Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #1

Post by The Nice Centurion »

Perhaps the most quantitative appearing of any resurrected demigod ever!
I told you] that [Jesus] appeared to Cephas [Peter]; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom most remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one malformed, he appeared to me too, for I am the least of the apostles, who is not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
It is the "favorite child" of resurrected Jesus apologists!

Most probable explanation according to Richard Carrier:

Paul cannot mean Jesus hung around with his followers for days or weeks. Paul’s use of “all at once” for only one single event, and his entire sequence (Cephas, and then each of the Twelve, and then the brethren, and then James, and then each of the Apostles, and then Paul), entails these were isolated, momentary visions. They came, and went. Paul therefore cannot mean a lingering Jesus who stuck around and dined with them for days on end. That simply isn’t what he is describing here. At all. And yet this fact strongly supports explanations from the cognitive science of religious experience: these were visions; not a reanimated body. A reanimated body would stick around.

. . .

The most probable thing that could have happened is that all the brethren in the congregation at that time, riling themselves up into an ecstasy on Pentecost owing to its prophetic and religious significance, and the exciting and hope-fulfilling claims of the Twelve, had a Fatima-style mass experience, in an altered state hallucinating amorphous lights above them, and feeling the Presence of the Lord, and then concluded this was an instance of Jesus having appeared to them, now in his celestial and supernatural form. Probably no auditory element was present, no verbal revelation, not only because none is recorded (not even in Acts), but that would have made this into an apostolic election. And Paul clearly does not think it was. These brethren did not become, and thus are not described as, apostles. The apostles appear in the next verse.

Scientifically, what happened would be like that Fatima scenario: each individual had his own private hallucination of a miraculous light, each one different from the next, but because it was amorphous and only communicable in the abstract (“I see lights above us!”) there was no way to “compare notes” (even if they were inclined to) so as to discover they were seeing different things (and they likely wouldn’t conclude so anyway: most believers in the Fatima case didn’t). And they all had this experience at once because all were exciting themselves into the same altered state on the same religious occasion, just as with the Fatima events. The well-studied scientific facts of anchoring and memory contamination and the power of suggestion and need of belonging (and thus the need to have seen or felt the same things as one’s comrades, or at least claim to have) would ensure the resulting story became more and more homogeneous over time.

Just as it could have come to be told that the Virgin Mary “appeared” to hundreds of witnesses at Fatima, so it could have come to be told that Jesus “appeared” to hundreds of witnesses at Pentecost. There is no evidence against this being what happened. And it has the highest prior probability, given all the background knowledge we have about how these claims commonly originate and come to be told. Corpses don’t rise. But masses of people do claim divine beings have appeared to them—when all that really happened was a subjective ecstatic hallucination of lights in the sky. It thus doesn’t matter if any Corinthians could “check” Paul’s claim by finding any of these people. If they even did (I thoroughly cover that problem in Chs. 7 and 13 of Not the Impossible Faith), the witnesses would simply report they saw Jesus as a fabulous light, and so decisively felt his presence that they could not be mistaken, and the usual psychosomatic miracles of “tongues” and “healing” proved it. Which is what the Corinthians would already know. And back then, who could prove it wasn’t real?

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14255
But I find that the heaviest argument about this one time mass appearance is that so many people cannot verify a popping up and vanishing again person. Not even if Jesus appeared in the collosseum arena with his 500 fans rounded up around him as audience!

Am I right that all this disqualifies Jesus alleged appearance to 50ü brethren?
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #11

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:38 am Perhaps the most quantitative appearing of any resurrected demigod ever!
I told you] that [Jesus] appeared to Cephas [Peter]; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom most remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one malformed, he appeared to me too, for I am the least of the apostles, who is not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
It is the "favorite child" of resurrected Jesus apologists!

Most probable explanation according to Richard Carrier:

Paul cannot mean Jesus hung around with his followers for days or weeks. Paul’s use of “all at once” for only one single event, and his entire sequence (Cephas, and then each of the Twelve, and then the brethren, and then James, and then each of the Apostles, and then Paul), entails these were isolated, momentary visions. They came, and went. Paul therefore cannot mean a lingering Jesus who stuck around and dined with them for days on end. That simply isn’t what he is describing here. At all. And yet this fact strongly supports explanations from the cognitive science of religious experience: these were visions; not a reanimated body. A reanimated body would stick around.

. . .

The most probable thing that could have happened is that all the brethren in the congregation at that time, riling themselves up into an ecstasy on Pentecost owing to its prophetic and religious significance, and the exciting and hope-fulfilling claims of the Twelve, had a Fatima-style mass experience, in an altered state hallucinating amorphous lights above them, and feeling the Presence of the Lord, and then concluded this was an instance of Jesus having appeared to them, now in his celestial and supernatural form. Probably no auditory element was present, no verbal revelation, not only because none is recorded (not even in Acts), but that would have made this into an apostolic election. And Paul clearly does not think it was. These brethren did not become, and thus are not described as, apostles. The apostles appear in the next verse.

Scientifically, what happened would be like that Fatima scenario: each individual had his own private hallucination of a miraculous light, each one different from the next, but because it was amorphous and only communicable in the abstract (“I see lights above us!”) there was no way to “compare notes” (even if they were inclined to) so as to discover they were seeing different things (and they likely wouldn’t conclude so anyway: most believers in the Fatima case didn’t). And they all had this experience at once because all were exciting themselves into the same altered state on the same religious occasion, just as with the Fatima events. The well-studied scientific facts of anchoring and memory contamination and the power of suggestion and need of belonging (and thus the need to have seen or felt the same things as one’s comrades, or at least claim to have) would ensure the resulting story became more and more homogeneous over time.

Just as it could have come to be told that the Virgin Mary “appeared” to hundreds of witnesses at Fatima, so it could have come to be told that Jesus “appeared” to hundreds of witnesses at Pentecost. There is no evidence against this being what happened. And it has the highest prior probability, given all the background knowledge we have about how these claims commonly originate and come to be told. Corpses don’t rise. But masses of people do claim divine beings have appeared to them—when all that really happened was a subjective ecstatic hallucination of lights in the sky. It thus doesn’t matter if any Corinthians could “check” Paul’s claim by finding any of these people. If they even did (I thoroughly cover that problem in Chs. 7 and 13 of Not the Impossible Faith), the witnesses would simply report they saw Jesus as a fabulous light, and so decisively felt his presence that they could not be mistaken, and the usual psychosomatic miracles of “tongues” and “healing” proved it. Which is what the Corinthians would already know. And back then, who could prove it wasn’t real?

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14255
But I find that the heaviest argument about this one time mass appearance is that so many people cannot verify a popping up and vanishing again person. Not even if Jesus appeared in the collosseum arena with his 500 fans rounded up around him as audience!

Am I right that all this disqualifies Jesus alleged appearance to 50ü brethren?
Wait a minute...who is Richard Carrier???

His name doesn't ring a bell.

Ohhh, I remember.

Isn't that the poor bloke who got destroyed by William Lane Craig in there well-anticipated debate??

Oh yeah, him.

Whatever happened to the poor fella?

It was indeed a terrible, terrible loss...and the poor child aint been the same since.

Tsk tsk.

And besides, Carrier is one of the few scholars who doesn't believe Jesus even existed...so he loses all credibility right there.

And lastly, he should have brought all of that good stuff (your quote of him) to the Craig debate.

Maybe it would have been less of a slaughter-fest...one of which I greatly enjoyed, btw.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #12

Post by The Nice Centurion »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 4:00 pm Wait a minute...who is Richard Carrier???

His name doesn't ring a bell.

Ohhh, I remember.

Isn't that the poor bloke who got destroyed by William Lane Craig in there well-anticipated debate??

Oh yeah, him.

Whatever happened to the poor fella?

It was indeed a terrible, terrible loss...and the poor child aint been the same since.

Tsk tsk.

And besides, Carrier is one of the few scholars who doesn't believe Jesus even existed...so he loses all credibility right there.

And lastly, he should have brought all of that good stuff (your quote of him) to the Craig debate.

Maybe it would have been less of a slaughter-fest...one of which I greatly enjoyed, btw.
Can you link me to said "slaughter-fest" (sic) ?

Because I read that argument from a believer one time years ago on online debate somewhere.

Was that you?

I assume it is this debate. Video is off here, but the comments are interesting and informal!

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... g.html?m=1
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #13

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:34 am Can you link me to said "slaughter-fest" (sic) ?
Yeah I can send you a link...its called YOUTUBE.



Ever heard of it?
Because I read that argument from a believer one time years ago on online debate somewhere.


Was that you?
Not I.
I assume it is this debate. Video is off here, but the comments are interesting and informal!

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... g.html?m=1
:D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 8170
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 3549 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #14

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:32 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:33 am [Replying to theophile in post #8]

Look, right from the start, I saw that Paul's resurrections didn't match the Gospel stories. Later on I twigged that visions - imaginary visions - is what he was talking about. It didn't matter what happened to the body. It was the spirit of Jesus that was popping into their heads.

I later on realised that the gospels had no idea what Paul had written, so of course their accounts contradicted Paul, as well as each other. But Luke DID know paul's letters, which is why he amended the whole resurrection scenario to accord with Paul. It;s why he wrote Acts, too.

These 500 brethren are curious though. When did Jesus' followers get numbers like that? Of course Paul reckons he was racing all over the place before 36 AD tracking down and denouncing Jesus -supporters.

Of course explanations can be made - I can think them up myself, but I just have this feeling that 500 Christians seeing the risen Jesus is a bit premature for a presumable short time after the resurrection.
I feel like you're trying to rationalize something that by its very nature is beyond our ability to rationalize, which was basically my point before. I don't mean by that your effort to understand why which writer said what they did (I think we are up to the task of understanding that to a certain extent), but rather I mean coming to any sort of conclusion about our resurrected form and what it may or may not be capable of.

But that's just me. Don't let that stop you :)
:D Don't worry, it won't. No appeal to 'It is an inexplicable Mystery' does. Because God doesn't do magic but rather operating through normal events but with tweaks that are "Inexplicable unless some magic happened". But, like conjuring tricks or scams, once they have been explained, you won't be fooled by them again. The famous Astrology experiment where many persons thought their reading related to them but they all had the same reading (they laughed, realising how they'd been duped) means that anyone who sees how the trick worked will not be fooled again.

Now with the I Cor passage, the 'trick' is trying to pretend that it confirms the Gospels accounts. All I can do is show that they are not the same, and Luke altering the Gospel story to try to make it fit Paul only goes to flag that up.

Now, you may try to put the whole problem into a safe area where Rationalists can't touch it, but I will continue to show that Paul does not at all validate the Gospel resurrections, and (I hope and trust) those who see how the attempts to make it do so are invalid will not be fooled by it again.

But don't let that stop you trying. O:)

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #15

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 4:06 am
theophile wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:32 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:33 am [Replying to theophile in post #8]

Look, right from the start, I saw that Paul's resurrections didn't match the Gospel stories. Later on I twigged that visions - imaginary visions - is what he was talking about. It didn't matter what happened to the body. It was the spirit of Jesus that was popping into their heads.

I later on realised that the gospels had no idea what Paul had written, so of course their accounts contradicted Paul, as well as each other. But Luke DID know paul's letters, which is why he amended the whole resurrection scenario to accord with Paul. It;s why he wrote Acts, too.

These 500 brethren are curious though. When did Jesus' followers get numbers like that? Of course Paul reckons he was racing all over the place before 36 AD tracking down and denouncing Jesus -supporters.

Of course explanations can be made - I can think them up myself, but I just have this feeling that 500 Christians seeing the risen Jesus is a bit premature for a presumable short time after the resurrection.
I feel like you're trying to rationalize something that by its very nature is beyond our ability to rationalize, which was basically my point before. I don't mean by that your effort to understand why which writer said what they did (I think we are up to the task of understanding that to a certain extent), but rather I mean coming to any sort of conclusion about our resurrected form and what it may or may not be capable of.

But that's just me. Don't let that stop you :)
:D Don't worry, it won't. No appeal to 'It is an inexplicable Mystery' does. Because God doesn't do magic but rather operating through normal events but with tweaks that are "Inexplicable unless some magic happened". But, like conjuring tricks or scams, once they have been explained, you won't be fooled by them again. The famous Astrology experiment where many persons thought their reading related to them but they all had the same reading (they laughed, realising how they'd been duped) means that anyone who sees how the trick worked will not be fooled again.

Now with the I Cor passage, the 'trick' is trying to pretend that it confirms the Gospels accounts. All I can do is show that they are not the same, and Luke altering the Gospel story to try to make it fit Paul only goes to flag that up.

Now, you may try to put the whole problem into a safe area where Rationalists can't touch it, but I will continue to show that Paul does not at all validate the Gospel resurrections, and (I hope and trust) those who see how the attempts to make it do so are invalid will not be fooled by it again.

But don't let that stop you trying. O:)
It's not so much an appeal to mystery or magic as it is to changing conditions of possibility (for lack of a better term). By which I mean there is an underlying narrative in the bible where what is possible changes over time. Possibilities can expand or contract in relationship with good and evil, such that the more evil there is in the world, the more the future and what is possible closes down (to a point everything is dead and nothing is possible). And conversely, the more good in the world, the more the future opens up and expands (to the point all things are possible, things we can't even fathom today given our current conditions - up to and including the conquering of death and resurrection).

I'm not saying this is physical truth, or that the universe actually follows such a logic, but only that this is the lens through which biblical writers viewed and wrote about the world. (Highly speculative, I know, but just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion. :))

And while it may be a hard pill to swallow (especially for a capital 'R' rationalist who thinks reason conquers all - to which I would say maybe someday!), it means that any rational view we develop now on what our resurrected form would be is necessarily limited by our current conditions and what is possible. That includes the views we have from various biblical writers. (Reason simply can't go beyond that, otherwise it becomes something more like... imagination. Which is what I believe we see in their writings.)

Hence, IMO, all they were trying to show when depicting Jesus' resurrected form was that it would be unlike anything we know is possible today. e.g., It would have substance and be touchable, but it would also be able to pass through walls and appear to over 500 at once. They weren't trying to convey something specific and rational like a vision in the disciple's heads. But like Jesus' life (where we see him walk on water, turn water into wine, etc.) they were trying to convey the expansive possibilities that come from his good example and shunning of evil.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 8170
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 3549 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #16

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:21 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 4:06 am
theophile wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:32 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:33 am [Replying to theophile in post #8]

Look, right from the start, I saw that Paul's resurrections didn't match the Gospel stories. Later on I twigged that visions - imaginary visions - is what he was talking about. It didn't matter what happened to the body. It was the spirit of Jesus that was popping into their heads.

I later on realised that the gospels had no idea what Paul had written, so of course their accounts contradicted Paul, as well as each other. But Luke DID know paul's letters, which is why he amended the whole resurrection scenario to accord with Paul. It;s why he wrote Acts, too.

These 500 brethren are curious though. When did Jesus' followers get numbers like that? Of course Paul reckons he was racing all over the place before 36 AD tracking down and denouncing Jesus -supporters.

Of course explanations can be made - I can think them up myself, but I just have this feeling that 500 Christians seeing the risen Jesus is a bit premature for a presumable short time after the resurrection.
I feel like you're trying to rationalize something that by its very nature is beyond our ability to rationalize, which was basically my point before. I don't mean by that your effort to understand why which writer said what they did (I think we are up to the task of understanding that to a certain extent), but rather I mean coming to any sort of conclusion about our resurrected form and what it may or may not be capable of.

But that's just me. Don't let that stop you :)
:D Don't worry, it won't. No appeal to 'It is an inexplicable Mystery' does. Because God doesn't do magic but rather operating through normal events but with tweaks that are "Inexplicable unless some magic happened". But, like conjuring tricks or scams, once they have been explained, you won't be fooled by them again. The famous Astrology experiment where many persons thought their reading related to them but they all had the same reading (they laughed, realising how they'd been duped) means that anyone who sees how the trick worked will not be fooled again.

Now with the I Cor passage, the 'trick' is trying to pretend that it confirms the Gospels accounts. All I can do is show that they are not the same, and Luke altering the Gospel story to try to make it fit Paul only goes to flag that up.

Now, you may try to put the whole problem into a safe area where Rationalists can't touch it, but I will continue to show that Paul does not at all validate the Gospel resurrections, and (I hope and trust) those who see how the attempts to make it do so are invalid will not be fooled by it again.

But don't let that stop you trying. O:)
It's not so much an appeal to mystery or magic as it is to changing conditions of possibility (for lack of a better term). By which I mean there is an underlying narrative in the bible where what is possible changes over time. Possibilities can expand or contract in relationship with good and evil, such that the more evil there is in the world, the more the future and what is possible closes down (to a point everything is dead and nothing is possible). And conversely, the more good in the world, the more the future opens up and expands (to the point all things are possible, things we can't even fathom today given our current conditions - up to and including the conquering of death and resurrection).

I'm not saying this is physical truth, or that the universe actually follows such a logic, but only that this is the lens through which biblical writers viewed and wrote about the world. (Highly speculative, I know, but just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion. :))

And while it may be a hard pill to swallow (especially for a capital 'R' rationalist who thinks reason conquers all - to which I would say maybe someday!), it means that any rational view we develop now on what our resurrected form would be is necessarily limited by our current conditions and what is possible. That includes the views we have from various biblical writers. (Reason simply can't go beyond that, otherwise it becomes something more like... imagination. Which is what I believe we see in their writings.)

Hence, IMO, all they were trying to show when depicting Jesus' resurrected form was that it would be unlike anything we know is possible today. e.g., It would have substance and be touchable, but it would also be able to pass through walls and appear to over 500 at once. They weren't trying to convey something specific and rational like a vision in the disciple's heads. But like Jesus' life (where we see him walk on water, turn water into wine, etc.) they were trying to convey the expansive possibilities that come from his good example and shunning of evil.
You always write a post. But futile. To me the Gospels are a mechanism. I see the construction -and the faulyl construction - so clearly that talking about good and evil is irrelevant. Not that I care about what religion has to say about what I see as a logical and indeed biological matter. When I see that Mark has the fig tree wither overnight whereas Matthew has it drop dead on the spot is a edit in the material (aside that Luke doesn't have it) and talking about the ethics of cursing an innocent fig tree (while that is a favourite argument or used to be), I couldn't care less. I'll only mention in passing that to me it is about the coming trashing of Jerusalem and the Temple because the time for God's plan for Jesus as Messiah to have the rule, rather the cross had not come yet. Some may disagree. But to me that's clear enough so I don't even need to debate it.

All that concerns me is what the disparate edits in thew material tell me about the writing -process. i really have little interest in the Christian Theology of the time, let alone theological takes today.

Just sayin' : theological explanations are pretty much wasted on me.

But don't let me stop you posting them for others.

neverknewyou
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:27 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #17

Post by neverknewyou »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #16]

The gospel are a theology. The edits expose the agendas of theologians. Luke edits out Jesus' family members names and refers to disciples James, Peter, and John, giving James prominence rather than Peter, James, and John as in the previous two gospels. John edits out the names of Jesus' disciples altogether. They add and omit to shape their theology as they see fit.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 8170
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 3549 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #18

Post by TRANSPONDER »

neverknewyou wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:15 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #16]

The gospel are a theology. The edits expose the agendas of theologians. Luke edits out Jesus' family members names and refers to disciples James, Peter, and John, giving James prominence rather than Peter, James, and John as in the previous two gospels. John edits out the names of Jesus' disciples altogether. They add and omit to shape their theology as they see fit.
I agree that's what they do; why they do it is maybe more than just theology.

neverknewyou
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:27 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #19

Post by neverknewyou »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

They edit for theological purposes, that is the purpose of scripture, it's self serving.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!

Post #20

Post by The Nice Centurion »

[Replying to neverknewyou in post #19]
How can they bring themselves to edit what is supposed to be their gods word ?
Isnt that blasphemous ?
Or were all editors inspired too, by an allknowing god who wanted to edit out his allknowing errors ?

That would be a fitting god for Bart Errorman, save the later never edits his errors out of his books.

He leves that work to Richard Carrier without even saying "thank you" !
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

Post Reply