Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Difflugia]

If this is the case, don't read about Joseph Smith or you will become a Mormon.

Oh really? Well let's just see. I was hoping you would want to compare the historical facts and evidence we have for the resurrection to that of another religion, and it seems you have chosen Mormonism. Okay, here we go. What I am citing here is Wikipedia.

"The Eight Witnesses were the second of the two groups of "special witnesses" to the Book of Mormon's golden plates".

Umm? I wonder why there would have to be a "second group of special witnesses"?

Rhetorical questions aren't evidence.

Well, that would be because the first witnesses would be just three, and these three did not work out so well,

What do you mean by "did not work out so well?" The Eight Witnesses were shown the plates almost immediately after the Four before the Book of Mormon was published. This is from Church History in the Fulness of Times, pages 60-61:

The Three Witnesses testified of their experience: “We, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record. . . . And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.” They went on to testify that the angel showed them the engravings on the plates. Their testimony has been included in each edition of the Book of Mormon since that time.

A few days later eight additional witnesses—faithful men who were close to the Prophet during the translation—were also chosen to see the plates. These eight men were Joseph Smith’s father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; Joseph’s brothers, Hyrum and Samuel; four of the Whitmer brothers—Christian, Jacob, Peter, and John; and a brother-in-law to the Whitmers, Hiram Page. Joseph was permitted to show them the plates near the Smith residence in Manchester when he was making arrangements for the printing of the book. The Eight Witnesses testified that they handled and lifted the plates and saw the engravings on the individual leaves. Their testimony is also contained in all published editions of the Book of Mormon. Thus, according to the divine law of witnesses, the truth of the Book of Mormon is further substantiated and the inhabitants of the earth are held accountable for what is contained in it.

and therefore there was a need to move on to the eight folks

What do you mean by "move on?" The Testimony of the Three and Testimony of the Eight are published together in the Book of Mormon. It's not like they switched from one to the other.

who just so happened to be relatives of who? Oh? That would be Joseph Smith.

Four were and four weren't, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean to you. We don't have any eyewitness testimony to Jesus at all, so are Joseph Smith's relatives more trustworthy than no witnesses or less?

So then, what happened to the original three witnesses? Again, Wikipedia.

And again, Church History in the Fulness of Times:

Each of the eleven special witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates went on to serve in important ecclesiastical positions in the restored Church. Five of them, the three Smiths and Christian and Peter Whitmer, Jr., died while they were actively involved in Church service. But each of the Three Witnesses—Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer—later turned away from the Church. John and Jacob Whitmer and Hiram Page of the Eight Witnesses also fell away from the faith. None of these six, however, ever denied his witness, although they had many opportunities to do so. Each pointedly maintained the truthfulness of his testimony whenever asked about it. Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris eventually returned to the Church and died in full fellowship.

The Three had disagreements with Joseph Smith, but it's not like they stopped believing in their encounter with the angel Moroni. Paul also writes of serious disagreements with Peter and members of the Jerusalem Church, but he didn't stop believing that he encountered the risen Christ. Despite these disagreements, Paul is still considered perhaps the most trustworthy author within the New Testament. Even the fictional accounts of Paul in Acts are still considered important. Of course, they're no comparison to the corroborated accounts we have out of the early Mormon Church, even with such theological disagreements.

Now, does one really want to compare the historical facts, and evidence of Mormonism to Christianity? Well, no they do not because there is no comparison.

You're right. There's no comparison. Even the evidence you've made up for the resurrection isn't as strong as the actual evidence for the Golden Plates.

Rather, this is the same old worn out, and tired argument of, "since we know all religions cannot be true, then this somehow demonstrates they all must, and have to be false". GOOD GRIEF!

That's quite a leap.

To be clear here, I am not arguing that Mormonism would be false. I am simply comparing the historical evidence we have for Mormonism to Christianity.

We have eyewitness testimony of and documents contemporary with the formation of the Mormon Church from people we can identify. We have anonymous stories from decades after the resurrection that fail to agree on even important details.

Correct, "people believed" but we are not talking about those who claimed to believe. Rather, we are talking about those who claimed to have witnessed, and when we compare those who claimed to have witnessed the "golden tablets" to those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection, we discover there is no comparison at all, unless you would like to make a defense for the witnesses of the "golden tablets"?

That's right. We have people that claimed to witness the Golden Plates and we have nobody that claimed to witness the resurrection. There's no comparison at all.

All I can say is that you seem to be confused about the evidence for both the Golden Plates and the lack of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #61]

This is good stuff, and it was what I expected. In other words, you are actually defending the evidence in support of Mormonism. Therefore, it would seem we would have to admit that there is indeed evidence in support which can be examined, and it is the examination of the evidence which would lead us to conclusions. If this is the case, then it is not an argument to suggest that we have no evidence for the resurrection. Rather, the fact is, we do indeed have evidence which needs to be explained.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, we have the main character who claims to have heard from God (or the supernatural) who claims there were some sort of "golden tablets" which only he could interpret. Of course, we have others who claim to have witnessed these tablets, but they had no idea how to read what was on said tablets. Then, the main character had to put his face into his hat, along with some sort of stone in order to translate what was engraved on these tablets. In the end we would have to take the word of the main character that he indeed had the ability to translate what was written on these tablets, along with taking the word of this main character that the tablets were in some way supernatural. In other words, even if there were indeed those who saw the golden tablets, does not in any way demonstrate the tablets were anything other than man made.

Okay, what evidence do we have that this main character would even have the divine power to translate the tablets, if there were indeed tablets? Well, as far as I know we have no evidence this would be the case. So, do we have any evidence that he did not have this divine power to translate in this way? I am afraid we do in fact have evidence which demonstrates this to be the case. This main character actually bought some ancient Egyptian papyrus because he was convinced it was a message from God as well, and he believed he could translate what was written on this ancient papyrus. Of course, this main character went on to translate what was on this ancient papyrus, which I believe was included in "The Pearl of Great Price", but the problem was the fact that there was no one who had the ability to determine if he may be correct. However, since that time, we do indeed have scholars who have the ability to translate what was actually contained, and every one of them agree as to what is contained, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with what our main character had to say.

So then, if we can know for a fact this main character failed in his translation of this ancient text, then what would give us the idea that he would have had the ability to interpret any sort of golden tablets, even if there were any sort of tablets? I believe this alone demonstrates our main character to be a fraud, and we have not even talked about other events in his life which would contribute to this being the case.

Okay, so now let us compare this main character, to the main character as far as Christianity is concerned. Exactly what did the main character of Christianity tell us.....................? Well, that would be exactly nothing. I mean, we have exactly nothing left to us which would be directly from this main character. Rather, what we know about this main character comes from those after his death. However, we have enough facts, and evidence from these reports, to know beyond any reasonable doubt that this main character did in fact walk the face of the earth. We have enough facts and evidence to know that he was crucified. We have enough facts and evidence to know there were those who claimed to have seen him alive after the crucifixion. In fact, we have scholars today, who dedicate their life to the study of such things, who are not at all convinced of the resurrection, who are convinced we have enough facts and evidence to know these early followers were somehow convinced they had indeed witnessed this main character alive after death.

My friend, that is some mighty strong evidence. If this is indeed the case, this would mean, these early followers did not make this story up, but was rather convinced that what they were reporting would be fact, and this would need to be explained, and as of yet these scholars have no explanation. If this was not the case, we are left with the fact that all these folks made these things up, and continued to claim the resurrection to be fact, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and we know for a fact there was those who were attempting to put a stop to it, because we know for a fact that Paul would have been one of them, and we know that he was not alone. We also know that Paul converted to this movement he was out to put a stop to and becomes the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. My friend, these are all things we can know which need to be explained.

We have anonymous stories from decades after the resurrection that fail to agree on even important details.

Okay, let's look at this. Exactly what do you mean by "anonymous"? I ask this because when I think of an author being anonymous, I think of one who intends to keep his identity unknown. Is this what you mean by referring to the authors as being anonymous? Or are you simply saying we do not know who the authors were? At any rate, we have to keep in mind that these authors had particular audiences in mind at the time as they wrote and would have had no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would ever read these letters other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly could not have known anything at all about any sort of Bible. This means, these authors would have had no idea that there would be those thousands of years later who would be reading what they addressed to particular audiences at the time. With this being the case, if the intended audience at the time would have known full well who the author was, then the author would have had no need in identifying himself to his audience.

As an example, let's take the two letters which were addressed to Theophilus. It is clear this author had a particular audience in mind, and if this author was well acquainted with the audience, and the audience would have known full well who the author would have been, then the author may have had no reason to identify himself. I mean, do you really think Theophilus was not sure who the author was? My point is, I am not sure what the point would be by pointing out the fact that the author does not identify? Until we get to your next point which would be, "from decades after the resurrection".

I will have to assume your point is, that since we do not know who the authors were, that they could have lived decades after the events, and may not have been alive at the time of the events themselves. Exactly how many decades are you talking about? Because I would expect it to have been authored decades later. Why would there have been a need to write these things down immediately? I mean, we know for a fact these folks were preaching these things to their audience orally at the time, and so there would have been no need in writing them out until they may reach a certain age and understand that they may need to write these things out in order for their audience to have them after they were gone.

Again, let us take the two letters addressed to Theophilus for example. We have very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul. This would mean that this author would have been alive at the time of the events, but at the very least, the second letter could not have possibly been authored until decades after the events. We know this because this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, and if the author is there with Paul, then this would be exactly why the letter ends there, because there would be nothing left to report. In other words, Theophilus is up to date. Moreover, if this author was indeed with Paul while being under arrest for some two years, this would give this author ample time in order to sit down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to Theophilus. Again, the point being, these two letters could not have possibly been authored until decades later, and it in no way demonstrates the author would not have been alive to witness the events.

With all the above being said, let us think about this. We know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we also know Paul wrote letters, and all of these letters we have from Paul, would have had to have been authored decades after the events. Again, we have an author who wrote decades later who would have been alive at the time of the events. Moreover, we know for a fact that Paul knew and spent much time with the original apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. We also have to keep in mind the fact that we have very strong evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, which would mean we have another author who would have been alive at the time of the events, and would have known and spent much time with the original apostles hearing the claims they were making, who would have authored his letters decades later. My point is you are going to have to go a whole lot of decades later in order to demonstrate the authors would not have been alive at the time of the events, and I do not think the evidence will allow this to be the case.

Now we need to address your point concerning there being disagreement among the texts. I am attempting to understand what this would have to do with the evidence we can know to be fact from these same texts? Again, even scholars who acknowledge these differences, who are not in any way convinced of the resurrection, are convinced by the evidence we do have, that the early followers were at least convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive. If you disagree with this, then we are left with those who made the whole thing up, and continued to proclaim what they would have known to be a lie, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it. Either way, we are left with facts which must be explained.

I can assure you that I could continue to type and would love to, but there are those who are complaining about the length of my posts. The fact of the matter is, we have very strong evidence in support of the resurrection, and for one to deny this is for one to be living in a dream world. Now, you may want to give alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, and I have no problem with that, but this simply goes on to demonstrate that we do indeed have these facts and evidence which has to have some sort of explanation. Again, I have no problem with those who come to different conclusions based upon the facts and evidence we have. My problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no facts and evidence.

[otseng]

So, let's attempt to read more carefully so that we do not throw more years of our life away.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #62]

No. Mind, your argument is a widely accepted one, but it is invalid, if only because there is an alternative hypothesis or explanation, even if it didn't have some clues, which it does.

I may have done this before, but if you chose to ignore it, here it is again.

Luke is unreliable. Where he matches stuff in Paul, it is altered. Just the council of Jerusalem (1) is turned from a private chat between Paul and James into a senate hearing. The writer of Luke and Acts having a roman patron to address his gospel to is improbable and I say he was aping this snobby convention by addressing his q writings to 'God - lover' (Christians).

We know he lifted the death of Herod Agrippa from Josephus, but changed it to make it more Christian. So much for his sources.

Yes, Paul existed. He interacted with the '12', and they all had visions of the risen Jesus. So did 500 all at once, and finally, Paul. In his head. Since Paul's account is not a match for the gospels, we are NOT talking about the Sunday resurrection, but imaginary visions in the heads of the believers.

Thus, the resurrection -belief was Judeo - Pharisee messianism and nothing to do with Gentile Christianity which Paul started but Greek Christians completed and turned man -messiah Jesus into Pagan Jesus-god, which was not what Paul taught, never mind the twelve, and forget about Jesus.

Even if you dismiss, pooh - pooh or ignore that, it is an alternative with clues, and Your clues are simply wrong.

As I say, I understand that this is a common view, but it is wrong. And only not knowing or denying can be the only reason for it.

(1) a couple more clues about the council of Jerusalem (est. 51 AD). apart from the absurd idea of of Jews for and against circumcision occupying opposing seats with Myriyam Thaddaeus Gamaliel holding up node pictures of Peter showing his hard driver, or Peter playing the Lawyer for Paul when Paul suggests that they disagreed, but Peter makes a statement that makes no sense, until you link it with what Paul said - that the law was a burden to the Jews. And James winds up with a misquote of Hosea, which no observant Jew (even Acts shows that he was) talking to other Jews, would never try to get away with. This is a Christian writer, writing to Gentile writers who were Christians or whom he hoped to make Christian. Which is the same lie and swindle we get with David and the Shewbread,

Even without the Problem of no Ascension in any other gospel, This is in no way a credible record of what went down.

[Clownboat]

GOOD GRIEF! You make this statement as if this is something to be proud of. I mean, not in the way that you would be proud of the fact that you threw 2 decades of your life away, but rather somehow proud of the idea that since you were such a dedicated Christian for so long that this somehow demonstrates your arguments are legitimate.

My arguments are legitimate because they are legitimate, not because I was a Christian. Me previously being a Christian is something that YOU continue to bring up, not myself. Therefore your GOOD GRIEF falls on deaf ears.

Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, it does not demonstrate this in the least. However, allow me to tell you what it does in fact demonstrate. It demonstrates one who was walking around as though they were "drunk in the Holy Ghost" when this sort of thing can be nowhere found in what is contained in the Bible. That is exactly what it demonstrates. It seems to me we are demonstrating that the fault does not in any way lie with Christianity. Rather, the fault clearly lies with one who knows just enough about the Bible to be dangerous, and it is indeed dangerous to throw 2 decades of one's life away based upon something Christianity does not teach. I mean, you continue to give me ammunition, and when I use the ammunition, you freely give me, you want to complain.

Two can play this silly game!
I was a better Christian than you will ever be and you are just deceived by Satan. Do you not understand as to why ad hominem arguments are against the rules? Are you not here to debate?

Okay? I am sure it was, and I am not attempting to make light of your situation, but this is a debate site, and I am trying to understand what this would have to do with our debate? I mean, is there a point to be made here? Or are you simply sharing?

It is you that continues to make this about me and my previous beliefs. I'm asking legitimate questions about how humans formed god beliefs and you don't want to discuss such a thing, but boy are you infatuated with my former beliefs for some reason.

As I age, I find myself more caring and accepting of folks than I once was, but I do not credit this to my religion or the lack thereof, but rather attribute it to age. It's called maturity.

I am more Christlike after having lost my religious beliefs, not because I matured. It's as if you are not reading my post. Please try to do better.

But again, this is a debate site and your being more loving and caring since you lost your faith is not in any way an argument against that which you were once so convinced of.

I agree with this statement. Me now being more Christlike is not an argument against anything. Either is my Biblical knowledge you keep attempting to make this about. It's how you dodge debating.

I would love to be set free from Christianity, because I can assure you that I would rather not believe it.

I agree, it really isn't the beautiful thing that most people try to make it out to be. On this, we agree.

The problem is my mind continues to be enslaved to facts, evidence, and reasons to believe. In other words, the only way I can be set free of it, would be to ignore the facts, evidence, and reasons.

Then you are far too easily convinced. Your facts and evidence is a claim that other people believed a thing 2,000 years ago. This is why I encourage you not to learn about Mormonism.

Oh, but I have, and one of the strongest pieces of evidence we have, that we do indeed have these facts, and evidence, is the fact that folks like you continue to attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts, evidence, and reasons you say we do not have. Kind of comical.

When I couldn't think that your facts and evidence couldn't get any worse, you provide us with this.
I find your reasoning to be extremely faulty.
1) Some people 2,000 years ago are claimed to have believed a thing.
2) Folks now days give alternative explanations.
Neither of these are valid explanations for believing that Muhammed flew on a winged horse.

No! I'll tell you what is funny. It is funny that since I have issued this challenge, you have not one time actually dealt with the text, and that is because it would be impossible for you to actually deal with the text and make it say anything other than being a warning to the Corinthian Church. So, you do not deal with the actual text, because you can't, and therefore you are left with appealing to one you say agrees with you, but the funniest thing of all here is the fact that you, just a few days ago, were very quick to attempt to point out this sort of thing as a fallacy. Now, I don't care who you are, that is funny. It is what I call, "good stuff". What would be even funnier, is if it was not that Christianity.com agrees with you, but rather that when I offered the challenge you simply did a google search and went with the first thing that popped up, without actually going to the text to determine if such an explanation would even be possible. Now that would be funny. However, the funniest thing of all is the fact that simply pointing to the fact that someone agrees with you, or better yet that you agree with them, is not an argument at all. Remember? It's what you called a fallacy.

You're spreading more falsehoods. Do you come to deceive?
You asked me about a verse. I supplied my understanding. You disagreed, which I note is very common in your religion, up to having over 40,000 denominations (which is a joke). You didn't like my understanding and claimed I was wrong. I in fact found support for my initial claim. Now you don't like either of our explanations. I care not as it has NOTHING to do with this debate.

you still want to discount this in place of addressing the mechanism for how and why humans created god concepts.

Oh, but I have indeed addressed this, and I have addressed it head on, and I have done so by admitting I would have no idea about such a thing.

Get this readers! Realworldjack pretends that he addressed mechanism for how and why humans created god concepts by admitting they have no idea about such things.
In reality, Realworldjack doesn't know how humans invented the gods. Doesn't even have any idea even though explanations have been offered here.
Realworldjack, I agree that you don't have any idea about how humans invented the gods. You not wanting to discuss such a thing is just a defense mechanism at play to protect the one believe you do know about.

What I do know for a fact is, Christianity was never, ever based upon any sort of "god concept".

Now you are at war with the English language.
con·cept
/ˈkänˌsept/
noun
an abstract idea; a general notion.

Some of the names this god concept was known by over the years were/are:
Abba
Adonai
El Shaddai
Jehovah
Elohim
Yahweh

Rather, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt, that Christianity is based upon what is claimed to be a resurrection, and there is a tremendous difference.

Christianity is based upon a claim. Not any claim, but a claim that a dead and decomposing body reanimated to life. I provided a few names for the god concept behind this claim. You can now amend your thinking, or continue to war with language.

You would think one who was a "born again, drunk in the holy ghost Christian for over 2 decades" would have known this.

Pride comes before a fall comes to mind.

I am curious about how and why humans have created god concepts and the faith that is required in order to believe in one of the available gods.

I have addressed this as well, by demonstrating that I do not need an ounce of faith in order to believe the resurrection took place, because there are facts and evidence to base one's belief upon.

Holy monkies! This doesn't address my questions in any way shape or form. Again, I know why you want to debate my previously held beliefs in place of having a discussion about how and why humans invented god concepts.

This may be a hard concept for one to grasp, who was convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support.

You can continue to try, but you will not be able to hurt me with your words. They are nothing but a distraction and a dodge away from discussing how humans created gods and how faith is then required to believe in such things.

You are not being honorable. I'm asking legitimate questions and you respond with ad hominem attacks on my character.
You will know them by their fruits.

Have you come up with any idea about how ancient Americans (North and South) for example came up with their god concepts?
Perhaps they were believing oral tradition. It would seem that their belief would be exactly as justified as yours if that were the case (that unknown people believed something in the past).

Oh? I have no doubt that someone is "embarrassed", and there is no wonder. When one shares the events of their former life, it does, and can enter into debate, and the events of one's former life, combined with what one has to say today, just may well demonstrate that Christianity is not the fault at all, when one has demonstrated they were behaving in such a way, when Christianity never teaches such a thing. The bottom line is, if one does not want these things used against them, then they need to stop sharing them. In other words, they need to stop giving me ammunition, and then complain when I use the ammunition they have supplied. One cannot share these things as if they were relevant to the debate, and not expect another is not going to use these things which are given to them on a silver platter. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.

Your continued ad hominem in place of debate is increasingly embarrassing. Feel free to ask about my former life if you have questions about it though. I don't have a spirit of fear like one might if they entered into a discussion about how humans came about with the gods and how such beliefs are all based on faith and if faith is a reliable path to reality.

[Clownboat]

Wait minute! Is your facts and evidence that a decomposing body reanimated to life justified because some scholars believe that unknown people a couple thousand years ago believed the claim?

No! One needs to read more carefully.

You have alluded to the idea that unknown people 2,000 years ago believed a claim.
It is a fact that people believed such a thing, but this isn't unique to Christianity. Your reasoning can be used to justify competing religions, which makes your argument very poor.

Rather, these scholars are convinced by material they do not believe to be completely reliable, that the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. Can you see the difference?

So logically, according to you, I'm justified to believe that Muhammed flew on a winged horse, if I can find unreliable material that early unknown followers believed in, according to scholars. Have I steel manned your argument correctly?

You see, there is a major difference between believing what another has to say, as opposed to believing you actually witnessed the event.

Right, now if you witnessed a resurrection or Muhammed flying on a winged horse, that would be something. Me pointing out that people a long time ago believed that Muhammed flew on a winged horse would mean little to you, but that is what you offer us here.

What this would mean is, these folks were not at all attempting to spread what they knew to be false but were rather convinced what they were reporting was fact.

This is to assume facts that are not in evidence. Again, see Joseph Smith and his golden plates and magic glasses. I can even provide names of the claimed eyewitnesses. You can only pretend that your 'evidence' is better, but it isn't.

If this is indeed the case, then this would need some sort of explanation. The explanation would either be, they did indeed witness Christ alive, which would be extraordinary, or they were all deceived in some sort of way, which would be extraordinary.

Is it more likely that Joseph Smith had golden plates and magic glasses or that humans were deceiving other humans?

Therefore, either way we go, we are left with the extraordinary.

Humans being deceived is ordinary, not extraordinary. You need to correct your thinking on this.

Okay, but the scholars could be in error, and these folks were really not convinced they saw Jesus alive, and therefore we are left with all these folks making the whole thing up.

I'm sorry, but which folks are you alluding to? Can you provide names for these eyewitnesses like I can for Joseph Smith?

However, we are still left with a whole lot of explaining to do, like how in the world did all these folks pull this off in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it?

Are you starting to get it now as to why I'm asking you to consider competing religions and how they pulled of convincing others?
"How in the world did Joseph Smith convince others?" "Mormonism must be true!" Obviously you reject such thinking while employing it yourself.

Moreover, we can know for a fact that there were those who were attempting to put a stop to it, because we know for a fact that Paul was doing all he could do to stop it.

Holy monkeys! So Islam is true because of the crusades! Your reasoning can be applied to justify far too many religions. Can't you see this?

My friend, this is just one of the things we would have to explain along with much more, and either way we go you are left with one of the most (if not the most) extraordinary tales the world has ever known. I am just telling you; this is where the facts, and evidence we have leads.

As I have demonstrated, your facts and evidence are justification for competing religions. You need to justify your special pleading or acknowledge that it is special pleading and illogical.

If this is the case, don't read about Joseph Smith or you will become a Mormon.

Now, does one really want to compare the historical facts, and evidence of Mormonism to Christianity?

Yup, the facts and evidence show that people believed the initial claims, just like how you argue for believing in Christianity. I am pointing out your special pleading, I did not expect you to become a mormon.

To be clear here, I am not arguing that Mormonism would be false.

Do you believe that Mormonism is true or false? People believed the claims after all.

Correct, "people believed" but we are not talking about those who claimed to believe. Rather, we are talking about those who claimed to have witnessed, and when we compare those who claimed to have witnessed the "golden tablets" to those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection, we discover there is no comparison at all, unless you would like to make a defense for the witnesses of the "golden tablets"?

I in fact acknowledge that people believed both claims. You for some reason are only concerned with those that believed your preferred claims about a resurrected corpse.

Any thoughts as to how religions formed in the ancient Americas for example (everywhere to be honest)?
Do you think that humans wanted answers to unknowns and that the gods supplied such answers? Is it possible that the gods are humans invented answers to address these unknowns, or do only the Muslims have it right possibly?

[Difflugia]

In other words, even if there were indeed those who saw the golden tablets, does not in any way demonstrate the tablets were anything other than man made.

Kind of like how the inclusion of Luke/Acts in the Bible does not in any way demonstrate that the stories are anything other than made up.

So then, if we can know for a fact this main character failed in his translation of this ancient text, then what would give us the idea that he would have had the ability to interpret any sort of golden tablets, even if there were any sort of tablets? I believe this alone demonstrates our main character to be a fraud, and we have not even talked about other events in his life which would contribute to this being the case.

I think you're confusing "main character" and "author," but whatever.

Does this same logic hold if, for example, the author of Luke/Acts got things wrong? The author of Luke seems not to have understood how a Roman census worked or when Quirinius was governor of Syria, for example.

However, we have enough facts, and evidence from these reports, to know beyond any reasonable doubt that this main character did in fact walk the face of the earth. We have enough facts and evidence to know that he was crucified.

I think this is stretching both what the word "facts" means and the reliability of your conclusions, but that's fine for now.

We have enough facts and evidence to know there were those who claimed to have seen him alive after the crucifixion.

We have Paul's claim that he received a vision from the risen Christ. Mark includes no post-resurrection appearances, but Matthew, Luke, and John added ones that conflict with each other. So, we know that one person claimed to have seen the risen Christ in some sense. Anything more than that is a bit dubious. Paul claimed that Christ appeared to the Twelve, to Peter, and to "500 brothers." The evangelists either didn't know that part of Paul's story or didn't find it compelling enough to add to their own.

In fact, we have scholars today, who dedicate their life to the study of such things, who are not at all convinced of the resurrection, who are convinced we have enough facts and evidence to know these early followers were somehow convinced they had indeed witnessed this main character alive after death.

Your word "witnessed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. To the extent that scholars think early Christians "witnessed" a risen Christ, it was a spiritual, visionary experience rather than a physical one.

My friend, that is some mighty strong evidence.

Mighty strong.

If this is indeed the case, this would mean, these early followers did not make this story up,

This is a massive leap that you haven't justified.

but was rather convinced that what they were reporting would be fact,

We don't know that.

and continued to claim the resurrection to be fact,

Paul claimed some sort of resurrection as fact.

in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it,

We don't know that.

and we know for a fact there was those who were attempting to put a stop to it,

We don't know that.

because we know for a fact that Paul would have been one of them,

All we know is that Paul claims to have "persecuted the Church of God." We don't know what that meant.

and we know that he was not alone.

We don't know that.

We also know that Paul converted to this movement he was out to put a stop to

Or that he had "persecuted," anyway, whatever he meant by that.

and becomes the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time.

This is generally accepted, but we don't know what influence the other apostles, like Apollos, Junia, and Andronicus had. We can surmise that Cephas was an important apostle because one of the purposes of Acts seems to have been to help reconcile the two main factions (at the time, anyway) of Christianity. Peter seems to be treated as the founder of one sect while Paul was the other. Since Acts treats the relationship between Paul and Peter as much more amicable than Paul describes his relationship with Cephas, we can only speculate how the Church changed between Paul's death and the time Acts was written.

My friend, these are all things we can know which need to be explained.

One of the explanations is that you're a bit liberal with the word "fact."

Okay, let's look at this. Exactly what do you mean by "anonymous"?

The Gospels weren't given attributions by their authors.

I ask this because when I think of an author being anonymous, I think of one who intends to keep his identity unknown. Is this what you mean by referring to the authors as being anonymous?

That's a reasonable conjecture, but anonymity isn't dependent on their motivations. They didn't name themselves.

The Gospels don't bear names. They're anonymous.
Galatians bears a name and it's probably correct. It's onymous.
Titus bears a name and it's probably forged. It's pseudonymous.

Or are you simply saying we do not know who the authors were?

That's not necessary to be anonymous, but it happens to be true about the Gospels and Acts.

As an example, let's take the two letters which were addressed to Theophilus.

There are no letters addressed to Theophilus. There are two works referred to as Fachprosen by Loveday Alexander and some authors still treat them as historiography, but they aren't "letters" by most definitions of the genre.

It is clear this author had a particular audience in mind, and if this author was well acquainted with the audience, and the audience would have known full well who the author would have been, then the author may have had no reason to identify himself.

Just one of the reasons that they're not considered letters is that the authors of letters identify themselves.

I mean, do you really think Theophilus was not sure who the author was?

Maybe. We don't even know if Theophilus was a particular person. "Friend of God" might just have been an epithet for anyone reading the Fachprose.

My point is, I am not sure what the point would be by pointing out the fact that the author does not identify?

For starters, that means it's not a letter.

I will have to assume your point is, that since we do not know who the authors were, that they could have lived decades after the events, and may not have been alive at the time of the events themselves.

It means we don't know if there was one author or multiple authors. We don't know the historical context surrounding each author and their writing of the Gospels and Acts. We don't know what their motivations were.

Exactly how many decades are you talking about? Because I would expect it to have been authored decades later. Why would there have been a need to write these things down immediately?

The authors might not have seen a need for it, but it affects the accuracy of the traditions upon which their writings were based. We know that none of the authors were eyewitnesses, so if the source narratives were closer in time to the events, we have more reason to trust them as accurate. Assuming, that is, that they were writing historiography rather than allegorical fiction. We don't know that, though.

I mean, we know for a fact these folks were preaching these things to their audience orally at the time,

We don't know that.

and so there would have been no need in writing them out until they may reach a certain age and understand that they may need to write these things out in order for their audience to have them after they were gone.

That's one possible conjecture for why the documents are late.

Again, let us take the two letters addressed to Theophilus for example.

Fachprosen.

We have very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul.

We don't have that.

This would mean that this author would have been alive at the time of the events,

We don't know that.

but at the very least, the second letter

Fachprose.

could not have possibly been authored until decades after the events. We know this because this author ends his second letter

Fachprose.

with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, and if the author is there with Paul, then this would be exactly why the letter ends there, because there would be nothing left to report.

Except for Paul's execution shortly thereafter. Scholars still debate why the author or authors of Luke/Acts omitted that.

In other words, Theophilus is up to date.

Except for Paul's execution and anything that happened between that and when Acts was written thirty or so years later.

Moreover, if this author was indeed with Paul while being under arrest for some two years, this would give this author ample time in order to sit down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters

Fachprosen.

addressed to Theophilus. Again, the point being, these two letters

Fachprosen.

could not have possibly been authored until decades later, and it in no way demonstrates the author would not have been alive to witness the events.

That's not why scholars think the authors weren't witnesses.

With all the above being said, let us think about this. We know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events,

What events? The events of Acts? We don't even know if those happened.

and we also know Paul wrote letters, and all of these letters we have from Paul, would have had to have been authored decades after the events. Again, we have an author who wrote decades later who would have been alive at the time of the events.

What events are you talking about?

Moreover, we know for a fact that Paul knew and spent much time with the original apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

That's a reasonable conjecture. We don't know, however, if their claims are the same ones we find in the Gospels and Acts.

We also have to keep in mind the fact that we have very strong evidence the author of the letters

Fachprosen.

to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul,

No we don't.

which would mean we have another author who would have been alive at the time of the events,

We don't know that.

and would have known and spent much time with the original apostles hearing the claims they were making,

We don't know that.

who would have authored his letters decades later. My point is you are going to have to go a whole lot of decades later in order to demonstrate the authors would not have been alive at the time of the events, and I do not think the evidence will allow this to be the case.

What?

Now we need to address your point concerning there being disagreement among the texts. I am attempting to understand what this would have to do with the evidence we can know to be fact from these same texts?

If you're keeping score, the only thing "we can know to be fact" is that Paul claims to have had visions of the risen Christ. I accepted for the sake of argument that Jesus was real and crucified.

Again, even scholars who acknowledge these differences, who are not in any way convinced of the resurrection, are convinced by the evidence we do have, that the early followers were at least convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive.

Perhaps for some version of "witnessed," anyway.

If you disagree with this, then we are left with those who made the whole thing up,

Sure.

and continued to proclaim what they would have known to be a lie,

Or presented as religious fiction.

in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it.

We don't know that.

Either way, we are left with facts which must be explained.

First, the Evangelists were writing fiction, but to what degree is open to discussion. Second, you're overly generous with the word "fact." So far, those explain most of the things you call "fact."

I can assure you that I could continue to type and would love to, but there are those who are complaining about the length of my posts. The fact of the matter is, we have very strong evidence in support of the resurrection,

We don't.

and for one to deny this is for one to be living in a dream world.

Of course.

Now, you may want to give alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have,

Fiction, overuse of the word "fact."

and I have no problem with that, but this simply goes on to demonstrate that we do indeed have these facts and evidence which has to have some sort of explanation.

For varying definitions of "facts and evidence."

Again, I have no problem with those who come to different conclusions based upon the facts and evidence we have.

Or assert we have, anyway.

My problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no facts and evidence.

Nobody's said that. Your list is wrong, but that doesn't mean there aren't any facts or evidence.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Good ole Samual Clemens answered this question long ago:




Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #67]

And to the last, Clemens was right. Faith is claiming as a fact what is not known or in fact credible. cue the inverted logic based on faith - "You can't prove it isn't true". But it does not deserve belief as a Fact or even credible probability until the evidence points that way.

Now i get our pal realworlder's point that it reads as credible.
And if Jesus taught, disciples preached the resurrection, Paul picked it up and took it to the Gentiles - Christianity and the rest is history.

So, what's the problem? The problem is the Spiderman analogy, or I prefer 007. Real people and places appear and even events, but the there is no reason to believe the story.

It is the contradictions that does it for me. The nativities were the first to fall apart. And they do, despite strenuous efforts to prop them up and excuse nonsense like the Mobile star. The contradictory dates was well known, but there is far more, the different original places of residence, Luke contradicting the flight to Egypt. This even clobbers the 'they didn't bother to mention stuff' (1) excuse. It is wrong in one or both cases.

The Resurrection is almost as bad, barefaced denial aside. Which doesn't matter. No more than someone swearing the Bible is right and I am wrong because the earth is flat and everything revolves around it. Nobody much will buy it and their opinion and refusal to accept science is irrelevant. This might seem Too, too obvious, but so many Bible apologists seem to think their denial makes a case, not what can be proved.

What can be shown credible is that there is an alternative to the Christian story. One that goes: "Real (failed) messiah Jesus. Jewish (observant) disciples believe in a risen spirit Jesus. Paul has a vision of Jesus which is the same as those in Corinthians - visions, which is why they are not like the gospels. Paul takes his Revised Judaism to the Greeks and Romans and it catches on".
They start to write the gospels later on with a Greek not Jewish view, which has not only made Jesus a god, but has gone anti - Moses, which cue they got from Paul.

Without going too long, there is evidence for this and Gospel apologetics soon switches from presenting evidence that supports the Christian take, to explaining away why the evidence doesn't. Just take the fuss about when Passover was eaten, inventing stuff out of thin air to explain why Mary Magdalene did not know what happened to Jesus and the excuses made why nobody but Luke knew about the penitent thief. And that doesn't touch on other points where no response is made at all.

In short, taking contradictions and known history as a start, the Gospels come apart as quickly as someone swearing that the batman stories are real events.

(1) even stunning events like the transfiguration, the declaration and attempted murder in Nazareth, raising of Lazarus, the penitent thief, the angelic message at the tomb and the women running into Jesus and of course, omitting the ascension before we even not the omission of the more memorable parables and all John's vital theological expositions. This is just the Biggies; the start.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #64]

First, allow me to apologize for the delay, but I had to work all last week, and then came down with some sort of illness and have not felt well enough to respond.

No. Mind, your argument is a widely accepted one, but it is invalid, if only because there is an alternative hypothesis or explanation, even if it didn't have some clues, which it does.

Simply because there may be alternative explanations does not in any way cause an argument to be invalid. However, when one attempts to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have does in fact demonstrate there are facts and evidence which needs some sort of explanation.

Luke is unreliable. Where he matches stuff in Paul, it is altered. Just the council of Jerusalem (1) is turned from a private chat between Paul and James into a senate hearing. The writer of Luke and Acts having a roman patron to address his gospel to is improbable and I say he was aping this snobby convention by addressing his q writings to 'God - lover' (Christians).

You seem to continue to be under the impression that I am arguing that the material is trustworthy. This is not the argument I am making. I am saying that there are certain things we can know by reading the material whether the material be trustworthy or not. Again, an example would be the scholars who do not believe a resurrection took place, who are convinced by the evidence we have in the material, that the early followers of Jesus believed they had encountered the risen Christ. There are two points to be made here. First, if these scholars are correct, this would mean these earlier followers were not involved in some sort of hoax but were rather telling the truth in that they at least believed that they had encountered Jesus alive after death. Next, it would demonstrate there are things we can know to be fact by reading material which may not be reliable.

Now, you may disagree with these scholars, however, the only other option I would see we are left with would be the idea that these followers somehow made the whole thing up, and this would need some sort of explanation, and pointing out the fact that the stories are not consistent is not going to explain it in the least. Moreover, even if these followers made the whole thing up, we are still left with the extraordinary. My friend, if these early followers had just watch their leader crucified, and in a matter of weeks they are able to put together such a hoax in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and they are successful to the point the hoax becomes one of the most, if not the most significant events in the history of the world, that is extraordinary, and I don't care who you are.

Yes, Paul existed.

This is an excellent example of what I am talking about. You are correct that we can know Paul existed. How do we know this to be fact? By reading material which you insist is unreliable.

He interacted with the '12', and they all had visions of the risen Jesus. So did 500 all at once, and finally, Paul. In his head. Since Paul's account is not a match for the gospels, we are NOT talking about the Sunday resurrection, but imaginary visions in the heads of the believers.

From what you are saying above, it seems as if you agree with the scholars in that these earlier followers did in fact believe they had encountered the risen Christ. How did you come to this conclusion? That would be by reading material you believe to be unreliable. If you are correct, then this would demonstrate these early followers did not make up the resurrection but truly believed that it occurred. Notice carefully, we are not talking about those who simply believed what another had told them, but are rather talking about those who are said to have witnessed, and you seem to be coming to the conclusion from the material we have that they were somehow convinced they had witnessed such a thing.

Thus, the resurrection -belief was Judeo - Pharisee messianism and nothing to do with Gentile Christianity which Paul started but Greek Christians completed and turned man -messiah Jesus into Pagan Jesus-god, which was not what Paul taught, never mind the twelve, and forget about Jesus.

If any of the above would be true, I really do not see how it would be relevant when according to you we have just established the fact that the early followers somehow believed they had encountered Jesus alive after the crucifixion? What others do with these facts you seem to claim we can know has no relevance upon how Christianity began, and we know Christianity began with the claim of a resurrection which has nothing to do with any sort of "god concept".

Even if you dismiss, pooh - pooh or ignore that

Hold on a minute? Is it "pooh - pooh" or can we know the early followers somehow believed they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion?

it is an alternative with clues

An "alternative with clues" does not in any way dismiss a claim. What it does in fact dismiss, is the argument that there would be no facts and evidence involved as far as the resurrection is concerned. These "alternatives with clues" demonstrates there are facts and evidence which must have some sort of alternative explanation.

As I say, I understand that this is a common view, but it is wrong.

Please explain exactly what is "wrong" with the view I am putting forth which is, there are things we can know by reading material whether the material be reliable or not? You seem to agree with this in that you seem to acknowledge the fact that Paul was a real historical figure, along with the fact that you seem to believe from material you believe unreliable that the early followers of Jesus truly believed He rose from the dead. Moreover, you certainly seem to agree that we have facts and evidence which needs some sort of alternative explanation. So, what view am I putting forth which would be wrong?