Simply stated, people are free to make up crap without any fear of any "fact checkers" because they are not trying to convince the fact checkers. They are trying to get converts. Joe Smith made up a mountain of crap that his contemporaries knew was crap. Did that stop him from writing it? No. Did it stop him from getting many followers? No. How is this different than Christianity? The history of religion in general is a mountain of crap as I think you well know. People make up whatever they want. Why then should we believe it? Here is a snippet of Carrier's main argument. My highlights in red:


. In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't.[1 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html#1)]

As David Hume once said, why do such things not happen now?[2 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html#2)] Is it a coincidence that the very time when these things no longer happen is the same time that we have the means and methods to check them in the light of science and careful investigation? I've never seen monsters spring from a tree, and I don't know anyone who has, and there are no women touring the country transmuting matter or levitating ships. These events look like tall tales, sound like tall tales, and smell like tall tales. Odds are, they're tall tales.

But we should try to be more specific in our reasons, and not rely solely on common sense impressions. And there are specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve, and they are the same reasons we have to doubt the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus. For the parallel is clear: the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of their main character--and more likely many decades later--than was the case for the account of Genevieve; and like that account, the Gospels were also originally anonymous--the names now attached to them were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were actually written. Both contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by numerous people. Both belong to the same genre of literature: what we call a "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such literature was also a tool of propaganda, used to promote certain moral or religious views, and to oppose different points of view. The life of Genevieve, for example, was written to combat Arianism. The canonical Gospels, on the other hand, appear to combat various forms of proto-Gnosticism. So being skeptical of what they say is sensible from the start.[3 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html#3)]

It is certainly reasonable to doubt the resurrection of Jesus in the flesh, an event placed some time between 26 and 36 A.D. For this we have only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing, and entirely pro-Christian. Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention the religion, in 110 A.D., but he doesn't mention the resurrection. No non-Christian mentions the resurrection until many decades later--Lucian, a critic of superstition, was the first, writing in the mid-2nd century, and likely getting his information from Christian sources. So the evidence is not what any historian would consider good.

This is the real argument that you need to refute. Speculations about the meaning of the resurrection in Paul's writings will never lead to any certainty. Even believers cannot agree! I'm not interested in writing a mountain of words about a topic that cannot be established with certainty. We need to keep our eye on the ball because there is too much detail and not enough time.



Richard, I implore you to stop promoting this literature and reason everything out yourself from the Bible. Mixing the Bible up with intellectuals like Carrier who do not have the spiritual eyes (filters) to recognize the truth of God's word is preventin you being the free-thinker you say you are. This is why I am not wasting my time reading anymore of the links you have given. Everything you produce like this as evidence to support your case, I am rejecting, so it will be futile presenting any other works of men to me in replies to my posts.

Thank you for your fervent words. I take them in the spirit intended. But I can't agree that I am "blinded" by anything. If that were true, you would be able to say "Look at this!" and if I said "Look at what?" then you could say I was blind. But as it is, I believe I can see everything you see.

There is no need to read those articles I linked. If you would like to defend Evidence that Demands a Verdict, I would be happy to reply directly to what you write.



Let's see how we get on when you begin to reason things out more clearly for yourself from the Bible, and not believe in the same way as people like Carrier.

Your continued assertion that I am not reasoning "clearly" is starting to grate on me, my friend. Please refrain from saying that without including the specific reference to the error in my logic. Empty assertions don't help anything.

All the very best to you,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth and lies or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that 1 Corinthians was written about 55 A.D. Making this writing about 25 years after Christ's resurrection. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3-8 about the witnesses who saw Christ after his resurrection. Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry, :yo:

There is a simple test to see if your argument is true. We need only apply it to the book of Mormon:


Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Joseph Smith's crap was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's crap. So let us argue from Joseph Smith's crap. Either that crap contains myth and lies or it does not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that Joseph Smith's crap was written about 1840 A.D. Making his writing concurrent with his own crap. If his crap is not myth, then neither is any of the other crap written by Mormons, for Joe Smith affirms all the main claims found in all the other Mormon crap.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when Joseph Smith wrote his crap who could testify whether any of it was true. Joe Smith writes about the witnesses who saw the Golden Tablets after they were revealed by the angel Moroni. Joe Smith says there were 12 witnesses, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.


I trust that clears things up.

Richard

[jce]

Hey there Henry, :yo:

There is a simple test to see if your argument is true. We need only apply it to the book of Mormon:


Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Joseph Smith's crap was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's crap. So let us argue from Joseph Smith's crap. Either that crap contains myth and lies or it does not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that Joseph Smith's crap was written about 1840 A.D. Making his writing concurrent with his own crap. If his crap is not myth, then neither is any of the other crap written by Mormons, for Joe Smith affirms all the main claims found in all the other Mormon crap.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when Joseph Smith wrote his crap who could testify whether any of it was true. Joe Smith writes about the witnesses who saw the Golden Tablets after they were revealed by the angel Moroni. Joe Smith says there were 12 witnesses, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.


I trust that clears things up.

Richard

Richard, you have a way of turning things around that initially, seem very convincing, however, if one takes time to analyze some of your arguments, flaws begin to surface. In this case there is an important omission. To illustrate, think about this... The Book of Mormon was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Bible. Because the witness and testimony of the Bible was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Smith was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance. Things are not much different today when you see the phony faith healers raking in cash by constructing profitable schemes on the Biblical foundation. Ironically, such faith exhibited by believers is both it's strength and weakness.

How far do you think Smith would have gotten had he invented something altogether new and completely disconnected from the Bible?

Does this make sense to you?

It's always a challenge to counter your arguments.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, you have a way of turning things around that initially, seem very convincing, however, if one takes time to analyze some of your arguments, flaws begin to surface. In this case there is an important omission. To illustrate, think about this... The Book of Mormon was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Bible. Because the witness and testimony of the Bible was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Smith was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance. Things are not much different today when you see the phony faith healers raking in cash by constructing profitable schemes on the Biblical foundation. Ironically, such faith exhibited by believers is both it's strength and weakness.

How far do you think Smith would have gotten had he invented something altogether new and completely disconnected from the Bible?

Does this make sense to you?

It's always a challenge to counter your arguments.

John
Hi John,

I'm always very pleased when you seek to find flaws in my arguments. But I don't think it worked this time. To see why, all we need to do is replace Joseph Smith and the Bible with Paul and the Old Testament. The scenarios are essentially identical:
The Gospel of Paul was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Old Testament. Because the witness and testimony of the Old Testament was already accepted by a broad range of believers [Jews], Paul was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance. Things are not much different today when you see the phony faith healers raking in cash by constructing profitable schemes on the Biblical foundation. Ironically, such faith exhibited by believers is both it's strength and weakness.

Imagine you were a Jew. This is exactly how you would understand Christianity. They see Christianity the way Christians see Mormonism - as an heretical innovation of a faith that had already existed for thousands of years.

I see no flaw in my argument.

Richard

[weeder]

Simply stated, people are free to make up crap without any fear of any "fact checkers" because they are not trying to convince the fact checkers. They are trying to get converts. Joe Smith made up a mountain of crap that his contemporaries knew was crap. Did that stop him from writing it? No. Did it stop him from getting many followers? No. How is this different than Christianity? Richard

I agree that joe made up a lot of crap, but Apostle Paul didnt make up anything.
He was trying to convice the fact checkers,( fellow Jews) by applying their and his own Scriptures as relating to the events of Jesus life and ministry.


“So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. 21 For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death. 22 So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; 23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

24 While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.” 25 But Paul *said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. 26 For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.” 28 Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 And Paul said, “I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains.”

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree that joe made up a lot of crap, but Apostle Paul didnt make up anything.

He was trying to convice the fact checkers,( fellow Jews) by applying their and his own Scriptures as relating to the events of Jesus life and ministry.

“So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. 21 For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death. 22 So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; 23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

24 While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.” 25 But Paul *said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. 26 For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.” 28 Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 And Paul said, “I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains.”


Hey there weeder,

I can see why you might think the passage from Acts is relevant, but Paul did not actually present any evidence to Agrippa that could have been challenged like the empty tomb. The text you quoted fits perfectly with what John (jce) said about Joseph Smith. Paul said "nothing" that was not already established in the Old Testament Scriptures that the Jews accepted. Here is what John said about Joseph Smith:
The Book of Mormon was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Bible. Because the witness and testimony of the Bible was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Smith was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance. Things are not much different today when you see the phony faith healers raking in cash by constructing profitable schemes on the Biblical foundation. Ironically, such faith exhibited by believers is both it's strength and weakness.

How far do you think Smith would have gotten had he invented something altogether new and completely disconnected from the Bible?

And here are the same words applied to the Apostle Paul:
The Gospel of Paul was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Old Testament. Because the witness and testimony of the Old Testament was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Paul was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance. Things are not much different today when you see the phony faith healers raking in cash by constructing profitable schemes on the Biblical foundation. Ironically, such faith exhibited by believers is both it's strength and weakness.

How far do you think Paul would have gotten had he invented something altogether new and completely disconnected from the Old Testament?

I don't see any difference between Paul and Joseph Smith in this regard. Do you?

And again, it is very important to note that Paul did not make any evidential claims about things like the empty tomb that could have been disputed by witnesses. He merely asserted that his doctrine was consistent with the existing Scriptures, just like Joseph Smith. And like Joseph Smith, Paul began by asserting that he had a VISION from God. He made no evidential claims at all.

Great chatting! I really appreciate your contributions to our discussions.

Richard

[weeder]

I don't see any difference between Paul and Joseph Smith in this regard. Do you?

And again, it is very important to note that Paul did not make any evidential claims about things like the empty tomb that could have been disputed by witnesses. He merely asserted that his doctrine was consistent with the existing Scriptures, just like Joseph Smith. And like Joseph Smith, Paul began by asserting that he had a VISION from God. He made no evidential claims at all.

Great chatting! I really appreciate your contributions to our discussions.

Richard

:yo:
Hmm, I see a big difference between Paul and joe. One had a vision of Jesus, the other an angel who is nowhere mentioned in scripture.
One builds on a foundation already established,( see lk 24) while the other introduces another set of writings.
One teaches that Jesus is the only begotten of God while the other claims that Jesus was satans brother.:eek:

Paul is faithful to the NT idea that Jesus is the one promised in scripture.



Lk 24---Jesus said,
44 Now He said to them, “ These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “ Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo:
Hmm, I see a big difference between Paul and joe. One had a vision of Jesus, the other an angel who is nowhere mentioned in scripture.
One builds on a foundation already established,( see lk 24) while the other introduces another set of writings.
One teaches that Jesus is the only begotten of God while the other claims that Jesus was satans brother.:eek:

Paul is faithful to the NT idea that Jesus is the one promised in scripture.

Lk 24---Jesus said,
44 Now He said to them, “ These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “ Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

Where you see difference, I see similarity.

weeder: One builds on a foundation already established,( see lk 24) while the other introduces another set of writings.
Richard: Both (Paul / Joe) build on a foundation already established,(OT / Bible) and both introduces another set of writings (Paul's letters / book of Mormon).

[David M]

Your continued assertion that I am not reasoning "clearly" is starting to grate on me, my friend. Please refrain from saying that without including the specific reference to the error in my logic. Empty assertions don't help anything.

All the very best to you,

Richard

Good morning Richard

Sorry if what I say is beginning to grate on you. However, the way you continually claim everything to do with the Bible is "made up" and you have not presented much reasoning from the Bible or accept anything is true and no-one has proof that satisfies you, is beginning to grate on me also. Maybe it is time for me to put an end to this cycle which I wrote of doing in another post.

It is a very narrow approach I take, and putting the validity of the Bible to one side for a moment, what has to be established first is the meaning of each verse and passage. As I have recently explained in another post; even if 10% of the Bible has errors, the remaining 90% that does not have errors will be found to have a coherent message. The 9x% is sufficient to identify the verses/passages in error and those can be corrected or put to one side or left out altogether. We can still resolve the truth of the Bible even if it is handicapped with errors of transcription or translation. As the Bible says; it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. So, it is better for me to hobble into the kingdom with an incomplete Bible than not to enter into the kingdom.

It does not have to be circular reasoning to get to this position, but you continually assert I am using a circular argument which is equally grating on me. If a disbeliever can convert, then you cannot say that person started off by assuming the Bible was true. So stop bringing up circular reasoning as an excuse for dismissing a person's belief in the Bible.

What has to be found agreement on is what the authors of the books of the Bible intended their readers to understand. From the 9X% that is without error, it should be possible to decide what the authors want their readers to know. I maintain that this 9X% percent shows coherence once verses/passages are correctly understood. In order to get to see this coherent message, all possible meanings must be accepted until the best meaning is found to fit in with the whole message. There will be only one intended meaning and that is what has to be determined.

The parables are an example of the where the underlying truth of the message could be missed. Jesus had to explain some of the parables to his disciples. They had ears but they did not hear (understand). Parts of the Bible are written in such a way that unless a person looks for the spiritual lessons, they will not see them. How come we understand things differently? It is because we are applying different filters to what we read. Hence what we read appears to be the truth to both of us. It is like getting the key-code to get entrance into the vault. An encrypted code contains the key-code. That encrypted code is itself true in that it has the correct key-code. That key-code once found opens the vault to a vast amount of wealth. This wealth remains hidden until the vault door is unlocked. People who look skeptically at the Bible will never know the wealth that the Bible contains, because they will never find the key to opening the door to give access to that wealth.

If it is not possible to reason together solely from the Bible, I might as well just present my reasons on the forum and shut up. There is no point entering discussion only to end up going over the same ground and arrive at the same impass.

I liken your situation to the "pearl of great price" that in your case was not lost but thrown away and now you want to search for the truth that was the pearl and you might never find it again. " Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" is what the Bible says about theologians. I am not going to waste my time discussing theology when dicussing the actual message of the Bible (what God wants us to know) is more important. I have moved on to the meat course and have got off the milk when it comes to discussing the message of the Bible. The "hard things to be understood" like those thing written by Paul is what must be understood . We should not be disagreeing on all the simple stuff to understand, but that is what we are doing and that is why I fail to see any hope of ever coming to an agreement on matters to do with the Bible. It is better not to enter into discussion knowing that an impass will be reached. There is no point going round and round in circles and never meeting up.

I shall keep reading your posts. I can still learn about non-essential things from you. I know you are knowledgeable about many subjects and so from the things you write I will separate out the dross from the pure gold.

All the best,

David

[Twospirits]

Hey there Henry, :yo:

There is a simple test to see if your argument is true. We need only apply it to the book of Mormon:


Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Joseph Smith's crap was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's crap. So let us argue from Joseph Smith's crap. Either that crap contains myth and lies or it does not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that Joseph Smith's crap was written about 1840 A.D. Making his writing concurrent with his own crap. If his crap is not myth, then neither is any of the other crap written by Mormons, for Joe Smith affirms all the main claims found in all the other Mormon crap.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when Joseph Smith wrote his crap who could testify whether any of it was true. Joe Smith writes about the witnesses who saw the Golden Tablets after they were revealed by the angel Moroni. Joe Smith says there were 12 witnesses, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.


I trust that clears things up.

Richard


The scenario you apply fails, for history records that many of Joseph Smith's “enemies” shortly thereafter came forth and gave evidence that he was a false prophet, whether his followers he deceived believed that evidence or not. But concerning Christ's witnesses and Paul's epistle, where are the thousands of extant letters from the residents, the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families and Roman authorities debunking the growing legend about the man named Jesus who had supposedly lived, performed miracles, died, and resurrected in their home town since it began to be preached there at Pentecost (Acts 2:32; 3:14-15) 25 years before Paul penned that letter of testimony? They immediately began being persecuted and threatened for preaching Christ's resurrection as seen in chapter 4 of Acts. Why didn't the Jewish religious authorities put a stop to those “lies” then and there, if they truly were lies? History records they couldn't, simply because it was true.

Or are we to say, that the entire historical testimony seen in the NT epistles given by the apostles are made up of nothing but lies and myth? That we cannot trust one word of it? Is that to be the final conclusion?

God bless---Twospirits

[jce]

Hi John,

Imagine you were a Jew. This is exactly how you would understand Christianity. They see Christianity the way Christians see Mormonism - as an heretical innovation of a faith that had already existed for thousands of years.

I see no flaw in my argument.

Richard

The flaw is in your presentation of incomparable events.

Yes, it is a truth that convincing a devout Jew that Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT Messiah would have been most difficult. One cannot imagine that the Jews were prepared to accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah (Deliverer) after He was declared a blasphemer by their high priest and rejected by the educated scribes and Sanhedrin. Add to that the fact that Jesus was stripped naked by Roman soldiers and publicly beaten in a most humiliating way, and afterward crucified for all to see. The arrogant Romans were rubbing this Jesus in the face of every Jew in attendance as a demonstration of Jewish weakness in contrast to the superiority of the mighty Romans. Christ became an insult to every Jew in the land. "Here is your king... what do you think of him now?" was the proclamation of the powerful, as the pummeled Christ was presented to the crowd. Crucify Him, crucify Him, was their reply.

In light of such evidence, how does one account for the sudden conversion of so many Jews after the culmination of these disparaging events? Simple, it was the Resurrection of Christ. Over 500 credible witnesses of that time confirmed He had risen from the dead. The Good News of Christ's resurrection spread throughout the region with the conversion of many Jews, both common and devout. It was the resurrection of Christ, and His witnesses that sealed the deal. Not a fabrication or cleverly devised fable of the disciples, but a real living breathing Jesus, back from the dead! Those left standing by the side of the road, the ones with the most to lose in both power and prestige, those whose pride restrained them from acknowledging the error of their ways, found themselves suddenly helpless to reverse this movement, even though they resorted to their base nature of brutality in an effort to silence it. Not much different today is it?

Now, compare these two events, (A) the one which took place in Jerusalem 2000 years ago and (B) the discovery by Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon. Are there really any similarities in the drama, circumstance and earth shaking results between these two events? The resurrection of Jesus Christ changed the course of world history. If the Bible was pulled out from under the Book of Morman, Mormonism would implode. The Bible is the substance that holds the Mormon Church together, not the Book of Mormon, for it has no foundation apart from Biblical support.

Here is another fact to consider, Christ was not only witnessed by many in those days, He has added millions of more witnesses throughout history who have experienced His presence since His Ascension. This forum is just one example of the Truth of Scripture. Who are all of these people who come here to share their spiritual experiences and testimonies? Where did they come from, many of whom have abandoned a life of sinful extravagance to aid the poor and spread the Good News by giving faithfully to the work of missionaries around the world. Men and women who have sacrificed lucrative career opportunities to serve in filthy disease infested villages to help the destitute and uneducated in the name of Christ.

Where would the world be today, if suddenly, these witnesses stopped doing the work which Christ has called them to do? Who would pick up the slack then? Atheists who arrogantly reject Christ and attempt to belittle His followers? Scientists whose pet projects require high priced accelerator/colliders, telescopes and space exploration equipment at the expense of the poor and needy? Some from these groups have added insult to injury by their disrespectful commentaries on the Biblical God, His Christ and His faithful saints, who live their lives trying to fulfill His commandments.

I'm not accusing or excusing any one group for there are many who claim to be followers of Christ who are in reality, enemies of the Cross. If you really want to know the best evidence for the Truth of Scripture, it reappears new in every generation, it is His witnesses, going about doing His goodwill. They are the proof, and they continue to successfully demonstrated that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt by their self sacrifice and the blood of many martyrs.

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible? Are they really in the same class?

May God open all of our eyes to the Beauty and the Significance of the Gospel of Christ.

Your friend,

John

[Twospirits]

This article was posted in the thread “Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ” and I am posting it here for it is pertinent to this thread discussion.



It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

The accuracy of the Biblical records.

The question often arises when discussing the biblical records, "How can a document that has been copied over and over possibly be reliable? Everyone knows there are tons of errors in it." While it is true that the documents have been copied many times, we often have misconceptions about how they were transmitted.

Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell.

But even with the great amount of care exercised in copying, errors have crept into the manuscripts. No one questions that spelling errors, misplaced letters, and word omissions have occurred. What is not true is that these errors have gradually built up over time so that our copies look nothing like the originals. In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the dessert near the Dead Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the manuscripts, "they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more that 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.

Historical reliability.

There is one more important feature of the Bible to examine before one looks to the evidence of Christ's resurrection, that is their historical reliability. Many critics have challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible and have been proved wrong. Let me provide one example. Historians questioned the accuracy of the accounts surrounded Pontius Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate found nothing wrong with him and was reluctant to crucify an innocent man. The Jews put pressure on Pilate saying that if you refuse this "you are no friend of Caesar" (John 19:12). At which point Pilate gave in to the Jews. This did not fit any historical records we had of Pilate who was a cruel and dominating man, not likely to give in to a group of Jews whom he hated. Many believed that this account was historically inaccurate because of the way in which it portrayed Pilate.

Later it was discovered that Pilate had been appointed by a man named Sejanus who was plotting to overthrow Caesar. Sejanus was executed along with many of his appointees (Delashmutt, Sejanus, p. 55, 56). What this demonstrated was that Pilate was in no position to get in trouble with Rome. The Jews had him in a tight place. If word returned to Rome that Jerusalem was in rebellion, Pilate would be the first to go. The gospel account was confirmed as accurate.

Many facts recorded in the Bible have been challenged with the same result, later archeology confirms the reliability of the biblical records down to the smallest detail. A respected Jewish archaeologist has claimed that, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference" (Shelly, p. 103). This is a strong statement for any archaeologist to make because if it were not true, he would quickly be condemned in his own field.

The conclusion that one draws from this material is that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Its accuracy has been proved numerous times. Its historical inaccuracy has never been demonstrated. So that when we approach the Bible, we do so with a good amount of confidence that what it records actually happened. If this is true, then we need to come to terms about what the Bible claims. We cannot dismiss it out of hand because we were not there, regardless of the difficulty of what is said.

An historical question confronts us at this point. What happened to the body. Scholars have generally agreed that the body was indeed gone and many explanations have been put forth to account for this fact. The most common response is that it was indeed stolen. But this view is hampered with many problems. Who would have stolen it? The Jews would not want to steal it. It was they that posted the Roman guard and they had the most to gain by ensuring that Jesus stayed in his tomb and his teachings died with him. The Romans really had no motivation. It was in Pilate's best interest as a governor whose job was in jeopardy to keep his realm quiet, not to mention that the Romans hated the Jewish religious fanaticism.

The only reasonable explanation for the missing body is that the disciples stole it. But is this plausible? These are the same men who scattered when Jesus was arrested. They were cowardly. They were disillusioned and depressed. And they would need to overpower the Roman guards. It is not likely that they would have had the courage or motivation to carry out such a plan. Why would they steal it? Possibly they wanted to start a new religion, to gain fame and fortune. This is possible but not likely. The disciples would have put themselves in great risk to steal the body. The Jews and Romans both wanted this disruption stopped, had they believed that the disciples stole the body they would have dragged them into prison and beaten them until they confessed and produced the body. No such thing happened.

Jesus resurrection from the dead was central to their faith. Peter preached the message in Jerusalem as Acts chapter 2 goes on to say, "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." Peter is saying that we know where David's body is. We can go and dig it up. But Jesus' body is missing. Had this not been true, anyone in the audience could have refuted his claim. The Jews or the Romans could have opened the tomb and paraded the body through the city to show everyone that the disciples' message was false. But they didn't because there was no body to find and all of Jerusalem had heard the news (Lk 24:18). Even the Jewish historian Josephus writing forty years later comments on Jesus' death.

It is important to note that the message was preached, not in a remote location where no one could verify the account, but it was preached in Jerusalem where all of these events took place and where the story could have easily been falsified or verified.

It is from this location that the church grew. The movement grew very quickly. Acts records three thousand people being baptized in one day (Acts 2:41). On another occasion five thousand people came to believe (Acts 4:4). This corresponds to what we know of the growth of the early church and it is one of the reasons historians do not suspect that Jesus was a legend. Legends take many years to accumulate and gain acceptance. Christianity spread immediately. The Jewish authorities were unable to contain its growth because it was so rapid.

Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Paul who was a vigorous persecutor of the church before seeing the risen Christ maintains that Jesus did rise from the dead. In writing to the Corinthian church he says,
[F]or I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep [died]; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all . . . He appeared to me also.
(I Cor 15:3-8)

What he is telling his readers is that many people saw Jesus after the resurrection. He is saying, "if you are skeptical you can go and speak with them yourselves because most of them are still alive!" Paul is so confident of what he and the others saw that he is willing to stake everything on this claim. This was not an event that occurred to a few men in a remote location. It happened in a huge metropolitan city and there were many witnesses to verify it.

See full article here: http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

“If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

F. F. Bruce

God bless---Twospirits

[Rose]

It is a very narrow approach I take, and putting the validity of the Bible to one side for a moment, what has to be established first is the meaning of each verse and passage. As I have recently explained in another post; even if 10% of the Bible has errors, the remaining 90% that does not have errors will be found to have a coherent message. The 9x% is sufficient to identify the verses/passages in error and those can be corrected or put to one side or left out altogether. We can still resolve the truth of the Bible even if it is handicapped with errors of transcription or translation. As the Bible says; it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. So, it is better for me to hobble into the kingdom with an incomplete Bible than not to enter into the kingdom.


All the best,

David

Hi David,

I just want to comment on the one thing you said about biblical errors. If any document is found to have a 10% error rate, does that not cast a shadow of doubt on the remaining 90%? Especially if the remaining 90% cannot be verified by any external evidence, but only that which is found within its own content. If some error is allowed, there is no way to discern truth from falsehoods and folks are left picking and choosing what they want to believe.

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your continued assertion that I am not reasoning "clearly" is starting to grate on me, my friend. Please refrain from saying that without including the specific reference to the error in my logic. Empty assertions don't help anything.

All the very best to you,

Richard
Good morning Richard

Sorry if what I say is beginning to grate on you. However, the way you continually claim everything to do with the Bible is "made up" and you have not presented much reasoning from the Bible or accept anything is true and no-one has proof that satisfies you, is beginning to grate on me also. Maybe it is time for me to put an end to this cycle which I wrote of doing in another post.

Good morning David, :tea:

Thank you for your apology, but there are a few problems with what you assert. I have NEVER - let alone "continually" - claimed that "everything to do with the Bible is made up." Why would you say such a thing? If I have done anything "continually" it has been to present reasons for my conclusions with the best clarity I can muster. And neither is it true that I don't "accept anything is true" in the Bible. On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that the Bible contains much that is true. Please try to be a little more accurate in your characterization of me.



It is a very narrow approach I take, and putting the validity of the Bible to one side for a moment, what has to be established first is the meaning of each verse and passage. As I have recently explained in another post; even if 10% of the Bible has errors, the remaining 90% that does not have errors will be found to have a coherent message. The 9x% is sufficient to identify the verses/passages in error and those can be corrected or put to one side or left out altogether. We can still resolve the truth of the Bible even if it is handicapped with errors of transcription or translation. As the Bible says; it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. So, it is better for me to hobble into the kingdom with an incomplete Bible than not to enter into the kingdom.

It does not have to be circular reasoning to get to this position, but you continually assert I am using a circular argument which is equally grating on me. If a disbeliever can convert, then you cannot say that person started off by assuming the Bible was true. So stop bringing up circular reasoning as an excuse for dismissing a person's belief in the Bible.

Your comment indicates another serious misunderstanding. I have never said it would be "circular reasoning" for a person to conclude that the Bible is true, and the fact that an "unbeliever can convert" has nothing to do with the fallacy of "circular reasoning." The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when folks assume the conclusion that they are trying to prove. As far as I know, I have presented the evidence (quotes from you) every time I have said you made a circular argument. If I were wrong, it would have been very simple for you to show me why your argument was not circular and I would have to admit my error. There is no cause whatsoever for my statements to "grate" on you. It is nothing like your vague and unsubstantiated statements about my failure to "reason" well. When you make those assertions, you rarely, if ever, present any evidence to back them up and so you present nothing for me to respond to. That's what grates on me. It's not that you challenge me - I love that! - but that you assert unsubstantiated generalities that contain nothing for me to respond to.

I think it is wrong to deal with the errors in the Bible using percentages. That would not work in any other subject. Try it in rocket science and see what happens. And that's an apt analogy since we are talking about getting up into the "heavens." A common preacher analogy begins by asking what percentage of strychnine we should accept in our food. The analogy is just a variation off the theme of "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." The problem is that once we have error in the Bible, we are left on our own to sort it out and to determine which parts are true or false. This means that the Bible is no longer the Doctor, but the Patient.

You said "even if 10% of the Bible has errors, the remaining 90% that does not have errors will be found to have a coherent message." The problem is the idea of a "coherent message." One man's "coherence" is another man's absurdity. I think of this as the "hermeneutic of madness" because it was the method used by Harold Camping to justify his insane end-time predictions. He began with the assumption that the Bible was the inerrant and infallible Word of God. He said that everything he taught was based on "the Bible alone and in its entirety" and that there must be "perfect harmony" between everything it said. Therefore, he claimed that we could know if we had arrived at truth if we found "harmony" between apparently contradictory verses. This drove him totally FREAKING insane. He continuously twisted words beyond all recognition until he had found what he felt was "harmony." He finally concluded that his end-time predictions were literally infallible. No one could challenge the idiosyncratic "harmony" he invented because it was all made out of words and presuppositions with no contact to reality. The problem is that there is no objective standard to measure the degree of "harmony" so it is an entirely subjective judgment. You and I have encountered this problem in our discussions about the angels that sinned. Our difference comes down to different assumptions about the meaning of the word "angels." You begin with a dogmatic assertion that angels cannot sin, and this literally forces you to reject the evidence I present. Your rejection of that evidence has nothing to do with its validity. You must reject it out of hand as a matter of principle because it contradicts your presupposition.



What has to be found agreement on is what the authors of the books of the Bible intended their readers to understand. From the 9X% that is without error, it should be possible to decide what the authors want their readers to know. I maintain that this 9X% percent shows coherence once verses/passages are correctly understood. In order to get to see this coherent message, all possible meanings must be accepted until the best meaning is found to fit in with the whole message. There will be only one intended meaning and that is what has to be determined.

The problem is that our conclusions will depend upon our presuppositions. Case in point: You assert that "Holy Angels" could never become unholy. Such an assertion has no foundation in anything but your own logic. There is nothing in the Bible that states angels could not sin and there are passages that explicitly state they do. You and I will never be able to agree until you give a Biblical foundation for your presumption that angels cannot sin. But even then, you have a much bigger problem. Since you admit that there is error in the Bible, you must admit that Jude and 2 Peter could be wrong when they said that angels could sin. So how do you determine the truth? If we assume that your presupposition is true, then we could use that as proof that Jude and 2 Peter don't belong in the Bible.



The parables are an example of the where the underlying truth of the message could be missed. Jesus had to explain some of the parables to his disciples. They had ears but they did not hear (understand). Parts of the Bible are written in such a way that unless a person looks for the spiritual lessons, they will not see them. How come we understand things differently? It is because we are applying different filters to what we read. Hence what we read appears to be the truth to both of us. It is like getting the key-code to get entrance into the vault. An encrypted code contains the key-code. That encrypted code is itself true in that it has the correct key-code. That key-code once found opens the vault to a vast amount of wealth. This wealth remains hidden until the vault door is unlocked. People who look skeptically at the Bible will never know the wealth that the Bible contains, because they will never find the key to opening the door to give access to that wealth.

You may think that you have access to a "vast amount of wealth" but if you can't show me the money I have no reason to think you really do. Anyone can claim to be Rockefeller. I need to see the money!



If it is not possible to reason together solely from the Bible, I might as well just present my reasons on the forum and shut up. There is no point entering discussion only to end up going over the same ground and arrive at the same impass.

It is impossible to reason solely from the Bible because you depend on the works of men - translations and dictionaries - to understand a word of it. And you can't even tell me the meaning of the word "Tartarus" without appealing to Greek mythology. Yet it is used in the passage that we have disputed so many times. Peter said that God cast the "angels that sinned" into "Tartarus" - the same place that Zeus cast the rebellious Titans. Ignoring this evidence is absurd.



I liken your situation to the "pearl of great price" that in your case was not lost but thrown away and now you want to search for the truth that was the pearl and you might never find it again. " Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" is what the Bible says about theologians. I am not going to waste my time discussing theology when dicussing the actual message of the Bible (what God wants us to know) is more important. I have moved on to the meat course and have got off the milk when it comes to discussing the message of the Bible. The "hard things to be understood" like those thing written by Paul is what must be understood . We should not be disagreeing on all the simple stuff to understand, but that is what we are doing and that is why I fail to see any hope of ever coming to an agreement on matters to do with the Bible. It is better not to enter into discussion knowing that an impass will be reached. There is no point going round and round in circles and never meeting up.

I shall keep reading your posts. I can still learn about non-essential things from you. I know you are knowledgeable about many subjects and so from the things you write I will separate out the dross from the pure gold.

All the best,

David

Your comment reads like an admission that your arguments cannot stand up under the light of reason. If I really did have the "pearl of great price" then you would be able to easily appeal to my knowledge of said "pearl" and I would have to admit you are right .... or I would show errors in your logic. I think I've successfully done the latter, and your response confirms this.

In any case, I very much appreciate all the time you have taken to work with me on this, and I hope it continues.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi David,

I just want to comment on the one thing you said about biblical errors. If any document is found to have a 10% error rate, does that not cast a shadow of doubt on the remaining 90%? Especially if the remaining 90% cannot be verified by any external evidence, but only that which is found within its own content. If some error is allowed, there is no way to discern truth from falsehoods and folks are left picking and choosing what they want to believe.

Take care,
Rose

BINGO! :thumb:

1 Corinthians 5:6 ... Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The scenario you apply fails, for history records that many of Joseph Smith's “enemies” shortly thereafter came forth and gave evidence that he was a false prophet, whether his followers he deceived believed that evidence or not. But concerning Christ's witnesses and Paul's epistle, where are the thousands of extant letters from the residents, the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families and Roman authorities debunking the growing legend about the man named Jesus who had supposedly lived, performed miracles, died, and resurrected in their home town since it began to be preached there at Pentecost (Acts 2:32; 3:14-15) 25 years before Paul penned that letter of testimony? They immediately began being persecuted and threatened for preaching Christ's resurrection as seen in chapter 4 of Acts. Why didn't the Jewish religious authorities put a stop to those “lies” then and there, if they truly were lies? History records they couldn't, simply because it was true.

Or are we to say, that the entire historical testimony seen in the NT epistles given by the apostles are made up of nothing but lies and myth? That we cannot trust one word of it? Is that to be the final conclusion?

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry, :yo:

No, I do not say "that the entire historical testimony seen in the NT epistles given by the apostles are made up of nothing but lies and myth." But neither do I simply assume that it's all true. The Gospels are religious tracts written decades after the facts they purport to report, and they were written by believers with the intent of converting others. They easily could have accepted and reported unconfirmed hearsay (Christian oral tradition) and could have made up stories that never happened. Indeed that is what an objective analysis of their writings suggests. We know people do things like this all the time, so it would be foolish in the extreme to simply ignore this fact. You do not accept the tracts of any other religion as "true" without question. Therefore, it is an objective fact that you are not dealing with the Bible in an objectively fair and balanced way.

Your comment contains a serious error. There are no "letters" from the first century outside the Bible that mention anything about Jesus. If the lack of letters refuting Christianity proves anything, it would be that Christianity did exist at that time.

Your argument is circular. You begin by assuming that the Bible is true when you say that they "began to preach there at Pentecost" and "immediately began being persecuted and threatened for preaching Christ's resurrection." How do you know those stories weren't invented much later by believers who weren't even there? If I were going to invent a religion, I would make up stuff like that. If you begin by assuming that everything in the Bible is true then you don't need to pretend to be presenting arguments based on logic and facts.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

Now, compare these two events, (A) the one which took place in Jerusalem 2000 years ago and (B) the discovery by Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon. Are there really any similarities in the drama, circumstance and earth shaking results between these two events? The resurrection of Jesus Christ changed the course of world history. If the Bible was pulled out from under the Book of Morman, Mormonism would implode. The Bible is the substance that holds the Mormon Church together, not the Book of Mormon, for it has no foundation apart from Biblical support.



The Book of Mormon vs The Bible? Are they really in the same class?

May God open all of our eyes to the Beauty and the Significance of the Gospel of Christ.

Your friend,

John

Hi John,

In the same manner that the whole Bible is the support and foundation of the Mormon church and the book of Mormon, the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church. If the Old Testament is found to be flawed then the whole system which builds upon it is flawed.

All the best,
Rose

[jce]

Hi John,

In the same manner that the whole Bible is the support and foundation of the Mormon church and the book of Mormon, the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church. If the Old Testament is found to be flawed then the whole system which builds upon it is flawed.

All the best,
Rose

The OT certainly offers support for the NT, but it's foundation rests on the person of Jesus Christ. If then Christ is flawed, so is the NT.

I hope this addresses your concern.

Peace and Joy to you Rose.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi John,

In the same manner that the whole Bible is the support and foundation of the Mormon church and the book of Mormon, the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church. If the Old Testament is found to be flawed then the whole system which builds upon it is flawed.

All the best,
Rose
The OT certainly offers support for the NT, but it's foundation rests on the person of Jesus Christ. If then Christ is flawed, so is the NT.

I hope this addresses your concern.

Peace and Joy to you Rose.

John
If your statement is a true answer to Rose's post then you must be saying that the OT could be utterly rejected and Christianity would still stand. Is this what you meant?

[jce]

If your statement is a true answer to Rose's post then you must be saying that the OT could be utterly rejected and Christianity would still stand. Is this what you meant?

I believe that Christ is the NT Foundation and His references to the OT demonstrate its integration and unity in the overarching plan of God for his chosen people. Furthermore, I believe His Word is reliable and Infallible. If it appears otherwise to men, it is because God has not gifted them the ability to believe, and that is a Biblical certainty.

Your friend,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I believe that Christ is the NT Foundation and His references to the OT demonstrate its integration and unity in the overarching plan of God for his chosen people. Furthermore, I believe His Word is reliable and Infallible. If it appears otherwise to men, it is because God has not gifted them the ability to believe, and that is a Biblical certainty.

Your friend,

John

Hey there John,

I don't see an answer to my question. Are you, or are you not, saying that the entire OT could be utterly rejected as totally false and Christianity would still stand?

If your answer is "no" then you have not refuted Rose's statement that "the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church." Anything that cannot be removed without causing the building to collapse is pare of the "foundation."

I don't understand why you would say that the Bible is inerrant. I can show you many errors. For example, compare the census numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. The word "inerrant" means "free from any error." Are you using this word in a different sense?

All the very best my friend,

Richard

[David M]

Hi David,

I just want to comment on the one thing you said about biblical errors. If any document is found to have a 10% error rate, does that not cast a shadow of doubt on the remaining 90%? Especially if the remaining 90% cannot be verified by any external evidence, but only that which is found within its own content. If some error is allowed, there is no way to discern truth from falsehoods and folks are left picking and choosing what they want to believe.

Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose
thanks for the question. I have just been reading the post before yours from Twospirits in which an error rate of 5% was found in centuries of copying and those errors are only small typographical errors which would not corrupt the content/facts that much.

My 10% was deliberately high because I can live with that. Consider for example we have 10 references to say that Jesus is not God out of which we have two dubious verses due to translation error. So in this case we have two out of 10 which is 20%.This is even higher. Now in the 80% that is without error we have 8 verses that agree that Jesus cannot be God. We have 8 for and 2 against, therefore on balance the eight for must win.

Now reading the article above presented by Twospirits there is more than enough historical evidence to support 90% of scripture so if we ignore 10% or 20% completely, it does not negate the evidence of the 90% or 80%. What might distort the fact is that if out of ten references eight "for" were all in one chapter we might say that is only one passage and therefore the two against that appear in different passages should would win. This is not the case, it is not eight separate verses in one chapter or passage, we are looking at 10 references distributed between different chapters, and books. Therefore, if two out of the ten references appear to say that Jesus is God, then because the eight out of the ten say that Jesus is not God, we can look at those two references again and see if we can find a reason why they appear to be contradictory. That is what I did in the case of Colossians 1:16 It appears to say that all things were created by Jesus when in fact I showed you that the Diaglott uses the word "because" and so all things were created because of (for) Jesus. This was the reason for God's whole creation on earth; God could not create a man in his own image before He created the environment for man (and woman) to live in.

Whether we are talking milliseconds or millions of years there is a logical sequence of events. In the very beginning, (point zero) was God and nothing else. If God had a thought it was in the mind of God and the subject of that thought did not exist. To exist, God had to make it. From thought to a thing being made is simply described as God spoke. The Word that God spoke was the outworking of His power to create the object of His thought. At point zero, is when the first thing came into being. There was no reason for Jesus to exist at point zero. Why would the Son of God exist having no function or purpose before God had even had the thought to create a man in His own image?

We do not know whether it was Adam or Jesus who God thought about first. If it had been Adam, then God would anticipate Adam failing the test. How was God going to deal with this? The difference between Adam and Jesus was that Adam was given freewill and no direction. He was simply told; "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Adam failed and hence sin entered into the lives of all humans ever sin. We all sin yet it is in our nature to be good and be perfect if we can overcome the desire to please ourselves before we please someone else. Now God's plan was for Him to produce a man who by His virgin birth would be called the Son of God and who was also the Son of Man. The difference between Adam and Jesus is that Jesus was guided from a very early age. Of course, Jesus had to grow from a child and Adam was made an adult. Jesus we are told "grew in wisdom and stature and found favor with God and man". Also Jesus knew from a very early age that he "must be about his Heavenly Father's business. It was this sense of duty that made Jesus obey God's teaching. Jesus would have learnt of Adam's mistake and said;"I am not going to disobey my Father, I am going to do His will". That was the life-long goal (ambition) of Jesus to do his Heavenly Father's will. No-one born before or since has ever had that ambition in them from early childhood. So now we have a man, whose ambition was to do the will of God and remain sinless, which he achieved.

Now, God not only had a Son who was born of a woman and who was a man, but His begotten Son was perfect. So from the time of Adam when we have the symbolic covering provided by the animal skins to cover Adam's nakedness representing His spiritual downfall, Adam was clothed in animal skins for which those animals died and so the principle was laid down in the Garden that there could be no covering for sin without the shedding of blood. This continued through the law given to Moses whereby animal sacrifices became the covering of men's sins. That is not something God liked and He would have preferred man not to sin and have no need for man's sins to be covered by animal sacrifices. Having learnt to live by the law of Moses, that was abolished when Jesus was offered by God and Jesus submitted to God's will to be the perfect sacrifice and be a one-off sacrifice to cover men's sins. It's God's call, but the lesson we should take note of is that it is only by belief in God and Jesus and commitment that is implicit in the promise of God in John 3:16 that enables a person to be saved and be given eternal life.

Now we have the Son of God who was a man, having died and been raised from the dead, becoming the assurance that God will do the same for all those who believe in Him and His Son. When God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus inherited an incorruptible body. That same body will be given to the believers who inherit eternal life. Now, not only was Jesus a man like us, but we are promised to be like him and given the same body. Ultimately, the power that Jesus was given and will have when he returns will eventually be given up to God when Jesus hands back a restored kingdom to God. With the work of Jesus complete we shall all be like him and one another having eternal life on this earth enjoying the glories that God will reveal throughout eternity.

So now from this brief overview from the beginning, point zero to the eternal life in the kingdom to come we have covered the role of Jesus who does not have to be made out to be any different to any other person and God is the ONE who had done all this and beside this ONE GOD there is none beside Him. This is a very simple, natural way of understanding the real Jesus, one who did not pre-exist and who was a man and not God. The fact is also that Jesus is the only man to be born this way, Jesus is the only man to have lived a perfect and sinless life and Jesus has earned the title which is above every name, even that of God. Since we were told this before Jesus was born, it should not come as surprise to think that Jesus could be addressed as God or thought of God as this is the nearest image we can have of God. God is Spirit and cannot be of the nature of man, yet God's image revealed in man was most revealed in the person of Jesus and so Jesus could say; "he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father". We cannot see God and live and Jesus was the nearest anyone could imagine God to be if He were human.

It is of no dishonor to Jesus that I say he was not God, and Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus was far too humble to consider himself equal with God and yet when Jesus was given the sign that God's power was available to him, Jesus could consider he was equal with God for there was nothing God would not have given Jesus had he asked for it. Jesus took on him the role of servant instead of a master and king and used the power available to him in the service of God. At the time he was given the power the temptation to use that power would have been the same for us all, the temptations that Jesus endured would have been exactly the same for other human. There is nothing supernatural in the thoughts Jesus had. He was not targeted by a sinful Angel called ?Satan, Satan was a personification to simply explain what the temptation was like. Temptation arises in our own minds and when that temptation arises it dwells in our mind until we overcome it or it is manifested by what we do. Hence it is the lust and desire that is in our mind that causes us to act and in the process we sin. In some cases we can lust after something so much that if we do not follow through with the act, the very desire is so strong as to be as guilty as having done it, hence the reference to a man who lusts after a woman. If that lust is ongoing and it is strongly desired and not suppressed and overcome, the act is as good as done. Blasphemy is a sin which is of the spoken word and if a blasphemous thought arises and is not suppressed and overcome is again committing the sin. In thought and deed, Jesus was pure and we have no better example to live up to that the man Jesus.

Therefore Jesus has earned the name which is above every name and to which every knee should bow. I regard Jesus as the greatest man that has ever lived and who is seated at God's right hand now and who is making intercession for us until the time God sends him back to restore in full the kingdom on earth, so Jesus is my Lord and Savior and Redeemer who has the highest respect I can give him. I confess that Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of the Most Highest, the Son of the ONE and only true God.

May all be as comfortable knowing Jesus as he really is as I believe he is.

All the best,

David

[jce]

Hey there John,

I don't see an answer to my question. Are you, or are you not, saying that the entire OT could be utterly rejected as totally false and Christianity would still stand?

If your answer is "no" then you have not refuted Rose's statement that "the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church." Anything that cannot be removed without causing the building to collapse is pare of the "foundation."

I don't understand why you would say that the Bible is inerrant. I can show you many errors. For example, compare the census numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. The word "inerrant" means "free from any error." Are you using this word in a different sense?

All the very best my friend,

Richard

I am persuaded that the Reliability and Infallibility of the Word of God, simply is! Its foundation is sure, resting on the Perfect Plan of the OT God and the fully accomplished Work of His NT Christ. Together, they present the entire coherent plan of God from Genesis to Revelation. I find no flaw in this plan, on the contrary, I find it to be the only hope for mankind. To reject it is to suffer eternal loss, to receive it with joy and gratitude is life eternal. By His Grace and Gift, I have chosen life without regret. If you want to strain out gnats and swallow camels, be careful you don't choke yourself.

Your friend,

John

[David M]

I am persuaded that the Reliability and Infallibility of the Word of God, simply is! Its foundation is sure, resting on the Perfect Plan of the OT God and the fully accomplished Work of His NT Christ. Together, they present the entire coherent plan of God from Genesis to Revelation. I find no flaw in this plan, on the contrary, I find it to be the only hope for mankind. To reject it is to suffer eternal loss, to receive it with joy and gratitude is life eternal. By His Grace and Gift, I have chosen life without regret. If you want to strain out gnats and swallow camels, be careful you don't choke yourself.

Your friend,

John

Brilliantly said John. Amen to all that.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there John,

I don't see an answer to my question. Are you, or are you not, saying that the entire OT could be utterly rejected as totally false and Christianity would still stand?

If your answer is "no" then you have not refuted Rose's statement that "the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church." Anything that cannot be removed without causing the building to collapse is pare of the "foundation."

I don't understand why you would say that the Bible is inerrant. I can show you many errors. For example, compare the census numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. The word "inerrant" means "free from any error." Are you using this word in a different sense?

All the very best my friend,

Richard
I am persuaded that the Reliability and Infallibility of the Word of God, simply is! Its foundation is sure, resting on the Perfect Plan of the OT God and the fully accomplished Work of His NT Christ. Together, they present the entire coherent plan of God from Genesis to Revelation. I find no flaw in this plan, on the contrary, I find it to be the only hope for mankind. To reject it is to suffer eternal loss, to receive it with joy and gratitude is life eternal. By His Grace and Gift, I have chosen life without regret. If you want to strain out gnats and swallow camels, be careful you don't choke yourself.

Your friend,

John
Hey there my friend, :tea:

Thank you for your clear statement of your belief. It is very helpful to know your position. It appears your answer to my question is "no" which means you have not refuted Rose's statement that "the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church" just as Joseph Smith used the Bible as support for his new religion.

We have digressed from the point we were discussing concerning the similarity between Paul and Smith. So will you now please answer her question again since your initial answer has been shown to be inadequate?

Thanks,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Brilliantly said John. Amen to all that.

David

Brilliant? What is brilliant about a mere assertion? Would you say Mormons and Muslims were speaking "brilliantly" if they said the same thing about their own faith?

[David M]

Brilliant? What is brilliant about a mere assertion? Would you say Mormons and Muslims were speaking "brilliantly" if they said the same thing about their own faith?

Brilliant in the sense that I could not have said it better. It is not a mere assertion, but a statement upon which John's faith is established. I would not say "brilliant" to a Muslim or Mormon, but I would expect a Muslim or Mormon or anyone else to say the word "brilliant" to anyone of their own faith who made such a statement they considered was well said. "Brilliant" is used subjectively, so I am not surprised you disagree.

David

[David M]

This article was posted in the thread “Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ” and I am posting it here for it is pertinent to this thread discussion.



It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

The accuracy of the Biblical records.

But even with the great amount of care exercised in copying, errors have crept into the manuscripts. No one questions that spelling errors, misplaced letters, and word omissions have occurred. What is not true is that these errors have gradually built up over time so that our copies look nothing like the originals. In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the dessert near the Dead Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the manuscripts, "they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more that 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.

God bless---Twospirits

Hello Twospirits

Have you any notes on the Lacish letters you could publish on this forum? I cannot find any reference to the subject on this forum. These are letters external to the Bible that prove the accuracy of times and places and events mentioned in the Bible at the time they were written.


David

[Twospirits]

Hello Twospirits

Have you any notes on the Lacish letters you could publish on this forum? I cannot find any reference to the subject on this forum. These are letters external to the Bible that prove the accuracy of times and places and events mentioned in the Bible at the time they were written.


David

Hi David,

Not off-hand, but I'm sure if you google it you should be able to find what your looking for pretty quickly. There's plenty information of that on the web.

Good luck,

God bless---Twospirits

[jce]

Hey there my friend, :tea:

Thank you for your clear statement of your belief. It is very helpful to know your position. It appears your answer to my question is "no" which means you have not refuted Rose's statement that "the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church" just as Joseph Smith used the Bible as support for his new religion.

Beware the conclusions you draw from insufficient information.


We have digressed from the point we were discussing concerning the similarity between Paul and Smith. So will you now please answer her question again since your initial answer has been shown to be inadequate?

Richard, I believe there is no answer which will give you any satisfaction. What you are seeking, you have abandoned. I have found peace in God through Christ, I have tasted that the Lord is Good, and I am satisfied. He has exceeded my expectations and granted me the desires of my heart. I find no fault in His Word.

I pray for peace in your life through reconciliation to your creator, who loves you and laid down His life for you, His friend.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Beware the conclusions you draw from insufficient information.

If the information is insufficient, it is because you have chosen not to give a sufficient answer my simple and direct question.



Richard, I believe there is no answer which will give you any satisfaction. What you are seeking, you have abandoned. I have found peace in God through Christ, I have tasted that the Lord is Good, and I am satisfied. He has exceeded my expectations and granted me the desires of my heart. I find no fault in His Word.

I pray for peace in your life through reconciliation to your creator, who loves you and laid down His life for you, His friend.

John
Your belief that "there is no answer which will give [me] any satisfaction" is entirely false. I would be very satisfied if you simply gave the answer to the question I have been repeatedly asking.

Thanks,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

No, I do not say "that the entire historical testimony seen in the NT epistles given by the apostles are made up of nothing but lies and myth." But neither do I simply assume that it's all true. The Gospels are religious tracts written decades after the facts they purport to report, and they were written by believers with the intent of converting others. They easily could have accepted and reported unconfirmed hearsay (Christian oral tradition) and could have made up stories that never happened. Indeed that is what an objective analysis of their writings suggests. We know people do things like this all the time, so it would be foolish in the extreme to simply ignore this fact. You do not accept the tracts of any other religion as "true" without question. Therefore, it is an objective fact that you are not dealing with the Bible in an objectively fair and balanced way.

You say “they were written by believers and “they could have accepted and reported unconfirmed hearsay and could have made up stories that never happened.” The problem with what you say here is that many scholars agree that much of the NT were written by the original apostles themselves who were with Jesus throughout his ministry and were witnesses to his resurrection and ascension. Most scholars agree that Paul wrote 13 epistles, John 3 and Peter 2, a total of 18 epistles. Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John. So it can be seen that most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ, which is considered to be a first-hand historical testimony of the ministry, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

And I have dealt and approached the Bible in my studies through the years in an objective fair and unbalanced way. For I was not brought up in any traditional way thus was not subject to presuppositions when I began studying the Bible and all the pro and cons written on the Bible by skeptics and Christians in all areas of scripture.


Your comment contains a serious error. There are no "letters" from the first century outside the Bible that mention anything about Jesus. If the lack of letters refuting Christianity proves anything, it would be that Christianity did exist at that time.

My point is we have thousands of biblical manuscripts that are consistent to the Old and New Testament historical writings and events. But where is the written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families debunking the Biblical testimony about the man named Jesus who had supposedly lived, performed miracles, died, and resurrected in their home town if the gospels and the epistles are a lie?


Your argument is circular. You begin by assuming that the Bible is true when you say that they "began to preach there at Pentecost" and "immediately began being persecuted and threatened for preaching Christ's resurrection." How do you know those stories weren't invented much later by believers who weren't even there? If I were going to invent a religion, I would make up stuff like that. If you begin by assuming that everything in the Bible is true then you don't need to pretend to be presenting arguments based on logic and facts.

But as I noted above, those “believers” were there, they were the apostles themselves who gave that written first-hand testimony to the churches. As can be seen, evidence has been given in several of my posts so I'm not pretending by giving just empty arguments, my arguments are being given based on a strong foundation; evidence, logic and facts.

God bless---Twospirits

[jce]

If the information is insufficient, it is because you have chosen not to give a sufficient answer my simple and direct question.

If true, why did you jump to a conclusion?


Your belief that "there is no answer which will give [me] any satisfaction" is entirely false. I would be very satisfied if you simply gave the answer to the question I have been repeatedly asking.

Here again is a more elaborate answer which will give you no satisfaction.

I cannot state my faith in God's Word any clearer than this; It is Reliable and Infallible. Its Prophecies are Certain and its Precepts are True. It is Entirely Coherent in it's message to man. It contains the Failsafe Promises of the Creator and condemns all who would trifle with its Sacred Contents.

I remain your friend.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If true, why did you jump to a conclusion?

I had no reason to think I was jumping to any conclusion. By all appearances, you answered my question with a most definitive "no." But then you contradicted yourself, and for some strange reason have been adamantly obfuscating the conversation. Why don't you just answer the question?



Here again is a more elaborate answer which will give you no satisfaction.

I cannot state my faith in God's Word any clearer than this; It is Reliable and Infallible. Its Prophecies are Certain and its Precepts are True. It is Entirely Coherent in it's message to man. It contains the Failsafe Promises of the Creator and condemns all who would trifle with its Sacred Contents.

I remain your friend.

John
You are correct that you answer does not "satisfy me" but you are wrong about the reason. The reason your "answer" doesn't satisfy me is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked! I didn't ask you anything about your "faith in God's Word" and you know that.

Why are you refusing to answer my simple question? I don't understand why I have to repeat your own words back to you in order to get a straight answer, but here they are:










Now, compare these two events, (A) the one which took place in Jerusalem 2000 years ago and (B) the discovery by Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon. Are there really any similarities in the drama, circumstance and earth shaking results between these two events? The resurrection of Jesus Christ changed the course of world history. If the Bible was pulled out from under the Book of Morman, Mormonism would implode. The Bible is the substance that holds the Mormon Church together, not the Book of Mormon, for it has no foundation apart from Biblical support.



The Book of Mormon vs The Bible? Are they really in the same class?

May God open all of our eyes to the Beauty and the Significance of the Gospel of Christ.

Your friend,

John

Hi John,

In the same manner that the whole Bible is the support and foundation of the Mormon church and the book of Mormon, the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church. If the Old Testament is found to be flawed then the whole system which builds upon it is flawed.

All the best,
Rose

The OT certainly offers support for the NT, but it's foundation rests on the person of Jesus Christ. If then Christ is flawed, so is the NT.

I hope this addresses your concern.

Peace and Joy to you Rose.

John

If your statement is a true answer to Rose's post then you must be saying that the OT could be utterly rejected and Christianity would still stand. Is this what you meant?


You then began proclaiming your faith in the Bible, but have refused to answer this question. What's up with that?

Why are you making this so difficult? Why do I have to repeat your own words to you? Why don't you just answer the question with clarity?

Thanks,

Richard

[jce]

Why are you making this so difficult? Why do I have to repeat your own words to you? Why don't you just answer the question with clarity?

Thanks,

Richard

Please tell me what part of my answer you seem unable to comprehend?

May the Peace of God be upon you Richard.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Please tell me what part of my answer you seem unable to comprehend?

May the Peace of God be upon you Richard.

John

<sigh>

We are discussing the equivalence between Mormonism and Christianity. In post 36 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3175-What-is-the-best-evidence-for-Christianity&p=46490#post46490) you said this:
jce: "The Book of Mormon was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Bible. Because the witness and testimony of the Bible was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Smith was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance."

I explained your error by replacing Smith and the book of Mormon with Paul and his letters:
Richard: "The Gospel of Paul was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Old Testament. Because the witness and testimony of the Old Testament was already accepted by a broad range of believers [Jews], Paul was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance."

Your response in post 44 contained these words:
jce: Now, compare these two events, (A) the one which took place in Jerusalem 2000 years ago and (B) the discovery by Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon. Are there really any similarities in the drama, circumstance and earth shaking results between these two events? The resurrection of Jesus Christ changed the course of world history. If the Bible was pulled out from under the Book of Morman, Mormonism would implode. The Bible is the substance that holds the Mormon Church together, not the Book of Mormon, for it has no foundation apart from Biblical support.

Rose responded by writing this:
Rose: "In the same manner that the whole Bible is the support and foundation of the Mormon church and the book of Mormon, the Old Testament is the support and foundation of the New Testament and the Christian church. If the Old Testament is found to be flawed then the whole system which builds upon it is flawed."

You answered:
jce: The OT certainly offers support for the NT, but it's foundation rests on the person of Jesus Christ. If then Christ is flawed, so is the NT.

Your response did not address Rose's point. I have been trying to get you to answer this point but you seem to have forgotten what we are talking about.

Here it is in a nutshell, in large bold font so you will know what we are talking about:

You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.

I hope that helps.

Richard

[jce]

Here it is in a nutshell, in large bold font so you will know what we are talking about:

You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.

I hope that helps.

Richard

Richard, such persistence. And all this time I thought you were belaboring me about whether or not I accepted the Bible as both Reliable and Infallible to which I replied with a resounding YES.

Now as to your question concerning the construction of the Book of Mormon being erected on the foundation of the Bible by Joseph Smith being similar or in some way equivalent to Christ being erected on the Foundation of the Old Testament, I must answer with a resounding NO.

Here again is the main reason for rejecting the use of a weak illustration to make such a comparison. To begin, as a reminder, the question in this thread is about the resurrection and what is the best evidence for the Bible. Somewhere in this debate, you must have thought it a good idea to inject Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon into the discussion thereby implying some type of equal comparison between Joseph's story and the Disciple's story. To expose the fallacy of this propped up straw man will require setting the stage to demonstrate the disparity.

What Joseph Smith did and what Christ accomplished are not to be compared, only contrasted. So let's review a condensed version of the facts again:

Smith's Challenge:

Smith is involved in a Bible believing church and at some point in his life, he experiences a vision based on an angelic appearance to him. The messenger tells Joseph about some buried tablets with cryptic encoding which he later acquires and translates into messages of accounts based on biblical times, places and doctrines. Because it resembles Biblical teaching, it becomes accepted by many as authentic and some form of an addition to the Bible. It must have met with little resistance as it presently occupies a space in the Mormon Church and is revered, along with the Bible, by many its members.

The Disciples Challenge:

The apprehension of Christ and the scattering of the disciples spelled the end of Christ's ascension to Messiahship. If Jesus was on His way to Kingship, that dream was now over. No Jew would be willing to accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah after being declared a blasphemer by the high priest and rejected by the Sanhedrin, not to mention being stripped naked by Roman soldiers and publicly beaten and crucified for all to see. Christ became an insult to every Jew in the land. The pummeled Christ was then presented to the crowd as their king. The crowd's reply was; Crucify Him, crucify Him. If there were any believers in Christ's Kingship remaining, they were now in hiding. The popularity of Christ had effectively been erased from Jerusalem and if you were a vocal supporter of His, you would likely be rounded up and imprisoned. Jesus had quickly descended to become the disgraceful "King of the Jews" and was no longer anyone's hero.

The main question that deserves an answer is this, how does one account for the sudden turnaround in Jesus popularity and the subsequent conversion of so many Jews after the culmination of these disparaging events? Was it a cleverly devised fabrication of the disciples? If not, then what? Why would anyone suddenly put everything at risk and start preaching Christ as the Messiah, the Fulfillment of the OT Prophesies. Jesus was dead. Everybody knew it. There is only one logical answer to that very important question... RESURRECTION! Jesus was alive and well. He presented Himself to over 500 witnesses and met and interacted with the disciples after they knew He was dead. But now, He's alive and speaking with them.

Are these two events comparable? In one scenario a man discovers the Book of Mormon, in the other, the New Testament is established. Are there really any legitimate comparisons in the drama, circumstance and earth shattering results between these two events? The resurrection of Jesus Christ changed the course of world history. The Book of Mormon has no such impact and without its Biblical foundation would decline in popularity overnight.

In the final analysis, It is the Holy Bible that best expresses the human condition and the hopes of mankind. For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Christ Jesus (1Cor 3:11) and Unless the Lord builds the house those who labor build it in vain (Psalm 127:1)

The preface of my Gideon's New Testament sums it up best:

The Bible contains:
The mind of God;
The state of man;
The way of salvation;
The doom of sinners;
And, the happiness of believers.
Its doctrines are holy;
Its precepts are binding;
Its histories are true;
and, its decisions are immutable.
It contains light to direct you
Food to support you
And comfort to cheer you

It is..
The traveler’s map.
The pilgrim’s staff;
The pilot’s compass;
The soldier’s sword;
And, the Christian’s charter.

In it...
Paradise is restored
Heaven is opened
And the gates of hell disclosed.

Christ is the grand subject
Our good is its Design
And the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory
Rule the heart
And Guide the feet.

It is a mine of wealth
A paradise of glory
And a river of pleasure.

It is given to you in Life
Will be opened at the Judgment
And will be remembered forever.

It involves the highest responsibilities
Rewards the greatest labors
And condemns all who trifle with its contents

It is...
INDESTRUCTIBLE.Matthew24:35 2,
INCORRUPTIBLE.1Peter23:25
INDISPENSIBLE.Deuteronomy8:3; Matthew 4:4; Job 23:12
INFALLIBLE.Matthew5:18
AND INEXHAUSTIBLE.Psalm92:5

Read it to be wise
Believe it to be safe
And practice it to be holy.

It is the Word of the Living God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, such persistence. And all this time I thought you were belaboring me about whether or not I accepted the Bible as both Reliable and Infallible to which I replied with a resounding YES.

Where did you get that idea? I never asked any such question in this thread.



Now as to your question concerning the construction of the Book of Mormon being erected on the foundation of the Bible by Joseph Smith being similar or in some way equivalent to Christ being erected on the Foundation of the Old Testament, I must answer with a resounding NO.

I never said a word about "Christ being erected on the foundation of the Old Testament." I never said a word about any such "equivalence." Why are you changing my words? Why don't you deal with what I actually have written? This is absurd. Have you gone blind? Here again, is what I asked about:
You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.

I would be happy to discuss your other arguments after you deal with the words that you wrote.



Here again is the main reason for rejecting the use of a weak illustration to make such a comparison. To begin, as a reminder, the question in this thread is about the resurrection and what is the best evidence for the Bible. Somewhere in this debate, you must have thought it a good idea to inject Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon into the discussion thereby implying some type of equal comparison between Joseph's story and the Disciple's story. To expose the fallacy of this propped up straw man will require setting the stage to demonstrate the disparity.

There is no "straw man." You are simply doing everything in your power to evade my direct question which was based on a direct quote of the words you wrote. Why do you refuse to simply quote my question and answer it directly?



What Joseph Smith did and what Christ accomplished are not to be compared, only contrasted. So let's review a condensed version of the facts again:

We are not talking about "what Christ did." We are talking about a false distinction you made between Mormonism and Christianity. I showed you why it is false, and now you refuse to deal with it. Here it is again:

We are discussing the equivalence between Mormonism and Christianity. In post 36 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3175-What-is-the-best-evidence-for-Christianity&p=46490#post46490) you said this:
jce: "The Book of Mormon was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Bible. Because the witness and testimony of the Bible was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Smith was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance."

I explained your error by replacing Smith and the book of Mormon with Paul and his letters:
Richard: "The Gospel of Paul was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Old Testament. Because the witness and testimony of the Old Testament was already accepted by a broad range of believers [Jews], Paul was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance."

Here it is in a nutshell, in large bold font so you will know what we are talking about:
You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.

What do I have to do to get you to deal with the words you wrote?



Smith's Challenge:

Smith is involved in a Bible believing church and at some point in his life, he experiences a vision based on an angelic appearance to him. The messenger tells Joseph about some buried tablets with cryptic encoding which he later acquires and translates into messages of accounts based on biblical times, places and doctrines. Because it resembles Biblical teaching, it becomes accepted by many as authentic and some form of an addition to the Bible. It must have met with little resistance as it presently occupies a space in the Mormon Church and is revered, along with the Bible, by many its members.

The Disciples Challenge:

The apprehension of Christ and the scattering of the disciples spelled the end of Christ's ascension to Messiahship. If Jesus was on His way to Kingship, that dream was now over. No Jew would be willing to accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah after being declared a blasphemer by the high priest and rejected by the Sanhedrin, not to mention being stripped naked by Roman soldiers and publicly beaten and crucified for all to see. Christ became an insult to every Jew in the land. The pummeled Christ was then presented to the crowd as their king. The crowd's reply was; Crucify Him, crucify Him. If there were any believers in Christ's Kingship remaining, they were now in hiding. The popularity of Christ had effectively been erased from Jerusalem and if you were a vocal supporter of His, you would likely be rounded up and imprisoned. Jesus had quickly descended to become the disgraceful "King of the Jews" and was no longer anyone's hero.

The main question that deserves an answer is this, how does one account for the sudden turnaround in Jesus popularity and the subsequent conversion of so many Jews after the culmination of these disparaging events? Was it a cleverly devised fabrication of the disciples? If not, then what? Why would anyone suddenly put everything at risk and start preaching Christ as the Messiah, the Fulfillment of the OT Prophesies. Jesus was dead. Everybody knew it. There is only one logical answer to that very important question... RESURRECTION! Jesus was alive and well. He presented Himself to over 500 witnesses and met and interacted with the disciples after they knew He was dead. But now, He's alive and speaking with them.

How do you know there was a "sudden" turn around? You don't. You are merely asserting that the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. That makes a wonderful little circle, but it's not something I would put forth as a serious argument. If you applied the same standards to Mormonism you would see your error in a heartbeat.

I would be happy to deal with these additional arguments after you answer the question I've been asking over and over again.

Please answer my question. This is getting ridiculous (in the extreme!),

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You say “they were written by believers and “they could have accepted and reported unconfirmed hearsay and could have made up stories that never happened.” The problem with what you say here is that many scholars agree that much of the NT were written by the original apostles themselves who were with Jesus throughout his ministry and were witnesses to his resurrection and ascension. Most scholars agree that Paul wrote 13 epistles, John 3 and Peter 2, a total of 18 epistles. Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John. So it can be seen that most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ, which is considered to be a first-hand historical testimony of the ministry, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Henry,

Where are you getting your information? Your statements are filled with errors. Most scholars accept only 7 of the epistles attributed to Paul as genuine. Only the most conservative would insist he wrote all 13 (or 14 if you count Hebrews). The wiki provides a good overview of the facts:


Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraphy), that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#cite_note-2) considered genuine by most scholars (see main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles): section The undisputed epistles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#The_undisputed_ epistles)):


First Thessalonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Thessalonians) (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippians) (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon) (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians) (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians) (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Corinthians) (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans) (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraphic) by the majority of modern scholars include:[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#cite_note-New_Testament_Letter_Structure-3)


Pastoral epistles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles)

First Timothy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy)
Second Timothy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Timothy)
Titus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Titus)



The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#cite_note-New_Testament_Letter_Structure-3)


Ephesians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephesians)
Colossians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossians)
Second Thessalonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Thessalonians)

An anonymous text that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] is:



Hebrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews)



And your assertion that Peter wrote two epistles is rejected by almost all modern scholars. Most scholars consider 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical.

And your assertion that "Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John" has no foundation in fact. Very few if any scholars believe that. Where did you get this information? It's all wrong. Completely wrong.

Finally, your assertion that "most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ" is false.



And I have dealt and approached the Bible in my studies through the years in an objective fair and unbalanced way. For I was not brought up in any traditional way thus was not subject to presuppositions when I began studying the Bible and all the pro and cons written on the Bible by skeptics and Christians in all areas of scripture.

I think you meant "objectively fair and balanced way." Where's Freud when you need him? :lol:

Being self-educated does not mean you are fair and balanced. Given the erroneous "facts" you have reported, it is clear that you have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.



My point is we have thousands of biblical manuscripts that are consistent to the Old and New Testament historical writings and events. But where is the written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families debunking the Biblical testimony about the man named Jesus who had supposedly lived, performed miracles, died, and resurrected in their home town if the gospels and the epistles are a lie?

Your comment makes no sense. The "thousands of biblical manuscripts" have nothing to do with the fact that we don't have other literature from that period. The Bible was preserved because it was important to people. We don't have any extra-biblical letters saying anything about Jesus from the first century, so your point fails. I already explained this. We have no "written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families" concerning anything. We don't even have any written evidence from those people that they had ever heard of Jesus at all. You would think if the Bible were true and Jesus did all those miracles and raised people from the dead that everyone would be writing to everyone about it. But no, we find nothing. So if this proves anything, it would be that Jesus didn't even exist.

Also, your presumption that the Bible is true is not a proper foundation for proving the Bible is true.



But as I noted above, those “believers” were there, they were the apostles themselves who gave that written first-hand testimony to the churches. As can be seen, evidence has been given in several of my posts so I'm not pretending by giving just empty arguments, my arguments are being given based on a strong foundation; evidence, logic and facts.

I'm really glad that you are trying to answer with "logic and facts" but unfortunately both the facts and the logic of your post were very confused and inaccurate.

But hey - we've all got a lot to learn! And I am glad you are here to work with us on these issues.

All the very best,

Richard

[weeder]

:yo: Richard,


Where you see difference, I see similarity.

weeder: One builds on a foundation already established,( see lk 24) while the other introduces another set of writings.
Richard: Both (Paul / Joe) build on a foundation already established,(OT / Bible) and both introduces another set of writings (Paul's letters / book of Mormon).

Would you believe that there is a big difference in the similarities?

anyone can claim that they base a new revelation on the scriptures ...1800 years after the 1st century apostolic revelation.. ( NT).

Paul, by his own words states nothing but what OT scriptures said . Sure he wrote letters to Gentile people, but he always was sure to point people to an already established cannon....(Gods unique way of revealing himself through a particular people.)
He pointed to Jesus ministry as the foundation of the new cov , and used the OT to make his case.....just as Peter did on the day the church was born on pentecost..acts 2.

YOUNG joe, (15 years of age), introduces something extra, something that doesnt ring any bells for me , except an alarm bell lol....:lol:

One of Jesus last discourses states that he has told us everything in advance before he once again will reveal himself in a second coming, yet we see joe adding another witness ...as if we needed something else in these latter times.
Paul on the other hand refers to the Lords own word when discussing eschatalogical matters...see 1 thess 4...and Peter looks to the Lords own promise doing likewise.
Both clarify an already established revelation given by Jesus and the OT prophets, nothing more.:)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo: Richard,

Would you believe that there is a big difference in the similarities?

Hey there weeder, :sunny:

Yes, I would say there are many significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity and I will discuss them with you, but first it would be good for you to acknowledge that my point stands, or to find a way to refute it. My argument is very simple. I had asserted that people who make up new religions are free to make up whatever they want. I used the relatively recent example of Mormonism to prove this point. Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway. The same could have happened with Christianity. This refutes the argument - which has been repeated by countless apologists - that Christians could not have gone around making up stuff like the empty tomb if it didn't really happen. Do you agree that I have refuted that argument?

Now on to your points:



anyone can claim that they base a new revelation on the scriptures ...1800 years after the 1st century apostolic revelation.. ( NT).

That's my point exactly. Paul was just as free as Joe Smith to make up whatever he wanted. We have a lot of information about the opposition that Smith received, yet he still was able to sell his new religion. The only information about the opposition the early Christians received is from believers. It is biased, therefore, by definition. We have no newspapers from the first century like we do from Smith's time. So it is absurd to argue that the Christians were constrained in any way at all about the claims they could make. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that assertion. Do you agree with this point?

Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.



Paul, by his own words states nothing but what OT scriptures said . Sure he wrote letters to Gentile people, but he always was sure to point people to an already established cannon....(Gods unique way of revealing himself through a particular people.)
He pointed to Jesus ministry as the foundation of the new cov , and used the OT to make his case.....just as Peter did on the day the church was born on pentecost..acts 2.

I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity. You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.



YOUNG joe, (15 years of age), introduces something extra, something that doesnt ring any bells for me , except an alarm bell lol....:lol:

The fact that it doesn't ring any bells for you is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Would it be true if it did? Are the bells in your head the universal standard of truth?



One of Jesus last discourses states that he has told us everything in advance before he once again will reveal himself in a second coming, yet we see joe adding another witness ...as if we needed something else in these latter times.
Paul on the other hand refers to the Lords own word when discussing eschatalogical matters...see 1 thess 4...and Peter looks to the Lords own promise doing likewise.
Both clarify an already established revelation given by Jesus and the OT prophets, nothing more.:)

Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

[weeder]

Hey there weeder, :sunny:

Yes, I would say there are many significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity and I will discuss them with you, but first it would be good for you to acknowledge that my point stands, or to find a way to refute it. My argument is very simple. I had asserted that people who make up new religions are free to make up whatever they want. I used the relatively recent example of Mormonism to prove this point. Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway. The same could have happened with Christianity. This refutes the argument - which has been repeated by countless apologists - that Christians could not have gone around making up stuff like the empty tomb if it didn't really happen. Do you agree that I have refuted that argument?

Now on to your points:


That's my point exactly. Paul was just as free as Joe Smith to make up whatever he wanted. We have a lot of information about the opposition that Smith received, yet he still was able to sell his new religion. The only information about the opposition the early Christians received is from believers. It is biased, therefore, by definition. We have no newspapers from the first century like we do from Smith's time. So it is absurd to argue that the Christians were constrained in any way at all about the claims they could make. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that assertion. Do you agree with this point?

Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.


I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity. You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.


The fact that it doesn't ring any bells for you is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Would it be true if it did? Are the bells in your head the universal standard of truth?


Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

Thanks Richard. Ill copy this post to wordpad and answer soon. I like to take my time and think before i open my mouth...believe it or not :lol:

[weeder]

yo Richard...


Yes, I would say there are many significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity and I will discuss them with you, but first it would be good for you to acknowledge that my point stands, or to find a way to refute it. My argument is very simple. I had asserted that people who make up new religions are free to make up whatever they want. I used the relatively recent example of Mormonism to prove this point. Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway. The same could have happened with Christianity. This refutes the argument - which has been repeated by countless apologists - that Christians could not have gone around making up stuff like the empty tomb if it didn't really happen. Do you agree that I have refuted that argument?

Relieved to see that you see many significant differences :thumb:

Yes, ..............could be crap and made up, but i find it not so easy to refute Paul or Peter as easily than i do joe.



That's my point exactly. Paul was just as free as Joe Smith to make up whatever he wanted. We have a lot of information about the opposition that Smith received, yet he still was able to sell his new religion. The only information about the opposition the early Christians received is from believers. It is biased, therefore, by definition. We have no newspapers from the first century like we do from Smith's time. So it is absurd to argue that the Christians were constrained in any way at all about the claims they could make. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that assertion. Do you agree with this point?


Yes ,they could have said anything, but personally i have decided to accept them as being genuine ministers of Gods will in my personel quest for the truth.....i hate lies and have no interest in them..God help me.



Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.

I have given it some thought and find the assertion logical. Paul and co died in the 1st century and therefore had written all letters.:pop2:



I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity.

What evidence could Paul produce? What he did present to them was a reversal of his former motives toward the teaching of Jesus. Now he was the one rounded up and presented before the courts on charges that he formerly bought against other Christians....intriguing huh.


You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.


I understand that all too well. The disciples themselves were Jews and struggled with what Jesus was saying to them...religion lost and the truth prevailed with those Jews. Converting a religious Jew was no easy task.



Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?


The truth is out ther dude. Paul added to the witness already established by the eyewitnesses. Cant proove anything, but i can share what i have decided to have faith in.
Why i have to decided to take this leap is difficult to explain, but it has nothing to do with how i was bought up, or my culture...or the church that i attend, as i dont attend any church... its a bloody mystery mate.

No bibles in the parents house, no church on sunday, no reference to God of any kind in my upbringing, yet as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts :dontknow:

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

[jce]

... as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts.

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

"Forbid not the children to come unto me, for of such, the Kingdom of God consists".

"The wise in their own eyes, He hath sent empty away".

We share the same Marvelous Grace of God Mr. Weeder.

John

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

Where are you getting your information? Your statements are filled with errors. Most scholars accept only 7 of the epistles attributed to Paul as genuine. Only the most conservative would insist he wrote all 13 (or 14 if you count Hebrews). The wiki provides a good overview of the facts:

And your assertion that Peter wrote two epistles is rejected by almost all modern scholars. Most scholars consider 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical.

And your assertion that "Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John" has no foundation in fact. Very few if any scholars believe that. Where did you get this information? It's all wrong. Completely wrong.

Finally, your assertion that "most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ" is false.


I'm not going to argue about who's source is more legitimate, for we know that even sources differ on some biblical difficulties such as this, and sources can be bias. The main point I was making is that we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles, even though some epistles/gospels were written by another hand and attributed to the apostles. It doesn't change the fact that the testimony therein came first-hand from the apostles themselves. The internal evidence shows that all the epistles and gospels verify and witness to each other as they do also with OT scriptures given in their testimony.


Being self-educated does not mean you are fair and balanced. Given the erroneous "facts" you have reported, it is clear that you have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.

Oh, so because I gave “one source” you see as “reporting erroneous facts,” of the hundreds I've given in the past on this forum you conclude (judge) that I “have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.” And you say you only use fair and logical facts before drawing a conclusion?


Your comment makes no sense. The "thousands of biblical manuscripts" have nothing to do with the fact that we don't have other literature from that period. The Bible was preserved because it was important to people. We don't have any extra-biblical letters saying anything about Jesus from the first century, so your point fails. I already explained this. We have no "written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families" concerning anything. We don't even have any written evidence from those people that they had ever heard of Jesus at all. You would think if the Bible were true and Jesus did all those miracles and raised people from the dead that everyone would be writing to everyone about it. But no, we find nothing. So if this proves anything, it would be that Jesus didn't even exist.

Also, your presumption that the Bible is true is not a proper foundation for proving the Bible is true.

There are two sides to a coin. What you say is conjecture, of why we have no writings from Christ's enemies. We on the other hand have the first-hand evidence in the gospels that state why there is no writings from the leaders of Jerusalem, because the testimony of the apostles could not be falsified in any way, shape or fashion from Pentecost on.


Concerning Christ and the validity of the NT/OT scriptures:

Concerning the scriptures.

Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell.

Concerning Christ.

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.


I'm really glad that you are trying to answer with "logic and facts" but unfortunately both the facts and the logic of your post were very confused and inaccurate.

But hey - we've all got a lot to learn! And I am glad you are here to work with us on these issues.

All the very best,

Richard

Really, “my whole post?” :lol:

All the best to you also Richard,

God bless---Twospirits

[Rose]

No bibles in the parents house, no church on sunday, no reference to God of any kind in my upbringing, yet as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts :dontknow:

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

Hi Weeder,

I too was raised in a non-christian household, but from the time I was very young (under 6) I had a deep inner sense that there was a god who took care of everything. I knew nothing of what the biblegod was supposed to be like, so consequently I created my own concept of what I thought god was like. Latter on when I became a Christian I mapped my own idea of god onto the biblegod, until finally I used my reasoning to figure out that the biblegod is no more than a construct of mans imagination...now I am back to where I started from.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

yo Richard...

Relieved to see that you see many significant differences :thumb:

Yes, ..............could be crap and made up, but i find it not so easy to refute Paul or Peter as easily than i do joe.

Thanks for acknowledging my point!

:signthankspin:

Failure to acknowledge truth is very destructive to conversations like ours. We end up repeating ourselves and folks get frustrated fast and the whole conversation just ends in the ditch. So thanks again! You are providing a stellar example for everyone. I trust everyone will hold my feet to the same fire.

I too "find it not so easy to refute Paul or Peter as easily than i do joe." In spades! Joe falls under the weight of his own absurdity. Peter and Paul are of an entirely different class. Or maybe you and I just have a bias towards them? Would a Mormon agree with our assessment? Probably not. This shows the danger of self-delusion. Just imagine you were raised a devout Mormon. How would you escape that false religion if you began with the presupposition that it was true?



Yes ,they could have said anything, but personally i have decided to accept them as being genuine ministers of Gods will in my personel quest for the truth.....i hate lies and have no interest in them..God help me.

Again, thanks for admitting that point. I too hate lies, with a passion!

But I am curious why you would "decide to accept them as being genuine ministers of God." What went into making that decision? Was it purely emotional? When did it happen? Were you raised with a predisposition towards Christianity? [Edit - I see you answered this below.]




Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.
I have given it some thought and find the assertion logical. Paul and co died in the 1st century and therefore had written all letters.:pop2:

Yes, the fact that the letters were written in the first century is eminently logical and supported by much evidence. But I was referring to your assertion that it was a "revelation." It is not logical to assume that because there is no direct evidence to support it. That was my point.





I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity.




What evidence could Paul produce? What he did present to them was a reversal of his former motives toward the teaching of Jesus. Now he was the one rounded up and presented before the courts on charges that he formerly bought against other Christians....intriguing huh.

My point exactly (red). There was no more evidence for Paul's assertions than for Joe's or Muhammad's.






Paul, by his own words states nothing but what OT scriptures said . Sure he wrote letters to Gentile people, but he always was sure to point people to an already established cannon....(Gods unique way of revealing himself through a particular people.)
He pointed to Jesus ministry as the foundation of the new cov , and used the OT to make his case.....just as Peter did on the day the church was born on pentecost..acts 2.
You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.
I understand that all too well. The disciples themselves were Jews and struggled with what Jesus was saying to them...religion lost and the truth prevailed with those Jews. Converting a religious Jew was no easy task.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about how hard it is to convince someone their religion is wrong. That should be pretty obvious to anyone who has ever tried. My point was that the Jews see Christianity the way Christians see Judaism. Jews see Paul the way Christians see Joseph Smith. I was answering your point about how Paul "states nothing but what OT scriptures said." That's not true at all. Paul wrote a lot of new Scriptures, just like Joseph Smith. The fact that he built his religion on the OT is no more significant than the fact that Smith built his religion on the Bible.




Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?
The truth is out ther dude. Paul added to the witness already established by the eyewitnesses. Cant proove anything, but i can share what i have decided to have faith in.
Why i have to decided to take this leap is difficult to explain, but it has nothing to do with how i was bought up, or my culture...or the church that i attend, as i dont attend any church... its a bloody mystery mate.

OK - I understand you believe by faith. It's good for you understand this. And that doesn't mean there aren't facts supporting your belief, but it does mean that the facts are insufficient to prove your belief is correct.

You sound a lot like me. My conversion was quite mysterious too. I felt like a pot of dirt out of which a plant (faith) sprung up. It felt more like a discovery who I was than a choice I made. Indeed, I didn't really "choose" at all. I just felt the sun rise in my heart and I believed.



No bibles in the parents house, no church on sunday, no reference to God of any kind in my upbringing, yet as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts :dontknow:

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......
I'd love to hear more of that story! Six years old? We do have a lot in common. I was very interested in the "things of God" from an early age too.

Great chatting my friend! I really appreciate your comments.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm not going to argue about who's source is more legitimate, for we know that even sources differ on some biblical difficulties such as this, and sources can be bias. The main point I was making is that we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles, even though some epistles/gospels were written by another hand and attributed to the apostles. It doesn't change the fact that the testimony therein came first-hand from the apostles themselves. The internal evidence shows that all the epistles and gospels verify and witness to each other as they do also with OT scriptures given in their testimony.

I agree that all sources have a bias. That's why we must be so diligent to sort the true from the false using logic and facts. We must be very aware of our own biases and not mistake our own assumptions for "evidence."

Case in point: Your assertion that "we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles" is an opinion, not a fact. And it is an opinion that appears to me to be contradicted by the facts. We have no knowledge of who wrote any of the Gospels. The early church didn't even know! The names were added long after they were first composed. And many Bible believers are convinced that Lazarus, not John wrote the fourth Gospel. So you assertions are simply contrary to the facts in my estimation.

Another example: Why doesn't Paul contain any references to the Gospels? He never mentions the empty tomb or the virgin birth despite the fact that he supposedly traveled for years with Luke, the supposed author of the third Gospel and the book of Acts. You must include all evidence when making your case.




Being self-educated does not mean you are fair and balanced. Given the erroneous "facts" you have reported, it is clear that you have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.
Oh, so because I gave “one source” you see as “reporting erroneous facts,” of the hundreds I've given in the past on this forum you conclude (judge) that I “have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.” And you say you only use fair and logical facts before drawing a conclusion?

I'm sorry.

:sEm_ImSorry:

I should have been more careful with my words. I wasn't thinking about the other posts you have written. I was only thinking about what you had written in the post to which I was responding. Your statements were not what I would expect from anyone who had been reading serious scholarly literature about the Bible.

I double-checked and couldn't find any "source" for any of your assertions in that post. You merely asserted things like "most scholars agree that Paul wrote 13 epistles" and "most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John." Both of those statements are false. Sure, there are some scholars who believe those things, but most of those scholars are believers and are therefore biased. It doesn't mean they are wrong, but neither do they justify your statement about "most scholars."



There are two sides to a coin. What you say is conjecture, of why we have no writings from Christ's enemies. We on the other hand have the first-hand evidence in the gospels that state why there is no writings from the leaders of Jerusalem, because the testimony of the apostles could not be falsified in any way, shape or fashion from Pentecost on.

Your entire argument is based on "conjecture." That's why any response to your argument will also involve conjecture. But you still are not understanding the point. The fact is that we have no writings for or against Christ from that time. It is therefore absurd for you to press this point. And if we were to press it, we could just as well say that the church destroyed those documents when Christians came to power. The Mormons are famous for that. Bottom line: Your have not presented any evidence for your assertion that "the testimony of the apostles could not be falsified in any way, shape or fashion from Pentecost on." It is pure assertion based on nothing but conjecture about missing evidence! You argument is totally fallacious and wouldn't convince any rational skeptic.




I'm really glad that you are trying to answer with "logic and facts" but unfortunately both the facts and the logic of your post were very confused and inaccurate.

But hey - we've all got a lot to learn! And I am glad you are here to work with us on these issues.

All the very best,

Richard


Really, “my whole post?” :lol:

All the best to you also Richard,

God bless---Twospirits
I didn't say "whole post" but now that you bring it up I must admit that I did refute every line of it and as far as I can tell you have not written anything to contradict my refutations. If you think I've missed something, I will trust you to diligently hold my feet to the fire. You know I love that! So jump to it my friend!

Great chatting with you Henry. And please remember that I never mean any offense, so if I say something you think was offensive just bring it to my attention and I will explain and/or apologize.

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

I agree that all sources have a bias. That's why we must be so diligent to sort the true from the false using logic and facts. We must be very aware of our own biases and not mistake our own assumptions for "evidence."

Case in point: Your assertion that "we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles" is an opinion, not a fact. And it is an opinion that appears to me to be contradicted by the facts. We have no knowledge of who wrote any of the Gospels. The early church didn't even know! The names were added long after they were first composed. And many Bible believers are convinced that Lazarus, not John wrote the fourth Gospel. So you assertions are simply contrary to the facts in my estimation.

Another example: Why doesn't Paul contain any references to the Gospels? He never mentions the empty tomb or the virgin birth despite the fact that he supposedly traveled for years with Luke, the supposed author of the third Gospel and the book of Acts. You must include all evidence when making your case.

First, let me answer your statement that “many Bible believers are convinced that Lazarus, not John wrote the fourth gospel,” for many of the Biblewheel readers may not know this. What Richard is referring to is a recent book published in August 2011 (1st edition 2000) called “The Disciple whom Jesus loved,” written by Jim Phillips. It is a new and provocative book recently published with no evidence whatsoever that “many Bible believers are convinced (have become convinced from the book; emphasis added, mine) that Lazarus, not John wrote the fourth Gospel.”

Like I said I don't wish to argue over sources because I do believe sources can be bias. So let me approach it this way. Let's go along with the wiki source you provided, fair enough? Since you provided this source I will assume that you agree with it for the most part. That the 7 letters considered “undisputable letters” written by Paul are:

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

In those epistles it is true that Paul does not directly mention the empty tomb in his writings when giving his testimony about Christ. But his testimony points directly to the empty tomb as can be seen in the “resurrection passages.” They are seen in Rom. 4:24; 6:4-5,9; 14:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; chapter 15:3-8 (the testimony of the witnesses of Christ's resurrection from the grave/tomb); 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 3:10; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14. These resurrection passages relate and point to the Gospels which speak of the events of Christ's death, burial and resurrection from the tomb and all the witnesses involved.

It is by this evidence, logic and facts that I could say “we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles, even though some epistles/gospels were written by another hand and attributed to the apostles.” The testimonial evidence in the epistles and Gospels all agree with each other to the testimonial truth written therein and that it is not merely opinion or bias on my part.


I'm sorry.

:sEm_ImSorry:

I should have been more careful with my words.


No problem, we all do that at times. :hug:


Your have not presented any evidence for your assertion that "the testimony of the apostles could not be falsified in any way, shape or fashion from Pentecost on." It is pure assertion based on nothing but conjecture about missing evidence! You argument is totally fallacious and wouldn't convince any rational skeptic.

The evidence is given in the scriptures, though you reject that evidence, Mt. 28:11-15, “Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him (away) while we slept (v.13). So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews UNTIL THIS DAY” (v. 15). The evidence is also seen in history by that “missing evidence” that would refute the testimony of scripture.

I am not trying to convince “rational skeptics” for I don't believe I can, I am just bringing forth what I have weighed and concluded to be logical facts on this issue.


Great chatting with you Henry. And please remember that I never mean any offense, so if I say something you think was offensive just bring it to my attention and I will explain and/or apologize.

Same here Richard, stay well.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First, let me answer your statement that “many Bible believers are convinced that Lazarus, not John wrote the fourth gospel,” for many of the Biblewheel readers may not know this. What Richard is referring to is a recent book published in August 2011 (1st edition 2000) called “The Disciple whom Jesus loved,” written by Jim Phillips. It is a new and provocative book recently published with no evidence whatsoever that “many Bible believers are convinced (have become convinced from the book; emphasis added, mine) that Lazarus, not John wrote the fourth Gospel.”

You are correct. I should have said "some" instead of "many" since I don't know the actual numbers.

But it is true that the majority of non-conservative scholars (those who don't begin with a belief in the Bible) reject the Apostle John as the author of the fourth Gospel. Here's what the wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship):

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved)." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle), one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-12) the majority do not believe that John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Evangelist) or one of the Apostles wrote it,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-18) and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-HarrisJohn-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-HarrisG-20)
See that nice long list of citations supporting the assertion that "the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it"?



Like I said I don't wish to argue over sources because I do believe sources can be bias. So let me approach it this way. Let's go along with the wiki source you provided, fair enough? Since you provided this source I will assume that you agree with it for the most part. That the 7 letters considered “undisputable letters” written by Paul are:

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

In those epistles it is true that Paul does not directly mention the empty tomb in his writings when giving his testimony about Christ. But his testimony points directly to the empty tomb as can be seen in the “resurrection passages.” They are seen in Rom. 4:24; 6:4-5,9; 14:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; chapter 15:3-8 (the testimony of the witnesses of Christ's resurrection from the grave/tomb); 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 3:10; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14. These resurrection passages relate and point to the Gospels which speak of the events of Christ's death, burial and resurrection from the tomb and all the witnesses involved.

It seems you said that "Paul does not directly mention the empty tomb" to make room for the possibility of an "indirect mention of the empty tomb." But there is no such "indirect" mention, so your comment is seen to be rhetoric designed to sway your audience in a direction not supported by evidence.

It is silly for you to list all those uninterpreted verses as if they supported your case. If you could find even one with real evidence supporting your case, you should have quoted it and shown how it supports your case. But there are no such verses. All the verses you cited merely speak of Christ's resurrection, they say nothing of any "empty tomb" or if the actual corpse of Christ was raised. It seems you have forgotten what we are talking about. You presented the "empty tomb" as EVIDENCE for the resurrection, saying folks could not have gone around proclaiming the empty tomb if it weren't really empty. I showed that Paul, who was the earliest writer in the NT, NEVER made use of that argument. He merely argued that about 500 believers saw the resurrected Christ which is altogether different than claiming that there was an empty tomb that everyone in Jerusalem, including skeptics, knew about.



It is by this evidence, logic and facts that I could say “we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles, even though some epistles/gospels were written by another hand and attributed to the apostles.” The testimonial evidence in the epistles and Gospels all agree with each other to the testimonial truth written therein and that it is not merely opinion or bias on my part.

You have yet to produce any evidence that supports that conclusion. How do you know that Matthew wrote the Gospel that was attributed to him? You don't, and neither did the early church. And this is true for all the gospels, and many of the letters of Paul. You have given no evidence supporting your assertions.



No problem, we all do that at times. :hug:

Indeed! Let's show folks who to admit when we are wrong. It greatly enhances the quality of our conversations and it is the only way to truth.




Your have not presented any evidence for your assertion that "the testimony of the apostles could not be falsified in any way, shape or fashion from Pentecost on." It is pure assertion based on nothing but conjecture about missing evidence! You argument is totally fallacious and wouldn't convince any rational skeptic.
The evidence is given in the scriptures, though you reject that evidence, Mt. 28:11-15, “Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him (away) while we slept (v.13). So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews UNTIL THIS DAY” (v. 15). The evidence is also seen in history by that “missing evidence” that would refute the testimony of scripture.

That is a logical fallacy. You cannot begin by assuming the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. What if some scribe added that verse? How would you know? You have no foundation for your assumption that every verse of the Bible is true. And indeed, it is an absurd assumption since there are some verses that have textual variations so we don't even know what they actually say or if they are supposed to be in the Bible.

Your assertion that "The evidence is also seen in history by that “missing evidence” that would refute the testimony of scripture" is absurd because we have no letters of any kind from that time period. If their absence proves anything, it is that Christ did not exist at all. I've explained this at least three times now. It would be good if you responded directly to this point.



I am not trying to convince “rational skeptics” for I don't believe I can, I am just bringing forth what I have weighed and concluded to be logical facts on this issue.

You yourself should be a "rational skeptic." A "rational skeptic" is not necessarily an "unbeliever." Believers can, in principle (if not in fact) be rational and skeptical. Indeed, you know you are quite skeptical when it comes to every other religion but your own!

Great chatting!

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

You are correct. I should have said "some" instead of "many" since I don't know the actual numbers.

Thanks for acknowledging and correcting this.


But it is true that the majority of non-conservative scholars (those who don't begin with a belief in the Bible) reject the Apostle John as the author of the fourth Gospel. Here's what the wiki says:

See that nice long list of citations supporting the assertion that "the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it"?


I understand and acknowledge this, but on a side note, it is mainly the contemporary scholars that reject the traditional view held by the early church fathers. In any case whoever the writers were the historical accounts given in the Gospels of Christ's death, burial and resurrection have yet to be refuted with hard evidence to the contrary, and I leave it at that.


It seems you said that "Paul does not directly mention the empty tomb" to make room for the possibility of an "indirect mention of the empty tomb." But there is no such "indirect" mention, so your comment is seen to be rhetoric designed to sway your audience in a direction not supported by evidence.

It is silly for you to list all those uninterpreted verses as if they supported your case. If you could find even one with real evidence supporting your case, you should have quoted it and shown how it supports your case. But there are no such verses. All the verses you cited merely speak of Christ's resurrection, they say nothing of any "empty tomb" or if the actual corpse of Christ was raised. It seems you have forgotten what we are talking about. You presented the "empty tomb" as EVIDENCE for the resurrection, saying folks could not have gone around proclaiming the empty tomb if it weren't really empty. I showed that Paul, who was the earliest writer in the NT, NEVER made use of that argument. He merely argued that about 500 believers saw the resurrected Christ which is altogether different than claiming that there was an empty tomb that everyone in Jerusalem, including skeptics, knew about.

The apostles didn't go around with a sign proclaiming "this way to the empty tomb," and Paul and the others didn't have to. From Pentecost on, that 1st century audience, especially Christ's enemies, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, knew EXACTLY what Paul (and others) meant when he mentioned “Christ having been resurrected from death (the grave/tomb)” in his epistles that agree with the testimony given in the Gospels concerning that very event.


You have yet to produce any evidence that supports that conclusion. How do you know that Matthew wrote the Gospel that was attributed to him? You don't, and neither did the early church. And this is true for all the gospels, and many of the letters of Paul. You have given no evidence supporting your assertions.

Even if the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark and John, the testimony is what we look to, and they agree with the 7 epistles of Paul as well as the other epistles of the NT. The Gospels corroborate the epistles and the epistles corroborate the Gospels as evidence of their truth. So this is not just assertion, but conclusive evidence based on logic and facts.


That is a logical fallacy. You cannot begin by assuming the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. What if some scribe added that verse? How would you know? You have no foundation for your assumption that every verse of the Bible is true. And indeed, it is an absurd assumption since there are some verses that have textual variations so we don't even know what they actually say or if they are supposed to be in the Bible.

Your assertion that "The evidence is also seen in history by that “missing evidence” that would refute the testimony of scripture" is absurd because we have no letters of any kind from that time period. If their absence proves anything, it is that Christ did not exist at all. I've explained this at least three times now. It would be good if you responded directly to this point.

I did not assume that the Bible is true, I first gave the evidence of Paul's 7 epistles that corroborate the Gospel testimony, and that the Gospel testimony corroborates Paul's epistles. Thus I could then give the corroborating evidence of Mt. 28:11-15. Why I said, “The evidence is given in the scriptures, though you reject that evidence,---.” Since the epistles and Gospels corroborate each other, then it stands to reason that Mt. 28:11-15 can be taken as being a reliable historical account of what occurred at the time.

I don't quite understand what point you want me to respond to. Do you mean the point that “the absence of evidence (lack of) proves that Christ did not exist?” If this is what you mean, my answer is but we do have secular writings mentioning Christ's existence as a real human figure living in the 1st century. Josephus for one states that “John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).


You yourself should be a "rational skeptic." A "rational skeptic" is not necessarily an "unbeliever." Believers can, in principle (if not in fact) be rational and skeptical. Indeed, you know you are quite skeptical when it comes to every other religion but your own!

Okay, I'll use your phrase, I was a “rational skeptic” when I first approached the scriptures 25 years ago. I had no presuppositions to hold me back as I told you in a prior post, so I did and could approach the scriptures with a non-bias. I have studied and continue to study the scriptures, Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, etc. in depth and have found the scriptures to be reliable. Yes there are scriptures that are difficult, but I have strong faith now, not skepticism that further study will give me the answers as to their meaning.

God bless---Twospirits

[weeder]

Hi Weeder,

I too was raised in a non-christian household, but from the time I was very young (under 6) I had a deep inner sense that there was a god who took care of everything. I knew nothing of what the biblegod was supposed to be like, so consequently I created my own concept of what I thought god was like. Latter on when I became a Christian I mapped my own idea of god onto the biblegod, until finally I used my reasoning to figure out that the biblegod is no more than a construct of mans imagination...now I am back to where I started from.

Rose

Hi Rose
I did much the same thing, except for reasoning the Hebrew God to a construct of mans imagination. You were so close :)

[weeder]

Morning Richard,


But I am curious why you would "decide to accept them as being genuine ministers of God." What went into making that decision? When did it happen?

Difficult to put into words, but here goes.
It didnt happen suddenly. I guess over time, despite some difficulties, i came to accept it. I dont understand all of it and am left sratching head, but the spirit of the message sits well with my conscience.I really dont see the NT as being deceptive in any way...it has only challenged me to see myself for who i am, and encourage me to be more tolerant and less judgmental of others.
When i was 16 i thought that if anyone was going to be saved it would be me.Like a light shining on a dark place the following years revealed to me who i really was,(and it wasnt so pretty) and that i am no better than anybody else.



Yes, the fact that the letters were written in the first century is eminently logical and supported by much evidence. But I was referring to your assertion that it was a "revelation." It is not logical to assume that because there is no direct evidence to support it. That was my point.

Its difficult not to see it as a new revelation. It was powerful enough to change the way the Jewish disciples looked at and worshipped their God. Their minds were opened to understand the scriptures....finally, haha. For them to fall down and worship Jesus shows the depth of the relevation they recieved of who Jesus really is.


I'd love to hear more of that story! Six years old? We do have a lot in common. I was very interested in the "things of God" from an early age too.


Whether or not it was shortly before ,during or after the moon landing i cant remember. Possibly it was the trigger that sparked these kinds of thoughts in me..the wonder of it all.
I was walking to school looking up thinking ... youve got to be there.( heaven, must be there well its just got to be there).
Nothings changed much except i sing the next verse with a lot more gutso...(i dont wanna live in this place):D
Wasnt until i was 15 that Jesus made an appearance in my thoughts. My brother had recently converted and i went to visit him in Melbourne. I got baptised but nothing really changed and moved back to Adelaide. Didnt like the church he attended, and was a wise move to get out, but my interest in NT didnt wane.
My early 20's saw me getting more serious about it and havent looked back.
As far as attending Churches, something didnt seem right and was never comfortable with it. I thought it was me, and forced myself to go.
I went to this new church once, didnt know anyone, sat myself down, and as i was listening to the sermon i got this impession that the guy was gay and was in a relationship with another guy who was on the stage. I thought the devil was whispering in my ear and told the devil to go away.....It wasnt the devil. After the meeting i was chatting with a member and and i asked him if anything was going on with these two guys....(just had to ask) and he said yes. I apologised to God on the way out for calling him the devil.

Have a great day

[jce]

Hey there weeder, :sunny:

Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway.

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

Richard, frequently you make statements such as the one above and one common thread that ties most of your objections together is your demand for verification.

Since you claim that Smith's story can be EASILY refuted. Please present the evidence which proves that Smith's claims are false.

Since you consider the Book of Mormon as a worthy comparison to the New Testament, then please present your evidence to EASILY dismiss the New Testament as a bunch of made up crap.

Your friend,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, frequently you make statements such as the one above and one common thread that ties most of your objections together is your demand for verification.

Since you claim that Smith's story can be EASILY refuted. Please present the evidence which proves that Smith's claims are false.

Since you consider the Book of Mormon as a worthy comparison to the New Testament, then please present your evidence to EASILY dismiss the New Testament as a bunch of made up crap.

Your friend,

John

I have never said that the Book of Mormon was "a worthy comparison to the New Testament." The comparison was about how folks could start a religion and say anything they wanted without fear of contradiction because they were looking for believers, not thinkers.

This thread is not intended for a discussion of Mormonism, but here's a quick list off the top of my head:

1) The book of Mormon claims that the Americas were populated by Israelites. DNA contradicts that idea.

2) Smith pretended that a funerary document was really the "Lost book of Abraham" written in "reformed Egyptian." He lied. There isn't even such a language.

3) The book of Mormon claims there were wheeled chariots in the Americas. False.

4) The book of Mormon claims there were big cities, coins, etc., etc., etc. All False.

5) Smith was a known conman.

6) Smith made up crazy stories about magical spectacles, etc. that are patently absurd.

Is that enough? If you want more, we should start a thread on that topic.

Oh, one other thing. If someone asked me for the "best evidence" for Mormonism, I would tell them that there isn't any. Folks can't do that with evolution. There is a massive amount of very convincing evidence.

[jce]

I have never said that the Book of Mormon was "a worthy comparison to the New Testament." The comparison was about how folks could start a religion and say anything they wanted without fear of contradiction because they were looking for believers, not thinkers.

This thread is not intended for a discussion of Mormonism, but here's a quick list off the top of my head:

1) The book of Mormon claims that the Americas were populated by Israelites. DNA contradicts that idea.

2) Smith pretended that a funerary document was really the "Lost book of Abraham" written in "reformed Egyptian." He lied. There isn't even such a language.

3) The book of Mormon claims there were wheeled chariots in the Americas. False.

4) The book of Mormon claims there were big cities, coins, etc., etc., etc. All False.

5) Smith was a known conman.

6) Smith made up crazy stories about magical spectacles, etc. that are patently absurd.

Is that enough? If you want more, we should start a thread on that topic.

Oh, one other thing. If someone asked me for the "best evidence" for Mormonism, I would tell them that there isn't any. Folks can't do that with evolution. There is a massive amount of very convincing evidence.

Thank-you Richard for what I assume is "verifiable" evidence. Now could you tackle the New Testament and demonstrate by verifiable evidence that it is a bunch of made up crap?

Thanks Richard.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank-you Richard for what I assume is "verifiable" evidence. Now could you tackle the New Testament and demonstrate by verifiable evidence that it is a bunch of made up crap?

Thanks Richard.

John

This thread is not intended as a place for me to give the best evidence against Christianity, my friend! Read again my opening post. I don't think you understand the problem I am trying to solve. The internet is filled with ideologues who make a career lying about things like evolution. They have a big audience of very ignorant people who repeat their lies because they think that they are "proof" against something that they don't even understand. It is pathetic in the extreme. But it is very easy to resolve if people can be encouraged to be true Truth Seekers. True Truth Seekers know that they must understand something before asserting it is false. So this is a test to see if anyone who opposes evolution is a true truth seeker. Unfortunately, no anti-evolutionist has yet shown that they know anything about evolution at all, yet some of them are willing to make fools of themselves by ignorantly declaring "evolution is bullshit."

The problem with internet debates is that there are very few truth seekers. Folks frequently misrepresent their opponents views and so opposing sides just talk past each other. Neither side is willing to admit truth, so it becomes a waste of time. The test of a truth seeker is very simple. Anyone who thinks that some view is false must be able to articulate what that view is and the best evidence supporting it. If they refuse or can't do this they reveal themselves to be ignorant closed-minded dogmatists who reject things they know nothing of because the want to adhere to their dogmas.

I am rather disheartened that folks are not even understanding the meaning of what a true Truth Seeker really is.

<sigh>

All the best my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks for acknowledging and correcting this.

It is my goal to always admit when I am wrong! :thumb:



I understand and acknowledge this, but on a side note, it is mainly the contemporary scholars that reject the traditional view held by the early church fathers. In any case whoever the writers were the historical accounts given in the Gospels of Christ's death, burial and resurrection have yet to be refuted with hard evidence to the contrary, and I leave it at that.

The early church fathers did not have the benefit of modern science, textual criticism, recently discovered manuscripts, etc. I see no reason to favor their opinions over others.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but the one who makes the claim that there was a death, burial, and resurrection, and all the other facts attending Christianity.



The apostles didn't go around with a sign proclaiming "this way to the empty tomb," and Paul and the others didn't have to. From Pentecost on, that 1st century audience, especially Christ's enemies, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, knew EXACTLY what Paul (and others) meant when he mentioned “Christ having been resurrected from death (the grave/tomb)” in his epistles that agree with the testimony given in the Gospels concerning that very event.

Again, you are assuming that the religious tracts known as the "Gospels" and the "Letters of Paul" are fully accurate in all their details. They weren't written for at least 20 years after the events they supposedly record, and there are many problems with internal consistency that make it clear they cannot be accepted at face value.

And you are missing the point about the empty tomb. That argument is based on a false assumption that Christians could not go around making false claims. We know that people have started religions by making easily refutable false claims, so that argument fails.



Even if the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark and John, the testimony is what we look to, and they agree with the 7 epistles of Paul as well as the other epistles of the NT. The Gospels corroborate the epistles and the epistles corroborate the Gospels as evidence of their truth. So this is not just assertion, but conclusive evidence based on logic and facts.

The fact that the books "corroborate" each other does not prove that any of them are true. The Hadith corroborates the Quran. Does that mean they are both true, and Muhammad is a prophet of God?




That is a logical fallacy. You cannot begin by assuming the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. What if some scribe added that verse? How would you know? You have no foundation for your assumption that every verse of the Bible is true. And indeed, it is an absurd assumption since there are some verses that have textual variations so we don't even know what they actually say or if they are supposed to be in the Bible.

Your assertion that "The evidence is also seen in history by that “missing evidence” that would refute the testimony of scripture" is absurd because we have no letters of any kind from that time period. If their absence proves anything, it is that Christ did not exist at all. I've explained this at least three times now. It would be good if you responded directly to this point.
I did not assume that the Bible is true, I first gave the evidence of Paul's 7 epistles that corroborate the Gospel testimony, and that the Gospel testimony corroborates Paul's epistles. Thus I could then give the corroborating evidence of Mt. 28:11-15. Why I said, “The evidence is given in the scriptures, though you reject that evidence,---.” Since the epistles and Gospels corroborate each other, then it stands to reason that Mt. 28:11-15 can be taken as being a reliable historical account of what occurred at the time.

I don't quite understand what point you want me to respond to. Do you mean the point that “the absence of evidence (lack of) proves that Christ did not exist?” If this is what you mean, my answer is but we do have secular writings mentioning Christ's existence as a real human figure living in the 1st century. Josephus for one states that “John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).

You most certainly did assume that the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. You assumed that the record of the events at Pentecost really happened at that time, and that the Apostles went about preaching immediately after the resurrection. How do you know if any of that is true, or if it was just made up? You don't. You have merely ASSUMED the Biblical record is true, and then based your reasoning on that assumption. That is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

As for the "secular evidence" like Josephus - it is very slight and there is evidence of it being tampered with by later Christians. Just think what the history of Mormonism would look like if the Mormons had near total control over historical documents like the Christian church after the fourth century. You point was about how there should be thousands of letters from Jerusalem debunking the Christian claims if their claims were not true. That is an illogical assertion because there are almost no documents from that time, so you can't say what that those documents would exist if they contained arguments against the empty tomb. Your argument simply does not follow.



Okay, I'll use your phrase, I was a “rational skeptic” when I first approached the scriptures 25 years ago. I had no presuppositions to hold me back as I told you in a prior post, so I did and could approach the scriptures with a non-bias. I have studied and continue to study the scriptures, Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, etc. in depth and have found the scriptures to be reliable. Yes there are scriptures that are difficult, but I have strong faith now, not skepticism that further study will give me the answers as to their meaning.

What do you mean when you say that you have found the Scriptures reliable? Reliable in what way? What did you confirm and how did you confirm it?

Great chatting!

Richard

[jce]

This thread is not intended as a place for me to give the best evidence against Christianity, my friend! Read again my opening post. I don't think you understand the problem I am trying to solve. The internet is filled with ideologues who make a career lying about things like evolution. They have a big audience of very ignorant people who repeat their lies because they think that they are "proof" against something that they don't even understand. It is pathetic in the extreme. But it is very easy to resolve if people can be encouraged to be true Truth Seekers. True Truth Seekers know that they must understand something before asserting it is false. So this is a test to see if anyone who opposes evolution is a true truth seeker. Unfortunately, no anti-evolutionist has yet shown that they know anything about evolution at all, yet some of them are willing to make fools of themselves by ignorantly declaring "evolution is bullshit."

The problem with internet debates is that there are very few truth seekers. Folks frequently misrepresent their opponents views and so opposing sides just talk past each other. Neither side is willing to admit truth, so it becomes a waste of time. The test of a truth seeker is very simple. Anyone who thinks that some view is false must be able to articulate what that view is and the best evidence supporting it. If they refuse or can't do this they reveal themselves to be ignorant closed-minded dogmatists who reject things they know nothing of because the want to adhere to their dogmas.

I am rather disheartened that folks are not even understanding the meaning of what a true Truth Seeker really is.

<sigh>

All the best my friend,

Richard

And to think that I tee'd up the ball for you, and instead of coming to bat, you retreated to the dugout. Why am I not surprised.

Sigh.

Your friend

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This thread is not intended as a place for me to give the best evidence against Christianity, my friend! Read again my opening post. I don't think you understand the problem I am trying to solve. The internet is filled with ideologues who make a career lying about things like evolution. They have a big audience of very ignorant people who repeat their lies because they think that they are "proof" against something that they don't even understand. It is pathetic in the extreme. But it is very easy to resolve if people can be encouraged to be true Truth Seekers. True Truth Seekers know that they must understand something before asserting it is false. So this is a test to see if anyone who opposes evolution is a true truth seeker. Unfortunately, no anti-evolutionist has yet shown that they know anything about evolution at all, yet some of them are willing to make fools of themselves by ignorantly declaring "evolution is bullshit."

The problem with internet debates is that there are very few truth seekers. Folks frequently misrepresent their opponents views and so opposing sides just talk past each other. Neither side is willing to admit truth, so it becomes a waste of time. The test of a truth seeker is very simple. Anyone who thinks that some view is false must be able to articulate what that view is and the best evidence supporting it. If they refuse or can't do this they reveal themselves to be ignorant closed-minded dogmatists who reject things they know nothing of because the want to adhere to their dogmas.

I am rather disheartened that folks are not even understanding the meaning of what a true Truth Seeker really is.

<sigh>

All the best my friend,

Richard
And to think that I tee'd up the ball for you, and instead of coming to bat, you retreated to the dugout. Why am I not surprised.

Sigh.

Your friend

John
Don't worry John, I'll start a thread called "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." But you know, that's not the kind of thread we really need because it will be just another thread where folks present arguments against a point of view that they may not even understand. That's why I started this thread to challenge people to elevate the conversation to a level of authentic discourse where we present the best arguments the other side has to offer before we go about trying to debunk them. And now that I think about it, you should be the one to start the thread, since you are a believer. That's the "high standard" I am striving for. I presented "The Best Evidence for Christianity" because I am an unbeliever. A truth seeking believer should demonstrate his authentic intellect by producing a thread for "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." That would prove that you understand the opposing view and have good reasons to be a believer anyway.

I hope you are starting to see my logic. It is perhaps the most dangerous challenge for anyone not truly committed to the truth.

BWT - could you please take a moment to answer post 71 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3175-What-is-the-best-evidence-for-Christianity&p=46572#post46572) in this thread? I truly believe I have demonstrated that your argument, which also is the core argument for the resurrection, is false. Thanks!

All the very best to you and yours,

Richard

[David M]

Don't worry John, I'll start a thread called "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." But you know, that's not the kind of thread we really need because it will be just another thread where folks present arguments against a point of view that they may not even understand. That's why I started this thread to challenge people to elevate the conversation to a level of authentic discourse where we present the best arguments the other side has to offer before we go about trying to debunk them. And now that I think about it, you should be the one to start the thread, since you are a believer. That's the "high standard" I am striving for. I presented "The Best Evidence for Christianity" because I am an unbeliever. A truth seeking believer should demonstrate his authentic intellect by producing a thread for "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." That would prove that you understand the opposing view and have good reasons to be a believer anyway.

I hope you are starting to see my logic. It is perhaps the most dangerous challenge for anyone not truly committed to the truth.

BWT - could you please take a moment to answer post 71 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3175-What-is-the-best-evidence-for-Christianity&p=46572#post46572) in this thread? I truly believe I have demonstrated that your argument, which also is the core argument for the resurrection, is false. Thanks!

All the very best to you and yours,

Richard

Hello Richard

I understand what you are trying to do but we should be true to the title of the thread as much as possible; so often we digress. This is why I said in another post; your title, "The best evidence for Evolution" is not going to get answered by Creationists; so that is my answer to your question; "why are Christians so quiet on this subject?". You have to phrase the title of the thread in harmony with how you want the conversations in the thread to proceed.

Now you want jce to answer the statement you make around the statement jce made. I expect jce is thinking about a good answer, and no doubt his answer will be better than mine. I did not have a ready-made answer, but I will jump in and speak for myself; I am not answering for jce and he would not want me to. I am answering the statement as you would want all Christians and Bible scholars to give you a reply. This will give you confirmation of that which you have already concluded, so whether I answer the statement in the way you want or not, you will prove yourself correct in either case.

This is the statement you want answering from post #71

You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.
Whether what you showed is true, I shall leave to one side and just give my statement on the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) as I see them. This is my statement:

The NT is a continuation of the OT. The NT does not replace the OT. The NT has its roots in the OT. The NT is the transition from the Old Law of Moses and animal sacrifices to the one-time sacrifice of one man, who has made atonement for all sins. Hence the commonality between the OT and the NT is that it is all the testimony of God. God’s testimony has come in the form of inspiration given to authors who wrote the separate books and letters. All of God’s testimony in the Bible is from the original texts which God inspired. The message of the NT and OT is consistent and coherent, which has the watermark of a common author and co-author behind them.

Additional to the statement.
The Bible is a miraculous book for its compilation and survival, though miracles cannot be proved, they are witnessed. There has to be at least two reliable witnesses for evidence to be accepted or as in the case of prophecy, proof of a prophecy is in its fulfillment.

The plan that God has for the earth and man upon it, is the same from Genesis to Revelation. God is fulfilling His plan and purpose as we speak and this is the consistent and coherent framework of the Bible. The history of God's chosen people serve as lessons and the Bible can be regarded as an operating manual on how to live, in order to be happy and at peace.


Richard. My statements above I know will not satisfy you because you can say “prove it” to any of my remarks and I do not have the proof you seek. Therefore, you can claim victory for making a statement that is not answered as you want it to be. It means you are no nearer to getting to the truth, as no-one gives you an answer you can agree with. The proof for the Bible is the Bible. There is archaeological evidence to support (some, if not all) facts and places mentioned in the Bible as well as secular writings to prove the existence of a man that is identified as Jesus in the Bible. In keeping with the fact that the Bible gives its own answers, and why it is we have sketchy secular evidence is down to the fact that God is in control (behind the scenes) and that it requires some diligence to seek out the truth which God has given us. (Proverbs 25:2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Deuteronomy 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us.


Regarding the Book of Mormon, I ask the following questions by which to judge its divine authority;

1. Does the Book of Mormon have the same credentials as the Bible?
2. Does the Book of Mormon have the stamp of the same common authorship as the Bible?
3. Does the Book of Mormon have the same consistent and coherent message as the Bible?
4. Is part of the Book of Mormon a subset of the Bible?
5. Is part of the Book of Mormon which is not a subset of the Bible, complimentary to the Bible?
6. Are there no irreconcilable differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

If the answer is “yes” to all of these questions, that would make the Book of Mormon acceptable (to me). A “No” answer to any of these questions makes and Book of Mormon unacceptable (to me).

I have given my answer and as I am dealing with the topics covered in my statement in other threads, I will bow out from further discussion on the statement made. Richard might want to comment, but I am done for now.


All the best

David

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

The early church fathers did not have the benefit of modern science, textual criticism, recently discovered manuscripts, etc. I see no reason to favor their opinions over others.

I said I wish to leave it at that, but to simply respond here, if anything the early church fathers of the late 1st and 2nd century had a great advantage over the scholars of today. They had access not only to the written manuscripts but were disciples of those close to some of the apostles and witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection of that time and era. It's not “favoring their opinions” over others, it's just a reasonable and logical evaluation and conclusion of the historical evidence pro and con.


The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but the one who makes the claim that there was a death, burial, and resurrection, and all the other facts attending Christianity.

True, but as in any court case, the skeptics most also be able to back up their allegations brought against Christianity with more than just empty allegations devoid of any evidence that would prove their case; otherwise the case would be thrown out of court and Christianity exonerated.


Again, you are assuming that the religious tracts known as the "Gospels" and the "Letters of Paul" are fully accurate in all their details. They weren't written for at least 20 years after the events they supposedly record, and there are many problems with internal consistency that make it clear they cannot be accepted at face value.

And you are missing the point about the empty tomb. That argument is based on a false assumption that Christians could not go around making false claims. We know that people have started religions by making easily refutable false claims, so that argument fails.

A mere twenty years is hardly a long time in passing to gather accurate details and provide confirmation from all sources and the many witnesses to the truth of those events and put them in writing. Paul even testifies to that fact that many were still alive that could confirm the truth or lie of what he wrote in his epistle.

They could hardly go around in Jerusalem claiming a resurrection of a person called Christ if there wasn't an empty tomb and a missing body. First, the Jewish authorities knew where Jesus Christ had been buried. How could they not know? If you can believe the historical account it is said they even had a guard over it to prevent it from being stolen by Christ's disciples. Secondly, how could the disciples convince anyone, let alone thousands converted at Pentecost (or after) with a blatant lie like Christ's resurrection if the historical events given in scripture were not true? This logical fact simply just does not compute for one to believe otherwise. The conversion of thousands of Jews from Pentecost on is a great evidence of the truth of the historical testimony given in the gospels and epistles.


The fact that the books "corroborate" each other does not prove that any of them are true. The Hadith corroborates the Quran. Does that mean they are both true, and Muhammad is a prophet of God?

The overall accumulated evidence from all sources when taken into consideration all agree with the findings and truth of the scriptures.


You most certainly did assume that the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. You assumed that the record of the events at Pentecost really happened at that time, and that the Apostles went about preaching immediately after the resurrection. How do you know if any of that is true, or if it was just made up? You don't. You have merely ASSUMED the Biblical record is true, and then based your reasoning on that assumption. That is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

It is not an “assumption” but it is a “conclusion” brought about by the overall compiled evidence. In the same way you believe in Evolution. Is it just your “assumption” or is it your “conclusion” brought about by compiled evidence?


As for the "secular evidence" like Josephus - it is very slight and there is evidence of it being tampered with by later Christians. Just think what the history of Mormonism would look like if the Mormons had near total control over historical documents like the Christian church after the fourth century. You point was about how there should be thousands of letters from Jerusalem debunking the Christian claims if their claims were not true. That is an illogical assertion because there are almost no documents from that time, so you can't say what that those documents would exist if they contained arguments against the empty tomb. Your argument simply does not follow.

Okay, it sounds like you deny the secular evidence from Josephus that Christ even existed because of “evidence of tampering,” do you also deny the secular historical evidence of Tacitus that mentions Christ in his writings? If so why so?

TACITUS: (55-117) A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”


What do you mean when you say that you have found the Scriptures reliable? Reliable in what way? What did you confirm and how did you confirm it?

I thought I made myself clear. I found the scriptures reliable through and by 25 years of in-depth study of all sources (Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, archeology, etc.) pro and con relating to all areas of scripture.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I said I wish to leave it at that, but to simply respond here, if anything the early church fathers of the late 1st and 2nd century had a great advantage over the scholars of today. They had access not only to the written manuscripts but were disciples of those close to some of the apostles and witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection of that time and era. It's not “favoring their opinions” over others, it's just a reasonable and logical evaluation and conclusion of the historical evidence pro and con.

I agree that it offers some evidence in support of your position, but it is very weak because it is based on speculation and hearsay that can't be confirmed and we have examples of modern religions being invented that show the early Christians could have just made up stuff. There is no way to discern which parts of the Bible might be true and which false. People make up stuff all the time. I would be a fool to believe something just because it's written in a book.




The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but the one who makes the claim that there was a death, burial, and resurrection, and all the other facts attending Christianity.
True, but as in any court case, the skeptics most also be able to back up their allegations brought against Christianity with more than just empty allegations devoid of any evidence that would prove their case; otherwise the case would be thrown out of court and Christianity exonerated.

What "empty allegations" are speaking of?

When you say "devoid of any evidence" you make me think of your case based on the non-existent first century letters challenging the empty tomb. That argument is based on a "lack of evidence." Indeed, it equates lack of evidence with evidence.



A mere twenty years is hardly a long time in passing to gather accurate details and provide confirmation from all sources and the many witnesses to the truth of those events and put them in writing. Paul even testifies to that fact that many were still alive that could confirm the truth or lie of what he wrote in his epistle.

Joseph Smith made up his religion out of whole cloth. There was no "twenty year" delay. Now there are millions of Mormons who fervently believe the stories made up by Joseph Smith just like you believe the Gospels.

And again, Paul's assertion that there were many witnesses still living is no more convincing that Smith's assertion that he had 11 witness who testified about the Golden Plates. And in fact, Smith's evidence is better because he actually got some of those guys to sign documents "confirming" their testimony! We don't have any evidence like this for the Christian claims:

Smith eventually obtained testimonies from eleven men, known as the Book of Mormon witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses), who said they had seen the plates.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates#cite_note-3) After the translation was complete, Smith said he returned the plates to their angelic guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni). Therefore, if the plates existed, they cannot now be examined. Latter Day Saints believe the account of the golden plates as a matter of faith, while critics often assert that either Smith manufactured the plates himself[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates#cite_note-4) or that the Book of Mormon witnesses based their testimony on visions rather than physical experience.
There it is - the root of all religion. The truth about the "Golden Plates" is just a "matter of faith."




Again, you are assuming that the religious tracts known as the "Gospels" and the "Letters of Paul" are fully accurate in all their details. They weren't written for at least 20 years after the events they supposedly record, and there are many problems with internal consistency that make it clear they cannot be accepted at face value.

And you are missing the point about the empty tomb. That argument is based on a false assumption that Christians could not go around making false claims. We know that people have started religions by making easily refutable false claims, so that argument fails.
They could hardly go around in Jerusalem claiming a resurrection of a person called Christ if there wasn't an empty tomb and a missing body. First, the Jewish authorities knew where Jesus Christ had been buried. How could they not know? If you can believe the historical account it is said they even had a guard over it to prevent it from being stolen by Christ's disciples. Secondly, how could the disciples convince anyone, let alone thousands converted at Pentecost (or after) with a blatant lie like Christ's resurrection if the historical events given in scripture were not true? This logical fact simply just does not compute for one to believe otherwise. The conversion of thousands of Jews from Pentecost on is a great evidence of the truth of the historical testimony given in the gospels and epistles.

Of course they could! The could say anything they wanted. Hasn't history taught you anything? Joe Smith made up a mountain of crap and told it to anyone who would listen. It doesn't matter how many people proved him wrong. All he cared about was recruiting followers. There is no reason to think anything was any different in first century Jerusalem. On the contrary, they didn't have newspapers and telegraphs like in Smith's day, which means it would have been much easier to get away with making up stuff.

And you still are repeating the same error over and over again. You are assuming the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. Your argument that "They could hardly go around in Jerusalem claiming a resurrection of a person called Christ if there wasn't an empty tomb and a missing body" is based upon the ASSUMPTION that they really did go around Jerusalem in the weeks following the resurrection. But the story wasn't written till decades later. Most scholars say Mark was written in the late 60s, or about 30 years after the facts. There is absolutely nothing that would have stopped them from making up stories about what the first Christians were doing in the streets of Jerusalem 30 years prior.

All of your assertions are based on the assumption that the Bible is true. How do you know if anyone was converted at Pentecost in 30 AD? You don't have any knowledge about that except what the Book of Mormon, I mean Bible, tells you. It is a circular argument. If the story in the book is not true, then all your arguments fall. So the only question of any importance is if there is reason for us to believe the story is true. That's easy to check! We'll just read the Jerusalem Times from April AD30 which most certainly would have mentioned the most amazing event of 3000 converts to the new religion after everyone saw the empty tomb and knew that the miracle worker Christ had indeed been raised from the dead. There's no doubt whatsoever that such a story would have made HEADLINE NEWS! So get me a copy of the Jerusalem Times and we can settle this issue.




The fact that the books "corroborate" each other does not prove that any of them are true. The Hadith corroborates the Quran. Does that mean they are both true, and Muhammad is a prophet of God?
The overall accumulated evidence from all sources when taken into consideration all agree with the findings and truth of the scriptures.

I understand how it can seem that way to a believer who is not using his skeptical eyes, but when you open your eyes and really look at the evidence your assertion is not so obvious at all. There are many problems trying to harmonize the accounts. Indeed, they are highly contradictory. For example, John says Christ's ministry lasted three years (three passovers) whereas the synoptics mention only one. If that's not a contradiction, what is? How long did Christ minister on earth? You can't say because the Biblical testimony is contradictory. And you can't even say what really happened during Christ's final week because the Gospel accounts are contradictory. And John doesn't mention key players found in the other Gospels such as James. And Paul seems to be entirely ignorant of the life of Christ. He never mentions the empty tomb or the virgin birth and many other things that indicate he knew nothing of the Gospel stories. That's one reason scholars think the Gospels were written late, since we know Paul began writing around 53 AD.

I trust you can see that your bold assertion was just that - a bold assertion which contradicts a lot of evidence.




You most certainly did assume that the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. You assumed that the record of the events at Pentecost really happened at that time, and that the Apostles went about preaching immediately after the resurrection. How do you know if any of that is true, or if it was just made up? You don't. You have merely ASSUMED the Biblical record is true, and then based your reasoning on that assumption. That is the fallacy of Begging the Question.
It is not an “assumption” but it is a “conclusion” brought about by the overall compiled evidence. In the same way you believe in Evolution. Is it just your “assumption” or is it your “conclusion” brought about by compiled evidence?

But could you come to that conclusion without making that assumption? No, you could not. That's why it is a logical fallacy to assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.

I don't see how it has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. The theory of evolution is a set of scientific principles used to explain the fact of evolution. There is no circularity in the logic at all as far as I can see. But if I'm wrong, I would be in your debt if you could show me why.




As for the "secular evidence" like Josephus - it is very slight and there is evidence of it being tampered with by later Christians. Just think what the history of Mormonism would look like if the Mormons had near total control over historical documents like the Christian church after the fourth century. You point was about how there should be thousands of letters from Jerusalem debunking the Christian claims if their claims were not true. That is an illogical assertion because there are almost no documents from that time, so you can't say what that those documents would exist if they contained arguments against the empty tomb. Your argument simply does not follow.
Okay, it sounds like you deny the secular evidence from Josephus that Christ even existed because of “evidence of tampering,” do you also deny the secular historical evidence of Tacitus that mentions Christ in his writings? If so why so?

TACITUS: (55-117) A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”

I don't deny the secular evidence of Josephus. I was only pointing out that we must be skeptical of it like any other evidence that could be tampered with since we know Christians "ruled the historical roost" for over a thousand years. And you know many of them were men with little scruples who could not be trusted.

And we are not talking about whether or not Christ even existed. I have not denied that as probable.

As for Tacitus, that's fine evidence for the existence of Christian sects by the late first and early second century. This has not been disputed, so your evidence doesn't impact our conversation.




What do you mean when you say that you have found the Scriptures reliable? Reliable in what way? What did you confirm and how did you confirm it?
I thought I made myself clear. I found the scriptures reliable through and by 25 years of in-depth study of all sources (Hebrew-Greek sources, commentaries, archeology, etc.) pro and con relating to all areas of scripture.

God bless---Twospirits
I applaud your diligent study. But I can't help but wonder if it was truly objective. If it were, I would expect you to show a lot more awareness of the evidence that contradicts your conclusions. And more importantly, I would expect you to have personally wrestled with that evidence so that now you could share your insights with other people like me who are wrestling with the same issues.

Your claim that you have studied the arguments "pro and con relating to all areas of Scripture" reminds me of why I don't believe Lee Strobel. He claims that he was an "atheist" and that he converted to Christianity because of the evidence. But when you read his book, he doesn't deal with any of the hard questions that are the sin qua non of skeptics. He just preaches to the choir. No true skeptic could ever believe he actually wrestled with the problems and found a solution. On the contrary, he looks like a typical Christian apologist who only looks for ways to convince others while skillfully evading the problematic issues. Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't think you are dishonest or anything like that. I'm just trying to help you understand how things look to me.

All the very best to you my friend. I think this conversation is developing very well.

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

I agree that it offers some evidence in support of your position, but it is very weak because it is based on speculation and hearsay that can't be confirmed and we have examples of modern religions being invented that show the early Christians could have just made up stuff. There is no way to discern which parts of the Bible might be true and which false. People make up stuff all the time. I would be a fool to believe something just because it's written in a book.

There are some things (if not many) that can never be confirmed “absolutely,” so we can only weigh the evidence logically and decide what evidence is the strongest to accept as fact. In the case of the Biblical historical narrative being trustworthy it is an individual decision. In all my studies I have found them to be trustworthy.


What "empty allegations" are speaking of?

When you say "devoid of any evidence" you make me think of your case based on the non-existent first century letters challenging the empty tomb. That argument is based on a "lack of evidence." Indeed, it equates lack of evidence with evidence.

I am speaking of the skeptic's rebuttals used in their rejection of the historical accounts such as, the apostles and witnesses all hallucinated, the stories are all myth, swoon theory, conspiracy, etc., allegations devoid of any evidence. None of these theories have stood up to scrutiny.


Joseph Smith made up his religion out of whole cloth. There was no "twenty year" delay. Now there are millions of Mormons who fervently believe the stories made up by Joseph Smith just like you believe the Gospels.

And again, Paul's assertion that there were many witnesses still living is no more convincing that Smith's assertion that he had 11 witness who testified about the Golden Plates. And in fact, Smith's evidence is better because he actually got some of those guys to sign documents "confirming" their testimony! We don't have any evidence like this for the Christian claims:

Sources on Joseph Smith also go on to say that most (if not all) of his "witnesses" were family related in one way or another to Smith and that several or more of them left the church and his organization, Smith then called them all “liars.” Ironic isn't it? He hung himself with his own words by calling his own “witnesses”- "liars."


All of your assertions are based on the assumption that the Bible is true. How do you know if anyone was converted at Pentecost in 30 AD? You don't have any knowledge about that except what the Book of Mormon, I mean Bible, tells you. It is a circular argument. If the story in the book is not true, then all your arguments fall. So the only question of any importance is if there is reason for us to believe the story is true. That's easy to check! We'll just read the Jerusalem Times from April AD30 which most certainly would have mentioned the most amazing event of 3000 converts to the new religion after everyone saw the empty tomb and knew that the miracle worker Christ had indeed been raised from the dead. There's no doubt whatsoever that such a story would have made HEADLINE NEWS! So get me a copy of the Jerusalem Times and we can settle this issue.

I understand how it can seem that way to a believer who is not using his skeptical eyes, but when you open your eyes and really look at the evidence your assertion is not so obvious at all. There are many problems trying to harmonize the accounts. Indeed, they are highly contradictory. For example, John says Christ's ministry lasted three years (three passovers) whereas the synoptics mention only one. If that's not a contradiction, what is? How long did Christ minister on earth? You can't say because the Biblical testimony is contradictory. And you can't even say what really happened during Christ's final week because the Gospel accounts are contradictory. And John doesn't mention key players found in the other Gospels such as James. And Paul seems to be entirely ignorant of the life of Christ. He never mentions the empty tomb or the virgin birth and many other things that indicate he knew nothing of the Gospel stories. That's one reason scholars think the Gospels were written late, since we know Paul began writing around 53 AD.

I trust you can see that your bold assertion was just that - a bold assertion which contradicts a lot of evidence.


I'll note again we can only weigh the overall evidence logically and decide whether to accept that evidence or not. In the case of the Biblical historical narrative being trustworthy it is an individual decision to accept or deny the reliability in part or all of the scriptures.


But could you come to that conclusion without making that assumption? No, you could not. That's why it is a logical fallacy to assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.

I don't see how it has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. The theory of evolution is a set of scientific principles used to explain the fact of evolution. There is no circularity in the logic at all as far as I can see. But if I'm wrong, I would be in your debt if you could show me why.

The trustworthiness of scriptures comes from evidences of archeology, written secular and biblical history and etc. not an assumption on my part, so I don't see how it can be a logical fallacy as you claim.

Theory of Evolution begins with an “assumption” then it looks to evidence to confirm that theory which then becomes a fact by the compiled evidence. So it is with the study of the scriptures.


I applaud your diligent study. But I can't help but wonder if it was truly objective. If it were, I would expect you to show a lot more awareness of the evidence that contradicts your conclusions. And more importantly, I would expect you to have personally wrestled with that evidence so that now you could share your insights with other people like me who are wrestling with the same issues.

I am trying to share otherwise I wouldn't be posting. :winking0071:


Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't think you are dishonest or anything like that. I'm just trying to help you understand how things look to me.

All the very best to you my friend. I think this conversation is developing very well.


Not at all, I understand we must never be to quick to believe everything a person may say, this is a good thing built in a human being to prevent him from being easily deceived by others.

Same to you Richard, stay well,

God bless---Twospirits

[duxrow]

:typing:
5. POETRY. Psalm 23 is perhaps the most famous poetry in Christianity with its picturesque language. The 22 letter Hebrew alphabet, the Book of Lamentations, and the Alpha & Omega, all speak to the rhythm and symmetry of Our Creator and His myriad Creations. If 'Evolution' were true, why aren't more monkeys or snakes evolving into men? (Or do we just not recognize them; being dressed in suits?)

6. ALLEGORY. The story that Nathan told David, about the rich taking the poor man's lamb for his own dinner, was really speaking of what David had done with Bathsheba; leading to the death of Urriah. Similarly, it was the story of Hagar and Sarah which leads to our understanding of how Ishmael and Isaac represent the Old and New Covenants, Gal 4:24, and how the Old Testament was a teacher to lead us to Christ. Gal 3:24.

7. MYSTERIES: The word 'mystery' not found in the OT, and of the Gospel writer's, only Mark uses it. Mk4:11 [Jesus] said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: v.12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
So, for the believers, the Bible is the "table set before us in the presence of all the unbelievers!
Rom11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".

8. NAMES: From the 1st Adam ('blood-aleph') in Genesis, to the '2nd Adam' of 1Cor15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. v.46: Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
We find many Names in scripture that are used of more than a single individual, and many have meanings assigned which give us clues to the understanding of their stories. The Name above every name, Phil 2:9, is our 'password' and our 'Door' to heaven for those who use it honestly. And God KNOWS who is using it honestly and who is hiding treachery in their heart. :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Don't worry John, I'll start a thread called "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." But you know, that's not the kind of thread we really need because it will be just another thread where folks present arguments against a point of view that they may not even understand. That's why I started this thread to challenge people to elevate the conversation to a level of authentic discourse where we present the best arguments the other side has to offer before we go about trying to debunk them. And now that I think about it, you should be the one to start the thread, since you are a believer. That's the "high standard" I am striving for. I presented "The Best Evidence for Christianity" because I am an unbeliever. A truth seeking believer should demonstrate his authentic intellect by producing a thread for "The Best Evidence Against Christianity." That would prove that you understand the opposing view and have good reasons to be a believer anyway.

I hope you are starting to see my logic. It is perhaps the most dangerous challenge for anyone not truly committed to the truth.

BWT - could you please take a moment to answer post 71 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3175-What-is-the-best-evidence-for-Christianity&p=46572#post46572) in this thread? I truly believe I have demonstrated that your argument, which also is the core argument for the resurrection, is false. Thanks!

All the very best to you and yours,

Richard

Hello Richard

I understand what you are trying to do but we should be true to the title of the thread as much as possible; so often we digress. This is why I said in another post; your title, "The best evidence for Evolution" is not going to get answered by Creationists; so that is my answer to your question; "why are Christians so quiet on this subject?". You have to phrase the title of the thread in harmony with how you want the conversations in the thread to proceed.
Hey there David,

Your answer is no answer at all. You merely said that my question "is not going to get answered by Creationists." You didn't give a reason!

I think the reasons are pretty obvious. There are two reasons creationists can't or won't state the best evidence for evolution:

1) They are ignorant of the science and so don't even know what it is that they are rejecting.

2) They know that they cannot refute the evidence so they won't admit to knowing it.

That's the only two reasons I can think of.



Now you want jce to answer the statement you make around the statement jce made. I expect jce is thinking about a good answer, and no doubt his answer will be better than mine. I did not have a ready-made answer, but I will jump in and speak for myself; I am not answering for jce and he would not want me to. I am answering the statement as you would want all Christians and Bible scholars to give you a reply. This will give you confirmation of that which you have already concluded, so whether I answer the statement in the way you want or not, you will prove yourself correct in either case.

Your assertion that I will "prove myself correct in either case" is absurd. It is the evidence that decides the case. Since you have not been able to refute my logic and facts, you resort to making absurd assertions that I am some sort of freak who will "prove himself correct" regardless of the evidence. I know that's what Christians do on a daily basis, so it is particularly ironic that you accuse me of such.

But I'm glad you have tried to give an answer. And it's good that you don't have a "ready-made answer." I would much rather know what you think than what you can copy and paste from the internet.



This is the statement you want answering from post #71

You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.
Whether what you showed is true, I shall leave to one side and just give my statement on the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) as I see them. This is my statement:

The NT is a continuation of the OT. The NT does not replace the OT. The NT has its roots in the OT. The NT is the transition from the Old Law of Moses and animal sacrifices to the one-time sacrifice of one man, who has made atonement for all sins. Hence the commonality between the OT and the NT is that it is all the testimony of God. God’s testimony has come in the form of inspiration given to authors who wrote the separate books and letters. All of God’s testimony in the Bible is from the original texts which God inspired. The message of the NT and OT is consistent and coherent, which has the watermark of a common author and co-author behind them.


How can you doubt if my statement is true? It is obviously true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. I guess that's why you chose to "leave it to one side."

Now as for your statement. Everything except the fourth sentence (which contains details specific to the NT) applies equally to the Book of Mormon:

The BOOK OF MORMON is a continuation of the Bible. The BOOK OF MORMON does not replace the Bible. The BOOK OF MORMON has its roots in the BIBLE. The NT is the transition from the Old Law of Moses and animal sacrifices to the one-time sacrifice of one man, who has made atonement for all sins. Hence the commonality between the BIBLE and the BOOK OF MORMON is that it is all the testimony of God. God’s testimony has come in the form of inspiration given to authors who wrote the separate books and letters. All of God’s testimony in the BOOK OF MORMON is from the original texts which God inspired. The message of the BOOK OF MORMON and BIBLE is consistent and coherent, which has the watermark of a common author and co-author behind them.

You first statement does not refute anything I have written about why John's argument fails.



Additional to the statement.
The Bible is a miraculous book for its compilation and survival, though miracles cannot be proved, they are witnessed. There has to be at least two reliable witnesses for evidence to be accepted or as in the case of prophecy, proof of a prophecy is in its fulfillment.

First, you have never provided any evidence for your assertion that any prophecy has been proven.

Second, a Mormon could say the same things about their book: "The BOOK OF MORMON is a miraculous book for its compilation and survival, though miracles cannot be proved, they are witnessed."



The plan that God has for the earth and man upon it, is the same from Genesis to Revelation. God is fulfilling His plan and purpose as we speak and this is the consistent and coherent framework of the Bible. The history of God's chosen people serve as lessons and the Bible can be regarded as an operating manual on how to live, in order to be happy and at peace.

Pure assertion. No evidence. No proof. No different than any other religion on the planet.



Richard. My statements above I know will not satisfy you because you can say “prove it” to any of my remarks and I do not have the proof you seek. Therefore, you can claim victory for making a statement that is not answered as you want it to be. It means you are no nearer to getting to the truth, as no-one gives you an answer you can agree with. The proof for the Bible is the Bible. There is archaeological evidence to support (some, if not all) facts and places mentioned in the Bible as well as secular writings to prove the existence of a man that is identified as Jesus in the Bible. In keeping with the fact that the Bible gives its own answers, and why it is we have sketchy secular evidence is down to the fact that God is in control (behind the scenes) and that it requires some diligence to seek out the truth which God has given us. (Proverbs 25:2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Deuteronomy 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us.

You made one good point. The fact that there is "archaeological evidence to support (some, if not all) facts and places mentioned in the Bible" shows how the Bible is much more believable than the Book of Mormon which was just a fantasy of a weak mind. Smith invented all sorts of places that never existed in history. So the Bible is clearly superior in this regard. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with my refutation of the similarity between the two books. It does not affect a word I wrote, so my argument stands. Why don't you try to address the actual words I wrote? That would be an interesting innovation.

Now I must tell you that it is not particularly nice for you to insinuate that I want to "claim victory for making a statement that is not answered as I want it to be." The issue has nothing to do with anything I "want" other than verifiable evidence for your claims. The problem is that you know you have been falsely claiming to have proof so now you want to pretend that I just won't accept the proof because it "is not answered as I want it to be." That is exceedingly wrong, my friend. The reason you have not given me any evidence that satisfies my request is because you have not given an evidence at all.

First you tell me that you can't give evidence because you "do not have the proof I seek" but then you try to give evidence anyway. And worse, you imply that there is something wrong with me for demanding evidence! That's just plain nuts. You are the one making claims without evidence. You have no right to suggest that the problem has anything to do with me. Your assertion that I am "no nearer to getting to the truth, as no-one gives you an answer you can agree with" is also nuts. I am a lot closer to the truth because now I have another example of how sincere Christians can go about claiming things are true even when they have no evidence. And worse, they will often claim things are true even when the evidence proves them wrong.

Thus you have provided me with another counter-example to the false argument that says Christians could not have gone around talking about the empty tomb if it weren't really true. Think of the irony! Your very attempt to defend Christianity is itself a counter-example that disproves your argument. Christians constantly make false claims, and they continue to make the same false claims even after they have been shown to be wrong. Case in point: Twospirits quoted a creationist site that had a quote deceptively taken out of context with the intent to deceive. That quote has been debunked for years, but Christians continue to publish the lie. They are willfully deceptive, and so we know that people lie for their religion. There is no reason to think this wasn't just as true in the first century as it is today.

Now in answer to your questions:

1. Does the Book of Mormon have the same credentials as the Bible?
What credentials does the Bible have?

2. Does the Book of Mormon have the stamp of the same common authorship as the Bible?
The Bible does not have any such stamp. It contains many contradictions.

3. Does the Book of Mormon have the same consistent and coherent message as the Bible?
I grant that there is a generally consistent message running through Scripture, but it is far from a consistent book. And it would be easy for the Book of Mormon to have a "consistent message" since it was written by one man. So this question is not a good test.

4. Is part of the Book of Mormon a subset of the Bible?
Yes, just as part of the NT is a subset of the OT. (e.g. the extended quote in Hebrews 8, and many quotes throughout). And besides, the Mormon could just say that's evidence for its authenticity. Remember, you are free to make up whatever excuses you want when your dogmas contradict reality.

5. Is part of the Book of Mormon which is not a subset of the Bible, complimentary to the Bible?
The only answers are totally subjective.

6. Are there no irreconcilable differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?
There are irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible! This has been proven.



If the answer is “yes” to all of these questions, that would make the Book of Mormon acceptable (to me). A “No” answer to any of these questions makes and Book of Mormon unacceptable (to me).

Your "standards" are designed to guarantee your conclusion. Such "reasoning" is designed to protect a delusion from being realized for what it is.



I have given my answer and as I am dealing with the topics covered in my statement in other threads, I will bow out from further discussion on the statement made. Richard might want to comment, but I am done for now.

You didn't touch my argument with a ten foot pole. Therefore, it stands. I will soon be writing an article to enlighten everyone why the argument from the empty tomb can be proven with rigorous logic to be fallacious.

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard
I am not going to refute everything that I disagree with you on here, I was making a general statement and providing questions for others to answer in order to make up theri minds. The fact that yoiu have answered and given us your opinion is appreciated.

Hey there David,

Your answer is no answer at all. You merely said that my question "is not going to get answered by Creationists." You didn't give a reason!

I think the reasons are pretty obvious. There are two reasons creationists can't or won't state the best evidence for evolution:

1) They are ignorant of the science and so don't even know what it is that they are rejecting.

2) They know that they cannot refute the evidence so they won't admit to knowing it.

That's the only two reasons I can think of.
It is not like you do not know that I have answered this question now and you congratulated me on my answer, but as I then replied, what I gave you was the type of evidence, I did not give you actual examples as evidence and those are best coming from Evolutionists. You cannot expect Creationist to know the best evidence for when you know Creationists are against Evolution. Your reasoning about that makes no sense to me, but I am happy to leave it at that.



Your assertion that I will "prove myself correct in either case" is absurd. It is the evidence that decides the case. Since you have not been able to refute my logic and facts, you resort to making absurd assertions that I am some sort of freak who will "prove himself correct" regardless of the evidence. I know that's what Christians do on a daily basis, so it is particularly ironic that you accuse me of such.
Conclude whatever you like, for expediency, I am not going to get involved discussing or justifying every word I use/write. We are discussing the evidence for many things and discussing many topics and I simply refuse to keep going over the same ground to justify my statements. You show us your reasoning which is not always good, but when you have stated what you believe or prefer to promote, I am happy to leave it at that and do not challenge because you are repeating what I have read in hundreds of your posts. There may be a new reader to the forum that has not had time to read your posts of the past, but when they do, they will soon see as I do that yo keep repeating and asserting the things you do that I and others do not agree and others have already given you their evidence that I agree with and do not have to repeat the evidence. If we keep going over every every point in every post, we will soon all lose interest and whilst I want to reason things out from the Bible perspective, I am fast getting bored by continual challenges and assertions that have been discussed in earlier posts in different threads.


But I'm glad you have tried to give an answer. And it's good that you don't have a "ready-made answer." I would much rather know what you think than what you can copy and paste from the internet.
Good, there is hope we can continue. Just do not expect evidence for statements made in every post when we are discussing these things in other threads. I would hope you take on board the evidence and reasons othes have been giving you, which it is pointless me repeating. I would hope you take a little on board and present some new ideas for a change especially when you claim not to believe the Bible or the Quran. To repeat myself from another thread, it is difficult not to accept you believe something when you assert that somthing is true and you never present the alternatives to understanding passages in the Bible.


How can you doubt if my statement is true? It is obviously true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. I guess that's why you chose to "leave it to one side."
I leave it aside for expediency, whether it is true or not. Why not just accept that and move on.


I will soon be writing an article to enlighten everyone why the argument from the empty tomb can be proven with rigorous logic to be fallacious.
I look forward to that and I expect Twospirits will too. Perhaps we can get back on track to reasoning and not having to justify evey written comment. Please give us so much evidence that we have nothing to challeng you on, we can all give up everything we have come to believe from years of contemplating the things God has revealed and this forum becomes redundant in discussing the Bible any further. We can all agree with you and take a rest.

Alll the best,

David.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard
I am not going to refute everything that I disagree with you on here, I was making a general statement and providing questions for others to answer in order to make up theri minds. The fact that yoiu have answered and given us your opinion is appreciated.

And I appreciate that you give your opinions. But many of your opinions are stated as facts that should be justified but are not.


You cannot expect Creationist to know the best evidence for when you know Creationists are against Evolution. Your reasoning about that makes no sense to me, but I am happy to leave it at that.

I don't follow your logic. Creationists claim that evolution is false. Their claim cannot have any validity whatsoever if they don't know anything about the best evidence for evolution. How is it that you don't understand this? It's like a hill-billy that can't add 1 + 2 going to NASA and telling them their calculus is all wrong.




Your assertion that I will "prove myself correct in either case" is absurd. It is the evidence that decides the case. Since you have not been able to refute my logic and facts, you resort to making absurd assertions that I am some sort of freak who will "prove himself correct" regardless of the evidence. I know that's what Christians do on a daily basis, so it is particularly ironic that you accuse me of such.
Conclude whatever you like, for expediency, I am not going to get involved discussing or justifying every word I use/write. We are discussing the evidence for many things and discussing many topics and I simply refuse to keep going over the same ground to justify my statements.

I think I understand the problem. I guess we are different kinds of people. Personally, my biggest hope is for people to challenge my assertions to force me to evaluate if they can stand upon logic and facts. Now don't get me wrong, I understand there is more to knowledge than things that can be proven, but those are matters of opinion so they can't be settled with any certainty. I got tired of those kinds of assertions a long time ago, and it is my desire to engage people about REALITY that can be established with some sort of certainty.

From what you say, it seems as if my demand for justification of your opinions just frustrates you. So I guess we are different in that regard. I love justifying my statements. I love it when folks challenge what I say. That helps me know if my beliefs are true or false.



You show us your reasoning which is not always good,

You constantly make the same unsupported assertion that my reasoning is not good, but you rarely if ever actually show any error in my logic. You did the same thing to Rose. You merely asserted her logic was erroneous but failed to support that assertion with any facts. No one knows what you are talking about when you make general assertions like "your reasoning is not always good." If there is EVER an error in my logic, please do me the service of stating exactly what it is. That's how I respond to you. I quote you and then show your error. I would be delighted if you would follow suit.



but when you have stated what you believe or prefer to promote, I am happy to leave it at that and do not challenge because you are repeating what I have read in hundreds of your posts.

I repeat things because they have been supported with facts yet you continue to reject them without giving any sustainable refutation. So I repeat them to because they are true and have not been refuted. I will stop repeating things I think are true the moment you show me a valid reason to think they are not true.



There may be a new reader to the forum that has not had time to read your posts of the past, but when they do, they will soon see as I do that yo keep repeating and asserting the things you do that I and others do not agree and others have already given you their evidence that I agree with and do not have to repeat the evidence.

If that were true, you could prove me wrong in a heartbeat. But you can't prove me wrong because you are merely making more assertions. The things I repeat are the things that have been proven true, or at least have not been refuted as yet. I repeat them because they are true yet you will not admit it nor refute them.

I think I understand the problem. You are not used to dealing with someone like me who is strongly motivated to find the truth and who holds everyone's feet to the fire, including my own. I don't let mere assertions go by unchallenged. I can understand why that would frustrate you, especially if you are thinking "religiously" which means "without real evidence."



If we keep going over every every point in every post, we will soon all lose interest and whilst I want to reason things out from the Bible perspective, I am fast getting bored by continual challenges and assertions that have been discussed in earlier posts in different threads.

We wouldn't have to go over the same ground if you had dealt with the issues when they were first raised. Case in point: Neither you nor John has shown any error in post 71. And you have not dealt with what I wrote at all, even though you quoted it in your post. That's the recipe for frustration. I'd be frustrated except I've grown a very thick skin because I know how hard it is for people to face facts that contradict their beliefs. So I just PERSIST in my demand for a reasoned discussion. But you get frustrated because I keep pointing out that you have not answered the very question you quoted.

And John has not answered despite repeated requests.

So I get the impression I have found an irrefutable refutation of the "empty tomb" argument.

That's why I am such a "bulldog" - I want to know if anyone can find of any refutation of my argument. If not, then I have good confidence that I might be on to something.

I would be happy to engage you on the Trinity from a purely biblical perspective. I intended to but other activities took precedence.




But I'm glad you have tried to give an answer. And it's good that you don't have a "ready-made answer." I would much rather know what you think than what you can copy and paste from the internet.
Good, there is hope we can continue. Just do not expect evidence for statements made in every post when we are discussing these things in other threads. I would hope you take on board the evidence and reasons othes have been giving you, which it is pointless me repeating. I would hope you take a little on board and present some new ideas for a change especially when you claim not to believe the Bible or the Quran. To repeat myself from another thread, it is difficult not to accept you believe something when you assert that somthing is true and you never present the alternatives to understanding passages in the Bible.

Yes, there is much hope for a continued fruitful discussion!

I take in all the evidence that is presented to me. I am the one who invented the "What's the best evidence for your opponents position?" - remember? I'm the one who is open to evidence that contradicts my positions. But for you, the concept of considering opposing evidence is so contrary to your religious point of view that you can't even conceive of the idea that a Creationist should know the evidence for evolution. We are coming from very different spaces. I am well practiced in having my ideas and beliefs challenged. I love it. It seems to cause you distress. I'm sorry about that, but I really think you could learn to love it just like me. The only thing stopping you from being a TRUTH LOVER like me is your belief in dogmas that you fear may not be true. That's what shuts down you mind. That's why you can't even think about the evidence that supports the opposing view. And be warned - that is what will blind you to truth! Think about that ...




How can you doubt if my statement is true? It is obviously true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. I guess that's why you chose to "leave it to one side."
I leave it aside for expediency, whether it is true or not. Why not just accept that and move on.

You didn't answer my question again. My statement was true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. Why don't you just admit it? A primary impediment to fruitful discourse is the refusal of one side to admit anything the other side says is true.

This is why you are so frustrated. I have to keep repeating the same question because you often don't answer even when you quote my question.



I look forward to that and I expect Twospirits will too. Perhaps we can get back on track to reasoning and not having to justify evey written comment. Please give us so much evidence that we have nothing to challeng you on, we can all give up everything we have come to believe from years of contemplating the things God has revealed and this forum becomes redundant in discussing the Bible any further. We can all agree with you and take a rest.

You would have a lot less statements to "justify" if you only wrote statements that were self-justifying because they were based on logic and facts. It is your opinions and empty assertions stated as "facts" that require justification.

And your attitude about me is rather disappointing. You have completely misunderstood me. The last thing in the world I would want is for you to "agree" with my opinion! I want you to be free! To think your own thoughts! To challenge everything I say! To prove me wrong when I'm wrong and to affirm that I'm right when I'm right. I want you to speak the truth that you know can be supported by logic and facts. I do not want "agreement" with my opinion. I want you to get REAL about the words you write so they don't have to be tediously "justified." Forget the rhetoric of belief and discuss things that can be established as true or false with certainty.

All the very best to you, my frustrated friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth and lies or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that 1 Corinthians was written about 55 A.D. Making this writing about 25 years after Christ's resurrection. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3-8 about the witnesses who saw Christ after his resurrection. Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry, :yo:

There is a simple test to see if your argument is true. We need only apply it to the book of Mormon:

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Joseph Smith's crap was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's crap. So let us argue from Joseph Smith's crap. Either that crap contains myth and lies or it does not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that Joseph Smith's crap was written about 1840 A.D. Making his writing concurrent with his own crap. If his crap is not myth, then neither is any of the other crap written by Mormons, for Joe Smith affirms all the main claims found in all the other Mormon crap.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when Joseph Smith wrote his crap who could testify whether any of it was true. Joe Smith writes about the witnesses who saw the Golden Tablets after they were revealed by the angel Moroni. Joe Smith says there were 12 witnesses, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.


I trust that clears things up.

Richard

Richard Carrier explains why the resurrection does not give good evidence for Christianity.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=C7MHBJ9E4y0#!

[Linnorm Noxot]

some of the best evidence that I have is that the very reality that I am in is truly not seeing God. this pushes me to have more faith that the bible speaks the truth, since I am so often ignorantly resisted even though no one looks into great details of the things which I speak about. namely that the bible is a spiritual book and it's own language, rather than it being able to be comprehended in any kind of literal fashion. I have seen the blind ignorance of multitudes of Christians, and they seem to all not believe that the bible should be read in a purely spiritual manner. their logic and reasoning is clearly pointed out in the bible, that they are flesh/letter/literal/legalistic/jews according to the flesh... they are followers of the written word rather than spiritual/good/truth/innocence/jews according to the spirit... which is to be let free in the liberty of the sons of God. this is due to bad teachers and sheep-like follows that eat whatever is fed to them, no matter how disgusting it is. it appears as if there is no critical thinking upon the matters of what is good and what is evil. they seem to not comperhend the nature of God, since they assume so many evil things about him. I do not yet fully grasp what is keeping unbelievers that know that the bible is wrong when they read it according to the literal, but I do believe it has something to do with not listening to the spiritual truth and believing that the bible is meant to be understood in a literal way, therefore they see it as evil and resist it. I do believe that non-believers also do not accept the bible as from God because they are carnal minded just like the christian believers I spoke of, they believe that this reality and their view is strong enough to comprehend teachings that no man can ever learn on his own. and also that they focus on the physical reality and believe that is the true nature of existence.


also I have seen in the spiritual that all things in the bible form into one cohesive spiritual narrative. I have seen the bible to be like a vast ocean of spiritual truth. it is quite plain that much of the new testament was written in a hidden manner, to protect the followers of christ from all the mass false teachings that would and did rise up. it was also written in that way to trip up people who do not have a heart of wax, and to show to their face that they have only a heart of stone and are in need of obtaining something more to be able to know God more fully. the interconnections that the bible has is vastly and overwhelmingly able to ground me in the faith of Jesus Christ. also I have recently started to learn things in a different fashion, it is more like knowledge is poured out on me rather than me some how obtaining it through study.

another evidence is that I read many books that I taste and see that they are good, such as the epistle of barnabas, the book of enoch, the shepherd of hermas, philip k. dicks spiritual writtings, origen, various mystics, ect. I see they are in exact conformity with the spirit of God and yet most believers resist them because they use their carnal reasonings and their religious laws that tell them that they should not count those books as spiritual. it is like I say "look here is the color red" and they tell me that there is only a few books that have the color red on them even though I see right before my eyes the substance of what forms those books. it is like people thinking that to obtain knowledge and wisdom one must pay money and go to a school and earn a piece of paper that tells everyone they are wise and have knowledge. it is absurd, to gain knowledge and wisdom one must eat of it and be it.