Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

There are no reports of Jesus physically ascending into heaven. Just that the tomb was empty, which is different.

The bible reports more than just an empty tomb- Jesus appeared to the apostles after his crucifixion and death in all 4 Gospels. And there are reports of Jesus ascending into heaven. From Luke 24 verse 51:

"And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."

The fact is that the synoptic gospels only treat Jesus as a (arguably major) Jewish prophet. It is only in John where he explicitly take the role of a God incarnate with a message directed predominantly toward the gentiles.

You must have missed my earlier post. Mark Chapter 9 (as well and Luke and Mark) all report on the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain. During this, in addition to Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah, (as witnessed by a few apostles), a voice came down out of the clouds saying "This is my beloved Son, hear him". Luke 9:31 also reports that during this Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah about how he would fulfill God's purpose by dying in Jerusalem.

A voice coming out of the clouds saying this is my beloved Son; and Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah about how he would fulfill God's purpose by dying in Jerusalem certainly makes Jesus sound more than a prophet. It makes him sound like the Son of God.

 

[Hokulele]

The bible reports more than just an empty tomb- Jesus appeared to the apostles after his crucifixion and death in all 4 Gospels.

Not in Mark, originally. Go look at the evidence that it is a forgery. There were a number of works cited in that article I linked.

 

[joobz]

The bible reports more than just an empty tomb- Jesus appeared to the apostles after his crucifixion and death in all 4 Gospels. And there are reports of Jesus ascending into heaven. From Luke 24 verse 51:

He was speaking of Mark. remember? The whole argument is that ONLY luke* describes Jesus as a deity.

You must have missed my earlier post. Mark Chapter 9 (as well and Luke and Mark) all report on the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain. During this, in addition to Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah, (as witnessed by a few apostles), a voice came down out of the clouds saying "This is my beloved Son, hear him". Luke 9:31 also reports that during this Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah about how he would fulfill God's purpose by dying in Jerusalem.

You must have missed my post where jews at that time didn't use son of god to actually mean the SON of god.

Interestingly, this point was addressed in the Ehrman interview. HAve you listened to it?


ETA: I acknowledge my bolded mistake.. Oops

 

[Hokulele]

He was speaking of Mark. remember? The whole argument is that ONLY luke describes Jesus as a deity.

Er, actually it is John that decribes Jesus as a deity.

Well, Paul does it a lot as well, but those are epistles, not gospels.

 

[DOC]

No, this thread is about evidence. Joobz brings up a very good point as to when you decide which evidence you find compelling and which you dismiss.

From what we have seen of your and Geisler's arguments, confirmation bias appears to be the deciding factor, hence the reason why it is resonable to ask specifically why you do not find Mormonism as compelling as your brand of religion.

The Law of Non Contradiction. Both Mormonism and mainline Christianity can't be right. Mormonism says God progressed from a human to God and still exists in human form on or near Kolob and biblical Christianity upon which Mormonism is supposedly based on says something completely different -- God is Spirit. Mormonism tries to change the Bible by saying God (the Father) is not spirit but lives in human form, so it should be obvious why I or any mainline Christian doesn't believe in its radical departure from the Biblical God.

 

[joobz]

This thread is not about Mormonism. There have been other threads about that, and your welcome to start another one.

Hokulele has already highlighted my reason for addressing this.

I'd simply like to spell it out more specifically.

You state that the biblical witnesses of the resurrection is strong supporting evidence for the truth of the resurrection. Yet, this evidence is nearly all hearsay except (perhaps) for the two gospel authors.

I ask, if you believe in the gold tablets, because it has not only the same KIND of evidence, it has a more reliable signed statements.


So why do you think this kind of evidence is good for the resurrection but not for the gold tablets?

 

[DOC]

You must have missed my post where jews at that time didn't use son of god to actually mean the SON of god.

What is your source for this?

 

[joobz]

The Law of Non Contradiction. Both Mormonism and mainline Christianity can't be right.

But if the gold tablets are true (Which you have avoided answering), then the law of non-contradiction would suggest that your religion is wrong.

Mormonism says God progressed from a human to God and still exists in human form on or near Kolob and biblical Christianity upon which Mormonism is supposedly based on says something completely different -- God is Spirit. Mormonism tries to change the Bible by saying God (the Father) is not spirit but lives in human form, so it should be obvious why I or any mainline Christian doesn't believe in its radical departure from the Biblical God.

Because it's wrong.

The gold tablets are to be trusted. There is evidence for thier existence. better evidence than that of the resurrection.

So, I ask again, Why do you deny mormonism.?

 

[joobz]

What is your source for this?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...95&ft=1&f=1021

 

[Hokulele]

The Law of Non Contradiction. Both Mormonism and mainline Christianity can't be right. Mormonism says God progressed from a human to God and still exists in human form on or near Kolob and biblical Christianity upon which Mormonism is supposedly based on says something completely different -- God is Spirit. Mormonism tries to change the Bible by saying God (the Father) is not spirit but lives in human form, so it should be obvious why I or any mainline Christian doesn't believe in its radical departure from the Biblical God.

And that exact same reasoning can be used to explain why Mormonism is correct and you are wrong. Your Bible got it wrong the first time, and Mormonism is the logical correction. Heck, there were sworn eyewitnesses to those corrections.

What is your source for this?

It was in the article that Simon provided.

That you apparently didn't read.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've already explained how certain perceived contradictions might not be contradictions at all. For example the one and two angels, (see post 2055). Just because we currently don't understand something doesn't mean their isn't an explanation.

<snip>

The fact that you feel a need to explain apparent contradictions between accounts of equally unlikely events seems to indicate a lack of evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

Do you have any?

 

[DOC]

The fact that you feel a need to explain apparent contradictions between accounts of equally unlikely events seems to indicate a lack of evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

Do you have any?

Actually similar testimonies about the major points and divergent testimonies about the relatively minor points are normal for eyewitness accounts. Geisler goes into detail about this in the book mentioned in post #1. The fact that there is divergent details on some minor points in the Gospels is actually one of the reasons why Geisler states we know the New Testament writers wrote the truth and also wrote independently. In other words we know they didn't get together to correlate their accounts. Geisler's explanation of this can be read on this website -- click to pages 284 to 286.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA275,M1

 

[joobz]

Actually similar testimonies about the major points and divergent testimonies about the relatively minor points are normal for eyewitness accounts.

And that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it?

How do you get to claim what is minor and what isn't?

I think Jesus' divinity is a minor point and one that's been greatly exaggerated. I choose to ignore that issue.


ETA: Have you read the Ehrman interview? Do you have any critiques of his argument?

 

[DOC]

And that exact same reasoning can be used to explain why Mormonism is correct and you are wrong. Your Bible got it wrong the first time, and Mormonism is the logical correction.

Please list everything the Bible got wrong the first time and exactly how Mormonism corrected it and what is your source.

 

[DOC]

Have you read the Ehrman interview? Do you have any critiques of his argument?

Someone summarized some of his points in here and I've already shown he was wrong to say Jesus was just a prophet in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark chapter 9 shows Jesus was the Son of God and not just a prophet

 

[RobRoy]

The Law of Non Contradiction. Both Mormonism and mainline Christianity can't be right. Mormonism says God progressed from a human to God and still exists in human form on or near Kolob and biblical Christianity upon which Mormonism is supposedly based on says something completely different -- God is Spirit. Mormonism tries to change the Bible by saying God (the Father) is not spirit but lives in human form, so it should be obvious why I or any mainline Christian doesn't believe in its radical departure from the Biblical God.

It's interesting, the LDS have actually taken this into account, and they claim that they believe in the Bible "in so far as it is translated correctly" (8th Article of Faith). The teaching that goes with this is that "evil" men, in an attempt to corrupt God's "true" message, deleted, edited, or changed the Bible over time, as tools or servents of Satan. They very wisely do not say which parts of the Bible are correct, and which have been corrupted over time, and that way, any contradictions between the Bible and Mormon faith are quite easily overcome.

As for the Three Witnesses, what's interesting about each of them is that even though they all had a falling out with Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, in the end each of them reaffirmed their statements, their belief in Smith as a prophet of God, and his claims regarding the Golden Plates.

Of the Eight Witnesses, although the Whitmer side had a falling out with Smith, and eventually were, oh, let's call it persuaded by the Danites to leave post-haste, none of them recanted their testimonies. There is a letter from Stephen Burnett to Lyman Johnson in which he states that Harris claimed that the Eight never saw the plates and were only persuaded to sign the testimony. However, John Whitmer, and both of the Smith brothers (Hyrum and Samuel) all claim to have handled the plates. Whitmer goes so far as to say that he handled the plates directly and uncovered. The "uncovered" portion brings in its own issues, but that's another thread altogether.

As far as Witnesses and testimony goes for the Book of Mormon and the Golden Plates, the Three and the Eight are pretty solid in their initial claims. In comparison with Jesus and the writers of the New Testament, they are much better, and much more credible, as they are all contemporaries, obviously in the company of Smith, and have corroborated their stories in multiple places.

 

[joobz]

Someone summarized some of his points in here and I've already shown he was wrong to say Jesus was just a prophet in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark chapter 9 shows Jesus was the Son of God and not just a prophet

And i've stated that son of god doesn't mean "SON" of god in jewish writings. that was also explained in that article. You can also see it here.
from wiki on Son of God^WP

Son of God is a phrase found in the Hebrew Bible, various other Jewish texts and the Christian Bible. In the holy Hebrew scriptures, according to Jewish religious tradition, Son of God has many possible meanings, referring to angels, or humans or even all mankind. According to most Christian traditions, it refers to the relationship between Jesus and God, see also God the Son.

So, Ehrman was right.

ETA: DOC, I read large sections of Geisler's book. I did this out of respect for you and those I debate with. It is why I can confidently consider Geisler a hack. His book is a perfect example of flawed logic and fallacy.

Now, perhaps you'd like to offer the same curtesy and actually read something of Ehrman's? I would be happy to even buy you a copy.

 

[DOC]

It's interesting, the LDS have actually taken this into account, and they claim that they believe in the Bible "in so far as it is translated correctly" (8th Article of Faith). The teaching that goes with this is that "evil" men, in an attempt to corrupt God's "true" message, deleted, edited, or changed the Bible over time, as tools or servents of Satan. They very wisely do not say which parts of the Bible are correct, and which have been corrupted over time, and that way, any contradictions between the Bible and Mormon faith are quite easily overcome

I wouldn't say it was very wise, I would say it is deceptive and secretive. And secrecy is a mainstay of most cults.

 

[joobz]

It's interesting, the LDS have actually taken this into account, and they claim that they believe in the Bible "in so far as it is translated correctly" (8th Article of Faith). The teaching that goes with this is that "evil" men, in an attempt to corrupt God's "true" message, deleted, edited, or changed the Bible over time, as tools or servents of Satan.

Interestingly, historical evidence regarding changes in the gospel texts support this argument.

 

[RobRoy]

Interestingly, historical evidence regarding changes in the gospel texts support this argument.

Yeppers, a serendipitous choice for the LDS, one which they can now crow about to no end.

I wouldn't say it was very wise, I would say it is deceptive and secretive. And secrecy is a mainstay of most cults.

While to some extent I would agree with that assertion against the LDS faith, not in this case. Here, the LDS faith takes a major problem in aligning their doctrines with the issues of the Bible. The Bible is fraught with problems of internal consistency on its own, so adding a wholly new set of documents is certain to create friction between the two. In order to not completely remove Mormonism from the Christian spectrum, the 8th Article of Faith allows for errors, but not in The Book of Mormon; in the Bible itself! Any fault lies with the Bible "translations" and those "evil" folk who did bad things to the Bible, rendering it a secondary role in the LDS religion to Smith's new and improved version.

Brilliant, wise, and genius solution to what might otherwise have become a major source of irritation. Now they just write off any inconsistencies as errors in translation or editing by "evil" folk.

Let's give it up for Joseph Smith and his D20 role of a perfect dodge!