Who here doesn't irrationally reject the message of Christ?

[DefenderofTruth]

Prove to us, give us evidence. Prove to us you don't irrationally reject God.
Why do you reject scripture (those know who those are)?


Tell us.

[Danmark]

....
Go read for yourself if you wish. Mr. Smith talked of how Jewish people came over to the USA and thats where indians came from. He talked on "historical" things and events. That is way different the what Paul preached. Paul preached Theological principles of Christianity.

I haven't read the entire book of Mormon but i have read a few books. These books claim to have historical value. I mean we can go on and compare the two, Pauls message was of theology, he was along with many others who preached the same thing. His statements of theology have value in the world around us, and Mr. Smith put two rocks in a hat to read from "golden tablets" that no one ever saw.

The grand error you make here is in divorcing Paul's theology from history. Paul said the opposite:
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God....
1Corinthians 15:14-15
Thus, Paul agrees his theology must be based on accurate history.
Just like Joseph Smith, Paul's theology is based on false facts, on incorrect history. So, the two have much in common. Whatever they say is based on a weak, actually nonexistent, foundation. When the foundation is rotten or nonexistent, the theological house built upon it falls. Paul recognizes this. So does Joseph Smith, because he took great pains to try to make his mysterious plates appear authentic.

[DefenderofTruth]

....
Go read for yourself if you wish. Mr. Smith talked of how Jewish people came over to the USA and thats where indians came from. He talked on "historical" things and events. That is way different the what Paul preached. Paul preached Theological principles of Christianity.

I haven't read the entire book of Mormon but i have read a few books. These books claim to have historical value. I mean we can go on and compare the two, Pauls message was of theology, he was along with many others who preached the same thing. His statements of theology have value in the world around us, and Mr. Smith put two rocks in a hat to read from "golden tablets" that no one ever saw.

The grand error you make here is in divorcing Paul's theology from history. Paul said the opposite:
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God....
1Corinthians 15:14-15
Thus, Paul agrees his theology must be based on accurate history.
Just like Joseph Smith, Paul's theology is based on false facts, on incorrect history. So, the two have much in common. Whatever they say is based on a weak, actually nonexistent, foundation. When the foundation is rotten or nonexistent, the theological house built upon it falls. Paul recognizes this. So does Joseph Smith, because he took great pains to try to make his mysterious plates appear authentic.

Hi Danmark

Ya i don't claim that Paul's message was void of historical events but most of it is Theological principles. In fact 1 Corinthians 15 maybe the one passage that talks of Historical events but his epistles are primarily Theological principles.

Smith on the other hand had long elaborate stories that came out of thin air. There is entire books that are primarily historical events (or claimed historical).

If it is comparable to anything in the Bible, i wouldn't pick Paul to compare it to. I would pick Moses. Moses wrote the story of creation that happened before his time, kind of like how Smith wrote about (not actually writing but supposedly reading from "golden tablets") the Jewish history in America.


The problem is nothing supports the idea of Israelites in America. Where we have found archeological evidence of the people of Israel dating back to 1200BC, we don't find that in America. You might find Native American dwellings but nothing that is even comparable to the Israelites, like Smith claims.

The Native American's are nothing like the historical Israelites, there is no resemblance but Smith told us that they where one in the same. Now Moses on the other hand existed the same time the 12 tribes of the Jewish people existed. I personally believe that the story of creation and the story of Noah and his Ark were passed down by Jewish tradition. I personally believe that the faith started with Abraham, who is father of Isaac. Isaac father of Jacob. Jacob father of the 12 children which started the 12 tribes of Israel. I think there is a lot more evidence on the Historical aspects of the Torah then there is any evidence, what so ever, of what Smith claimed to be true.

But by saying that because Smith isn't true so Paul must therefor also be false, that doesn't make any sense. Paul's entire message was about Christ Crucified, so we would need to look at this apart from what Smith claimed. I think Paul's message goes right in line with Christ's message, and Christ Crucified is accepted as historical by most Scholars, and that is exactly what Paul preached. Many people with also believed in Christ, take Paul away and the message of Christ remains. But if you take Smith away then there would be no message about the historical America that he made up.

Did Paul fabricate the message of Christ? I don't think he did, id like to see someone say otherwise. But Smith created this entire story about America. They aren't really comparable.

[FinalEnigma]

Prove to us, give us evidence. Prove to us you don't irrationally reject God.
Why do you reject scripture (those know who those are)?


Tell us.

I would have stayed out of this, but then you specified on the first page that you are referring to the christian scriptures.

I haven't read all 25 pages, so these points may have been covered already, but, as I am Jewish, I reject Jesus as the same entity as the Jewish God because God will never incarnate into human form, the trinity is polytheism and doesn't make any sense, and God has not and will never speak to anyone other than Moses plainly and face to face.

Jesus is not the Jewish messiah because he did not fulfill the prophecies for the messiah, he does not meet the personal qualifications to be the messiah, and the old testament references to Jesus are mistranslations and contortions.

[Danmark]

But by saying that because Smith isn't true so Paul must therefor also be false, that doesn't make any sense.

You're right. That statement does not make sense, and I don't know where you came up with it. You certainly couldn't have got it from me, since I wrote:

Just like Joseph Smith, Paul's theology is based on false facts, on incorrect history.

I wrote that they are BOTH wrong on their history; that theology based on fiction is worthless.

[DefenderofTruth]

But by saying that because Smith isn't true so Paul must therefor also be false, that doesn't make any sense.

You're right. That statement does not make sense, and I don't know where you came up with it. You certainly couldn't have got it from me, since I wrote:

Just like Joseph Smith, Paul's theology is based on false facts, on incorrect history.

I wrote that they are BOTH wrong on their history; that theology based on fiction is worthless.

Ok thanks for the reply Damark.

Though Paul's testimony is not coming from just one man but from multiple sources. That is simply not so with Smith. To discredit Paul you are also discrediting the rest of the apostles which would need an explanation.

[Hamsaka]

But by saying that because Smith isn't true so Paul must therefor also be false, that doesn't make any sense.

You're right. That statement does not make sense, and I don't know where you came up with it. You certainly couldn't have got it from me, since I wrote:

Just like Joseph Smith, Paul's theology is based on false facts, on incorrect history.

I wrote that they are BOTH wrong on their history; that theology based on fiction is worthless.

Ok thanks for the reply Damark.

Though Paul's testimony is not coming from just one man but from multiple sources. That is simply not so with Smith. To discredit Paul you are also discrediting the rest of the apostles which would need an explanation.

You've said before that Paul's testimony is coming from multiple sources. Who else are you referring to? Honest question

And as for Joseoh Smith's golden plates, wasn't there ten co-founders who swore they had also seen the tablets? From this source http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses it was eleven witnesses. It is from a Mormon website, not a skeptical one, so it is equitable to using a Christian website as a resource.

Also, was Paul a contemporary with the eleven apostles (hey whatta coincidence!) that accompanied Jesus?

[Danmark]

But by saying that because Smith isn't true so Paul must therefor also be false, that doesn't make any sense.

You're right. That statement does not make sense, and I don't know where you came up with it. You certainly couldn't have got it from me, since I wrote:

Just like Joseph Smith, Paul's theology is based on false facts, on incorrect history.

I wrote that they are BOTH wrong on their history; that theology based on fiction is worthless.

Ok thanks for the reply Damark.

Though Paul's testimony is not coming from just one man but from multiple sources. That is simply not so with Smith. To discredit Paul you are also discrediting the rest of the apostles which would need an explanation.

Easily done. In the first place, we aren't dealing with 'the rest of the apostles.' We are dealing with stories written many decades after the fact by people who were not eye witnesses. There are many contradictions in those stories. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, so here is just one compilation of contradictions:

Summary:
So how many women went to the tomb? Was it Mary Magdalene by herself? Was she with the other Mary? The other Mary and Salome? The other Mary and Joanna and the "rest of the women?"
Was the stone already rolled away when they got there or did they see an angel come down and do it?
How many angels were there, one or two? Where were they? Were they in the tomb or sitting on the stone or did they appear out of thin air or did they descend from the sky?
Who was the first person to see Jesus? Was it Mary Magdalene? If so, when did she see him? Did she crash into Jesus on her way to tell the disciples or did he come up behind her after she had returned to the tomb and was peeping in at the angels?
Where and when did Jesus appear to the disciples? Was it in Jerusalem or was it Galilee?

Synopsis of Mark's Resurrection

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Salome are walking to the tomb. As they're walking they're talking and worrying about how they can get somebody to help them move the rock. They get to the tomb and see the rock has been rolled away. They go inside and see an angel sitting in the tomb. The angel shows them that Jesus' body is gone and tells them to inform Cephas and the rest of the disciples that Jesus is risen and that they should all go to Galilee where they will be able to see him. The women run away from the tomb but they don't tell anybody because they're terrified.

Mark cuts off right there (16:8) with no further visits to the tomb and no appearance narratives.

Synopsis of Matthew's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to the tomb (no mention of Salome this time). Right when they get to the tomb, there's an earthquake, an angel comes down from the sky, rolls away the rock and sits down on it. This time there are guards at the tomb and they get scared. The angel then tells the women pretty much the same thing the other angel said in Mark. he shows them that Jesus is gone and tells them to tell the disciples that Jesus wants to holler at them in Galilee. The women run away but this time they run bang into Jesus. They freak out some and Jesus tells them to chill and then tells the women to let the disciples know he would holler at them in Galilee.

At this point, there's an interjection in which the guards run to the priests and tell them what they saw, so then the priests bribe the guards to say that the disciples stole Jesus' body.

Back to the disciples. The eleven of them go to a mountain in Galilee and Jesus appears. They give Jesus mad props but some are still doubtful. Jesus tells them to go out and preach the message and baptize people and that he will always be with them.

Synopsis of Luke's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, Joanna and "the rest of the women" go to the tomb. As in Mark, they find the stone already rolled away. They peep inside the tomb. What? No Jesus! As they're standing there trying to figure out what's going all of a sudden TWO angels appear out of thin air. The women freak, the angels tell them to chill and tell them that Jesus has risen. The women run to tell the disciples (but Luke's angels do not explicitly instruct them to do so this time). The disciples don't believe them but then Peter jumps up and runs to the tomb. He peeps in and sees that Jesus is gone. He goes home "marvelling."

Cut to "two of them" (one named Cleopas, the other unnamed) walking to Emmaus. They meet Jesus but they don't recognize him. They tell him all about Jesus and the women and the empty tomb. Jesus tells them how dumb they are for not knowing the prophecies (which didn't actually exist but that's another can of worms). They stop to have some grub and when they break bread, they recognize Jesus, then he vanishes.

Cleopas and the other dude run back to Jerusalem and find the rest of the disciples. The rest of the disciples tell them that Jesus had risen and appeared to "Simon" (who may or may not be the "Peter" who Luke says had seen the empty tomb but does not say had seen the risen Jesus. I mention this because Luke actually uses the name "Peter" in the former case and "Simon" in the latter, so this may indicate two different people).

Cleopas and the other dude start telling the disciples about seeing Jesus on the road to Emmaus and then Jesus suddenly appears while they're talking. (please note that they are still in Jerusalem and have not yet gone to Galilee) They freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he shows them all the rad holes in his hands and feet. Then Jesus asks them if they have anything to eat (I guess he hadn't eaten in three days). They give him some fish and he eats it. Then he preaches at them for a while before leading them to Bethany where he ascends into the sky. The disciples go happily back to Jerusalem, and that's the end for Luke.

Synopsis of John's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene (alone) goes to the tomb. The stone has already been rolled away. She runs and finds Simon Peter along with the "Beloved Disciple" (who will henceforth be referred to as "BD"). Mary Magdalene tells them that the body has been "taken." Peter and BD go running to the tomb. BD outruns Peter and gets there first and sees some strips of burial linens lying utside the tomb. Peter gets there and goes inside the tomb. Peter sees that Jesus is gone. BD then goes in and sees it too. Peter and BD go back home.

Mary Magdalene is left crying outside the tomb. She peeps inside the tomb and sees two angels. Then Jesus comes up behind her and she sees him but doesn't recognize him. She thinks he's the gardener and asks him if he moved the body and could he tell her where it was. Then Jesus says her name, "Mary," and she recognizes him. He tells her not to touch him but to go tell the disciples about him. She goes and finds the disciples and tells them (John doesn't say where they are). Later that night, Jesus appears to the disciples and shows them all his rad wounds. Then he breathes on them and says he's giving them some Holy Spirit and tells them that he's giving them the power to forgive sins.

Then we get the Doubting Thomas story. Thomas doubts. Thomas sticks fingers in rad nail holes. Thomas believes. Then Jesus says that people who believe without proof are more blessed than those annoying skeptics.

John really ends there. There's another emended chapter which I won't bring into the contradictions argument but just to be thorough, the emended chapter tells a weird story about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee and helping them catch some fish, then he keeps asking Peter if he loves him and gives him his evangelical marching order and hints that he's going to come to a rough end. Then Peter sees the BD following them and asks Jesus about him. Jesus tells Peter it's not his business if Jesus wants to BD to hang around until he returns. Then the author says there was a rumor that the BD wasn't supposed to die before Jesus came back but Jesus didn't actually say tthat he just said "what business is it of yours if I DO want him to stay?"

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... ospels.htm

[Zzyzx]

.

Though Paul's testimony is not coming from just one man but from multiple sources. That is simply not so with Smith. To discredit Paul you are also discrediting the rest of the apostles which would need an explanation.

Authentic Paul/Saul letters are said to predate the gospels. Thus, later anonymous writers echoed some of what he said or told similar tales. The same can be said of Joseph Smith " later writers echoed his tales as well and told similar tales. What is the difference?

Do both count as "testimony from multiple sources?"

Does "multiple testimony" (several people telling similar stories) assure that the tales are truthful and accurate? Does it still count as "multiple testimony" if some of the storytellers copy from one another (or both copy verbatim from another unidentified source?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 248 by Zzyzx]
Talk about "stacking the deck", Z.
And you're probably next going to get around to claiming there was only one gospel account (maybe two) that all the rest lean on. Yeah, we've all heard that one. As they say, "Prove it!"
But you can't. So I'll make it easy on you. You're quite aware that I've been claiming around here that there are seven WRITTEN eyewitness accounts about Jesus included variously among the four gospels (might be some others in the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Mary, that's not my "bag" (anybody these days still understand "Hippie" language--I'm really dating myself here).) That's not counting eyewitnesses that get quoted by others in the gospels, like the slightly varying versions of the three women at the Tomb (Mary Magdalene in John 20, the "other Mary" in Matthew and Mark, and Joanna in Luke 24). When ya gonna deal with all THAT, Z-man?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 248 by Zzyzx]
Talk about "stacking the deck", Z.

Correction: I play with a full deck, Korah, straight deal, no tricks, no need to cheat. That is comfortable and effective for me. Not everyone agrees. Many appear to prefer to shuck and jive, dance and weave, evade and obfuscate, duck challenges and fail to support contentions.

And you're probably next going to get around to claiming there was only one gospel account (maybe two) that all the rest lean on. Yeah, we've all heard that one. As they say, "Prove it!"

Imagining what I will "get around to" is creating straw men. Try debating what I actually say.

But you can't. So I'll make it easy on you. You're quite aware that I've been claiming around here that there are seven WRITTEN eyewitness accounts about Jesus included variously among the four gospels

Yes, you have been touting that claim and refusing to defend it against challenges. The imaginary (hypothetical, proposed) so called "Q" document was one of the supposed "written eyewitness accounts" that hasn't fared well in a recent thread.

(might be some others in the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Mary, that's not my "bag" (anybody these days still understand "Hippie" language--I'm really dating myself here).)

Age is no excuse.

That's not counting eyewitnesses that get quoted by others in the gospels,

When a person is quoted by another that is hearsay (that heard from others) NOT an eyewitness account. "He said, She said" is NOT a first-person account of an event.

Claims that "she saw something" or "there were witnesses" are second-hand at best.

like the slightly varying versions of the three women at the Tomb (Mary Magdalene in John 20, the "other Mary" in Matthew and Mark, and Joanna in Luke 24). When ya gonna deal with all THAT, Z-man?

Thread started http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 551#721551