jmordecai

So what percentage of things needs to be found? Is 1% enough, 10%, 25%, 40%, 75%? Where is the cutoff point before we say that it is false because archaeologists find no support of it. What about individual stories in the Bible or the Book of Mormon; if archaeological support is not found, should that part of scripture be rejected?

Be careful with your answers. If you are not careful you will find you might need to throw out most of the OT and all of the NT. Are you prepared to live by the same standard for the Bible that you seek to propose for the BofM? As far as being history books supported by other secular history books, both books of scripture fail.

Where most people fail is that because they know that Jerusalem exists they therefore assume all the Bible is supported by science. Because we don't know where Zarahemla is found it is obviously false history. Do some research and find out how much of the Bible cannot be supported by science or archeology.

Well let's start with the basics: identify reformed Egyptian, confirm ancient Jews lived in the Americas and that their culture matches that as recorded in the Book of Mormon. With that, we at least have tangibles to work with. Without that, all of the "tapirs are horses" arguments will never convince skeptics that the Book of Mormon is anything other than fiction.

It was mentioned before, but perhaps it needs to be repeated.

Methinks you forget that the voice of the Lord Himself declared to the three witnesses that it was translated correctly. Perhaps you should look at the Joseph Smith story before you make your next post, in to get your facts straight.

You are in an LDS forum, you know. We really do know this stuff.

That's assuming it was God. Muhammed claimed that God spoke to him too... and wallah... the Koran. How do we arbitrate whose telling the truth?

This is the shortcoming of experience/testimony-only criteria. As the experiential is subjective. Anyone can say "God told me". We could have three sign a document testifying that God told them that He did not say anything to the three Book of Mormon witnesses and cancel each other out.

This is why a holistic approach is needed to filter the truth from the almost truth.

Nope. Not even close. This implies that God the Father and Jesus Christ only appeared to Joseph to prove that they exist. It was a bit more than that.

That is not what I'm implying. That they appeared before Joseph and spoke to Joseph is the foundation of the LDS church. If the event did not happen then the LDS church is moot. You are not answering my questions.

That's like asking, "How does China exist without having a map to prove it?" and assumes that without proof of something, it cannot be true, which is fallacious logic.

Again, you make assertions, when I ask you to prove them, you then claim I'm asking faulty question.

I asked you "Is the Book of Mormon true without a spiritual confirmation," and you replied, "yes." I then asked you how you came to that conclusion... and you don't answer. Let's try this again.. how does one arrive at the conclusion the Book of Mormon is true... without a spiritual confirmation?

To prove that Jesus is the Christ...

Why do you need the scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ, when revelation from God will suffice? After all, it wasn't the scriptures that proved to you that the resurrection was real... but revelation, correct?

Interesting how you say "as defined by the biblical apostles and prophets." As if to imply that I don't. Although, what, if I may ask, is the biblical definition of prayer and revelation (i.e., what is your interpretation of what the Bible says about these subjects)?

My emphasis on biblical is not to contrast our definitions, but rather reinforce that these concepts are defined in the biblical texts. LDS it seem appeal to revelation and prayer as defining that the scriptures are true, but then have to point to the scriptures to define what these are. That's circular. I'd be happy to discuss my interpretation of revelation and prayer if you want to open a new thread.

When did I say I am "confident of BoM evidences"? I'm not saying that I'm not, but you're putting words in my mouth. Again.

Well... when I simply ask for BoM evidences, you lecture me to do more homework. Ok, so you are not confident of BoM evidences. Point taken.

Mesoamerica.

Now that you've sided with the Mesoamerica theory, care to get granular and mention any particular locations? In particular, I'd be interested in Zarahemla, the River Sidon and Cumorah.

Well, first of all, it's "reformed Egyptian," not "Reformed Egyptian." Second, I can't do that. A very, very small portion of Mesoamerica has been excavated, and most of the records were destroyed by the Spanish when they invaded, like cdowis said.

So what is it you wanted me to read up on?

What cdowis said. We have no way of knowing if something was a Book of Mormon site or artifact, since the records containing the original names of these places have been lost or destroyed. All we have are the Spanish names...

So nothing on any language, nothing on any specifics sites... again, what study did you want me to do?

However, there is evidence of Christian and Jewish principles being taught and believed by some in ancient Mesoamerica, as discussed in books and articles that you can find produced by FAIR and other such organizations.

I'll look at that. Would you mind giving me a specific article to check out.

I never said that the historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. I said that the historical records don't support that theory. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is annoying.

The rest of your questions are answered by me five posts down.

My bad... so if they don't prove anything... you should retract your criticism of skeptics.

Did they not witness to seeing the golden plates?

What was on them?

Aren't there witnesses to the golden plates also?

Yes there are. Unlike Paul, Peter and John who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, who among the witnesses recognized and could verify that Joseph's translation of reformed Egyptian was accurate? Seeing the plates (whatever they were) doesn't equate that the Book of Mormon came from them (not to mention that Joseph's source was the seer stone).

I think that what happens is that critics think that everything JS did must have been during prophetic moments. But this is not true. With the kinderhook plates, it seems that he did a non-revelatory process where God played no role...

I would like to echo Thew's question to you... how do you reach this conclusion?

I am under the impression that Smith was given a supernatural gift in January 1841, prior to the Kinderhook episode, of being a Seer (D&C 124:125), one who can translate ancient records (Mosiah 8:13).

That Smith's translation results in the plates containing ancient content is consistent here. Otherwise, that Smith went ahead and did a translation without his Seer powers... how does he derive what he did from the fraudulent plates?

cdowis

I don't have to prove anything when Altersteve makes assertions that historical records prove Joseph did not write the Book of Mormon, and suggesting that Book of Mormon scholars have tangibles on Nephite/Lamanite culture and language. If he can't provide the evidences that he can't chide me for asking the questions.

Trusting in the arm of flesh means also to base your faith on something physical, on evidence, on "flesh and blood," as Christ said, rather than on revelation from His Father. What you're saying is exactly what I'm saying. If not, I think you know precisely what I meant and there was no reason to be nitpicky about it.

Following your logic, God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing before Joseph Smith in the flesh is inconsequential.

Do you mean to ask, If the Spirit didn't exist, then would the Book of Mormon be true? Well... no. Or do you mean to ask, If the Spirit does not confirm to you that it's true, then is it still true? Yes. And why the quotations around "the Spirit"? Do you not believe in the Holy Ghost?

The later... Is the Book of Mormon true without a Spirit confirmation? Since you answer yes, I then ask... how?

When did I say that "the scriptures are secondary"? You're putting words in my mouth again. It is the Spirit of God who reveals the truth of the scriptures, which speak of the concepts of prayer and revelation. But you have yet to answer my question. Don't you, as a Christian, believe in prayer and revelation? Since the scriptures we have do not contain every piece of truth that we need, I would say yes. But the resurrection is pretty important. It's in the scriptures, and it is because God has told me that these scriptures are true that I believe them.

1. Since you assert that it was the Spirit which revealed to you directly the truth of the resurrection, with or without the scriptures, what then is the purpose of scripture?

Yes, as a Christian I believe in prayer and revelation as defined by the biblical apostles and prophets.

So Book of Mormon scholars haven't found anything regarding Nephite/Lamanite language, culture, or geography? Yeah, like I said: keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship before you comment on stuff like this. And I agree that we have no existing ancient copies of the Book of Mormon, but they are in God's possession. I do find it amusing, though, how you seem to dismiss every evidence for the Book of Mormon as a mere "coincidence." That kind of criticism simply cannot be taken seriously, so I have every reason to simply dismiss your dismissals.

Alright then, since you confident of BoM evidences, please take these questions seriously...

1. Geography: where is the central focal point of the Book of Mormon narrative? Here are the competing theories:

Baja Peninsula

* http://www.achoiceland.com/

Hemispheric

* http://www.bookofmormongeography.net/

* http://www.thebookofmormongeography.com/

Great Lakes Region

* http://www.bookofmormongeography.org/

* http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/

Central America/Mesoamerica

* http://www.mormongeography.com/

* http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

* http://mormonmesoamerica.com/

New York

* http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/

* http://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/

2. Please produce a sample of Reformed Egyptian that we can confidently link to the Book of Mormon language.

3. Please identify a site independently confirmed to be Nephite or Lamanite. I would be particularly interested in any evidences that Christianity was practiced.

Again putting words in my mouth. I said that critics persist with claiming that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon when the historical records don't support that theory. Please read what I wrote before you comment on it next time, okay? Okay.

CFR... please provide what historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon?

Is this to imply that revelation from God is not reliable? Is that what you're saying? Nevertheless, this does not address what I said about critics not putting Moroni's Promise to the test. You're simply changing the subject.

That's assuming whatever the source of 'revelation' is from God in the first place.

1. How does God talk to you?

2. How do you know its God?

3. Suppose I do receive a feeling that the Book of Mormon is true, there are dozens of organizations that consider it scripture... how does that tell me which church to join?

I never said anything about how we have "no reason" to believe the Bible. Never once. What's with you and putting words in my mouth like this? Seriously, knock it off please.

Ok then... what are the reasons we should conclude the Bible to true?

Well, that's good for you, but I choose not to embrace Buddhism because it's not true, not because it doesn't "produce healthy culture." Is producing healthy culture, whatever that means, more important to you than truth?

Well, I think the truth and healthy society go hand in hand. What criteria did you apply to conclude that Buddhism isn't true?

Actually this means absolutely nothing in confirming that Christ was the Christ. I have not seen any other accounts that would prove what Christ did in the New Testament was actually done. Now it would be wonderful to have other eyewitness accounts from the native population but there are none. And so, what we are left with is what is claimed in the gospels. Nothing more. And if I would kick the can down the road some more, I can say that it is awfully strange that no other document has been found from an eyewitness that would confirm the renderings in the new testament since waht christ was doing was momumental at the time.

If there was only one account, your complaint would be we need others... its disingenuous to lump all of the gospel accounts together and then demand yet more beyond them. We have FOUR accounts. How many do you need to satisfy your criteria?

What we have with the bible and the book of mormon are two accounts that make Christ the Christ. From the bible we have some archeological evidence that support the terrain which the bible was written. However, we have no other independent accounts at that time that Christ enacted miracles as contained in the bible from other eyewitnesses at that time. If we did, it would certainly bolster the claims of the new testament. And then we have the book of mormon which does not actually have the archeological proof of the bible but there are 11 witnesses to actually seeing or feeling the gold plates and their testimonies which they never denied regardless if they left the early lds church or not. We also have the accounts of the translation process which state that no paper manuscript was used by Joseph Smith.

Both the bible and the book of mormon take faith and not evidence. However bible thumpers refuse to recognize this when they dicuss the book of mormon and the bible. Now if I were a bible thumper I would hope that the book of mormon was true since that would prove that Christ was the christ. However, bible thumpers spend a heck amount of time trying to disprove it. Why?

Again your argument is overlooking the obvious... the NT comprises 27 texts! Tell you what, let's make the NT 15 books (as many as the BoM), now we'll add 12 more texts... is that enough? How many do you want? From that we have a succession of texts from the ECF... Name me some ancient persons who's life and teachings are better documented by more eyewitnesses than Jesus Christ?

And there are many who don't. I'm just making a point here, that trusting in the arm of flesh is not the way to believe in Christ, and is not what the Bible teaches about faith.

"Trusting in the arm of the flesh" has nothing to do with determining the truth of something via examination. Trusting in flesh has everything to do with depending on yourself for your own salvation.

I'm afraid not.

Nuh uh is not a response. You simply can't drop one of my points, comment on the rest and pretend to be effectively responding to my argument.

You only "beg to differ" because the Spirit hasn't confirmed to you that it is not only ancient, but also that it is everything else that it claims to be: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

You are correct in that "the Spirit" has not done that. But it begs the question if the Book of Mormon remains true without any prodding by the Spirit. Is the Book of Mormon true without the Spirit?

From the scriptures and from the words of God's chosen prophets, which, as the Spirit has confirmed to me, are true. Where else would we get them from, and how else would we get them? Don't you, as a Christian, believe in those concepts?

Ah... the scriptures. So now we've come full circle. So let me get this straight, the scriptures are secondary since truth is revealed by prayer and revelation. Yet we learn of what prayer and revelation are by the scriptures. Hmmm.

Of course it was. I never said it wasn't. But I meant that I believe what the scriptures say about Christ's resurrection because the Spirit has confirmed to me that they are true, not because of physical evidence, and not simply because the Bible says so.

Would you believe in the resurrection if the scriptures never spoke of such a thing?

And the evidences for the Bible could be "coincidences," too. See how that works?

In comparison with Book of Mormon evidences, we have more than coincidences (language, culture, geography, ancient copies).

The historical records don't add up with the theory that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, yet critics foolishly persist with it.

I agree! Critics persist with it because the historical records don't add up!

And they persist with that dumb idea because of the fact that for whatever reason, they refuse to put Moroni's Promise to the test.

I can practice Sufism and receive confirmation that Islam is true, or Nirvana that Hindu is true. How do I arbitrate what feeling/experience is the truest one?

... If so, then you do not believe or understand the Bible...

Why should I believe the Bible when you tell me that we have no reason to believe it?

Greece is a real place, too, and there are historical records from that time that support what people said about Zeus and the other Greek gods. So why don't you, jmordecai, accept the Greek pantheon? And if "Egypt was a real place," then obviously Ra, Osiris, and the other Egyptian gods are also real. Same with the Roman gods, since the Roman Empire was a real empire.

None of these religions remain viable.

And since China is real, and because Buddha was a real person, obviously Buddhism must also be true. The Hindu gods, such as Vishnu, must also be real. Is that the kind of logic you're using?

Yes. That Buddha was a real person lends credibility to his teachings. If the preponderance of the evidence suggested Budda was myth, then we can throw the hole thing out. I don't embrace Buddhism because I don't find that its teachings produce healthy culture.

... And it lends no credibility to any of it's claims.

We'll if I follow your reasoning, then the events surrounding the First Vision don't matter, and I can safely conclude then that God the Father and Jesus Christ never appeared before Joseph Smith. Since that didn't happen, Joseph never had that vision, and the existence of the LDS church is for naught.

And just who are these eye witnesses?

Um, Peter, Paul, John...

I tell you, I do not believe Jesus is who he claim because Paul claimed to have seen Jesus. I know exactly the same way Peter learned it.

Now you talking in circles again. You can't say you know exactly the way Peter learned it while at the same time arguing against the notion that Peter ever existed.

I guess we just appeal to "Egypt is a real place".

If you continue to diminish and distort the totality of my argument I'll ignore you the rest of this thread.

Do you accept Thor as a God? Why not?

Thor's religion is not a viable one.

Do you accept Islam? Many of the places spoken of in the Koran are real places. Why do you accept the Bible but not the Koran.

The teachings of Islam do not produce healthy cultures.

Nobody ever said that the Bible is "mostly false," or that Jesus was a mythical figure, nor did anyone say that "Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not as a real person who walked the earth." Of course I believe He was a real person. I was simply making a point that there is no evidence for Jesus' life, death, or resurrection that scholars would consider to be true, convincing "evidence."

There are many scholars who disagree with your assertion.

Which is exactly why I omitted it.

My point stands.

The Book of Mormon is already authentic, and doesn't need to be "established" as such, any more than a historical document needs to be "established" as historical.

Is the Book of Mormon a book? Yes. Is the Book of Mormon ancient? I beg to differ.

Why do you place quotations around those words? Do you mean to imply that we do not need revelation or prayer?

Let me try this again... where do you get the the concepts of prayer and revelation?

It is entirely applicable. To place your faith in the arm of flesh is to base your faith on something physical rather that on revelation.

Was Jesus Christ death and resurrection not physical?

So now you admit that there are Book of Mormon evidences, then? Interesting.

I admit there are coincidences, and many more misses that hits.

Because God told me so.

God just told me that He didn't tell you that. Now we are stuck, because we both can make God say anything we want. Now what do we do? What do we appeal to, to arbitrate this?

I know, I know, because Egypt is a real place and the bible speaks of Egypt, so the fact that Egypt exists that means that God really did speak to people like Moses. Because the bible tells us so.

Israel is a real place. There for Christ really did die. That seems to be what you are claim here.

How do you know that God spoke to people anciently?

I've been saying much more than that, so I will repeat this one last time. The historical records, written in common Greek, of Jesus Christ, a Jew, takes place largely in Israel, under Roman occupation, under Pontius Pilot. These asserted biblical facts are all consistent with the historical record and lend credibility to the record being true. Furthermore we have the writings of several eyewitness who attested to his life, death and resurrection, and other corroborative records.

What Jesus said about himself is indeed a matter of faith, but that he is a real person, of a real lineage, who spoke a real language, and lived in a real location, must be a matter of fact.

Indeed this is the only way some one can know that Jesus died and was resurrected. This is what the Savior told Peter that "flesh and blood have not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven".

So no amount of science or "Egypt is a real place" will reveal this fact to you. But God will show it to you.

Your comment is illustrative...

If you want me to abandon the criteria that "Egypt is a real place" has any bearing, then I must also abandon the criteria that "Jesus is a real person" and never said such words to Simon Peter at Caesarea Philipi.

I can't speak for him, but I assume he believes in the Resurrection based on revelation from God. That's kind of a foreign concept for a lot of non-LDS Christians, though, for some reason. But the first thing that you need to understand about Latter-day Saint theology is that we believe in revelation, that God still speaks to people directly, just as He did anciently.

Oh, how do you know God spoke to people anciently?

Who said anything about wanting to "discredit" Jesus Christ?

Thanks for joining the conversation. My response was to Storm Rider's statements. In particular these excerpts got my attention:

... they don't even know that history does not support the majority of the Bible record.

... I hate to tell you this, but there is absolutely none, as in zero, nada, nothing historical that supports the resurrection of Jesus Chris.

... we would have to conclude that Jesus did not exist.

If someone suggests the bible is mostly false (in terms of its historical facts), and that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and that he is a mythical figure... how is this not 'discrediting' Jesus? Do you think Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not a real person who walked the earth?

And this means Jesus existed?

Why did you omit point #1? Historical writings by eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ are indeed evidences that Jesus existed.

You're right, these evidences do not prove that the Atonement will save us, but they also do not, and cannot, prove that the Bible is true.

If the Bible is not true in the historical facts it presents, then it is not true in the spiritual facts it presents. For as the resurrection cannot be true as a spiritual concept if it didn't happen in the real world. We can't have one without the other. Mormons, I think, have to argue for a double-standard out of necessity given the meager evidences to establish the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical record.

Belief in God, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the modern prophets, and the reality of the Atonement does not come from anything physical, it comes via a revelation from God, which is the result of study and prayer.

Again, where do we get the notions that we we need to employ "revelation" and "prayer"?

If I were to show you the golden plates that Joseph Smith translated from, you would believe in the Book of Mormon no more than you do right now.

Examining the golden plates would lend credibility to Joseph's account.

Why? Because such a belief, as I said, comes from God, and nothing else. If you place your faith in the arm of flesh, then it seems to me that your faith is in dire need of strengthening.

Placing faith "in the arm of flesh" means relying on self (like the Pharisees) or another mere human to save you. That is a rabbit trail and not applicable to what we are talking about.

Let me ask you, why did Jesus make it a point to appear post-resurrection to his apostles? Why couldn't they just believe by God simply imposing belief on them?

A lack of evidence for something is not the same thing as evidence against it. But I do have to point out, though, that there is not a lack of Book of Mormon evidences at all. As I said, it helps to keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship (something that critics do not do for some reason) before you criticize the book.

Given all of your arguments up until this point you now contradict yourself. Why do critics need to be familiar with Book of Mormon evidences if evidences don't matter?

BTW, I am aware of the peripheral Book of Mormon evidences. I am more interested in the essentials, like culture (Nephites/Lamanites), language (ref. Egyptian), geography (Mesoamerica, Great Lakes, New York), and corroborative ancient texts.

jmordecai:

I firmly believe in the Resurrection, but evidence is another matter.

Based on what?

jmordecai:

Post hoc apocraphal stories from secondary and tirtiary scorces, rewriten innumeral times really do not make for good evidence for Resurrecttion.

I'm not sure what texts you are referring to, but if you are referring to the letters of Paul, Peter and John... if they are not good evidences for the Resurrection, then they are not good evidences for anything. By shooting down the Resurrection, you are also shooting down the very teachings that one must place faith in Jesus Christ, as you can't have one without the other, and both come from the same sources.

1. Using BofM passages that are quotes from the Bible as a sign of BofM anachronisms is pretty disingenious.
   
   How so if the biblical texts were written after 600 BC?

I hate to tell you this, but there is absolutely none, as in zero, nada, nothing historical that supports the resurrection of Jesus Christ; this is only, solely a matter of faith.

Wrong. To start, we have eyewitness accounts from Peter, Paul, John and Luke to name a few.

Further, there are no contempory writings that support Jesus' existence.

Please define “contemporary”, and how specifically you apply this criteria to all of ancient history.

The ONLY way to know Jesus is through faith.

You are putting the horse before the carrot. Do we learn to put faith in Christ in a vacuum? Or do we get this notion through the ancient historical texts that tell us this?

It is strange to see this kind of thinking so often in other Christians. They make this grand leap of logic that because Jerusalem exists Jesus existed.

It’s rather simple. Christianity rests on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This must be a real event in human history or the whole thing is a fraud. Christianity therefore must be real in both the spiritual and the physical. Therefore the real world facts must also support it. That Jerusalem exists is yet another tangible in the credibility column.

That we can’t find Zarahemla, let alone the geography (take your pick: Mesoamerica, Great Lakes, New York); identify any Nephite/Lamanite cultures; identify Reformed Egyptian, etc. all line up for me in the fictional column. The preponderance of the evidence leads to a rejection of its alleged authenticity.

They don't really seek to live by faith, but by what they can touch and see.

That’s insulting.

Because I defend that Christianity encompasses all dimensions of life, doesn’t diminish those aspects that require faith. I reject the notion that everything about Christianity is unseen. For example, if Christianity is true, then its teachings must work and produce tangible beneficial results. For example, some religions teachings result in the spread of diseased rats and cows—no thanks.

Actually it does nothing of the sort. If we look at all of your examples and then look at the movie Forest Gump, surly he existed and that whole movie is a documentary?

Your comparison is lost on me. One admits its fiction, the other does not.

And there really is not a lack of evidence for the BoM. The biggest issue is that we don't even have the original names of Mesoamerican sites. Tell me, how do you propose to know the original names of these sites? They have been washed from history.

First this assumes the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, a geography your church does not endorse. It’s pointless for me to comment on speculation.

I hope you see the issue of such faulty logic. IOW just because you can find a site does not mean that all of what a book contains is true. Similarly, just because you cannot find a certain site does not mean that a book is false.

So I understand the LDS position, given Storm Rider’s statement that “They don't even know that history does not support the majority of the Bible record.”

The preponderance of biblical evidences suggests its record is false?

The preponderance of Book of Mormon evidences suggests its true?

I don't believe in Jesus Christ because his cross was found, the uppre room was found, or that I have seen where he was entombed. I believe in Jesus Christ because God revealed his Son to me. I know that he lives and that he died for me. I know the Book of Mormon to be true for the same reason. Why would I or anyone put their faith in the arm of flesh?

If we use the same standard for Jesus Christ that you use for the Book of Mormon, we would have to conclude that Jesus did not exist. Historians, nor anyone else, can prove he existed. Use the same standard for all things or realize that your real issue is that you just don't have any faith in it nor do you want to find out if it is true.

I’m afraid the reasoning you are applying here is backwards. Using this logic above, we must conclude that Socrates, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and virtually every ancient historical person did not exist. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best documented of any ancient historical person.

1. Unlike the Book of Mormon, which appears suddenly in 1830, we have a succession of data about Jesus Christ that we can trace from today backwards. If you want to discredit Christ, you’ll have to discredit Peter, Paul and John, who all wrote about him. When you are done with them, you’ll have to discredit Clement, Josephus, Irenaeus, Martyr, etc., etc.

2. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we can identify the places named in the Bible. Whole nations like Egypt, Etheopia, Italy, etc. Cities like Jerusalem, Rome, and even as granular as street names (Straight street is still there) and pools (Bethsesda, Siloam). The temple wall is there. We know that Romans took the menorah from it, as they carved an image of it in the Arch of Titus in Rome. The list goes on and on.

3. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we can identify the cultures in the Bible, including those extinct like the Canaanites, etc. We have nothing on the Lamanites and Nephites.

4. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we can identify the languages used. Reformed Egyptian remains unidentified.

5. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we have thousands of ancient copies of the biblical texts, and we could compile the scriptures just from the quotes of the early church fathers. There are no ancient extant copies, fragments, inscriptions, engravings, parchments, scrolls, quotations, etc., that can be linked to the Book of Mormon before 1830.

Of course none of these prove that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection will forgive your sins, but they do give us a basis of historical probability by which to place our faith that he did. Faith requires a foundation of facts to place it on. Otherwise, if Jesus Christ is mere myth, and did not really exist, then all the faith we have is worthless. The lack of Book of Mormon evidences lends support to the conclusion that it is a work of fiction.

I am SURE you could find some "legitimate", "convincing", or "credible" attack, just ask Bowman.

He can even fabricate it for you.

So I understand the rules here... insulting the dead is off limits, but insulting the living is fair game?

LOL

Ok- this was the original post you made, to which I replied with the chart:

My point is that you were implying that your doctrine was "true" Christian doctrine when in fact, Protestants are a minority portion of Christians in the first place, and though it is hard to tell from the chart,, Evangelicals are even a smaller subset of Protestants.

It was you who brought up "correct doctrine".

Start all the threads you like- you are still avoiding the question of what evidence you have that the Bible is true- and yes, this thread is precisely about evidence for Christianity.

Now you are changing the topic again. The OP is 'what evidence would cause a Christian to denounce Jesus Christ'. Now you want me to provide all the evidences for Jesus Christ. I see no point in that with you, since you acknowledge Jesus Christ is a real person, correct?

Jesus had already taught the Apostles who He was before His crucifixion. He had also explained to them that He would overcome death. The faith the Apostles had in Jesus' word was enough for some of them to believe what He had said about overcoming death - even though they may not have fully understood what this would "look" like. I think that Jesus purposely used Thomas' doubting nature as a teaching tool for the rest of the world. Therefore, Jesus could have purposely chosen times to appear before the various Apostles whenever Thomas was not there in order to set the stage for this particular teaching moment. So, when all of the Apostles were gathered together, along with Thomas (who had already made the claim that he would not believe unless he could personally see and touch the Risen Lord), Jesus appeared to them and allowed Thomas to see Him and touch the wounds in His body. Thomas' faith was not sufficient for him to believe that Christ was risen. He needed the proof of personally seeing and touching Him in order to be able to believe that Jesus had indeed risen.

Yet it is required of all mankind who have never met Jesus in the flesh to believe and have faith in Him in order to be saved. And blessed are those who do believe in Him who have never seen or touched Him.

I think it is fair to recognize that Thomas is a type which has been provided in the Bible. The Bible is filled with types. I would offer that Thomas is a type for the Jews in the end times who will finally get to meet Christ when He returns. They too will get to see Jesus in person, see that He has risen from the dead because they will also be able to see His wounds and their blindness will be removed. They will see Christ for who He is.

What we have in writing from the Apostles are their testimonies that they knew Jesus before and after His crucifixion and resurrection. The purpose of their testimonies is to spread the Gospel news that Christ the innocent Lord was crucified for the sins of the world; that Jesus overcame physical death and that He lives and sits at the right hand of our Father in Heaven, waiting to return again when Father tells Him it is time to do so. Their testimonies are about what they personally witnessed; but they are only words. The power of their words is to entice others to hope and desire that what their words say are the truth. But their words do not have the power to witness the truth of their words to our spirits if we decide to not believe their words. However, if we have hope and desire to believe that Jesus can save us from our sins, that is when their testimonies provide the incentive for us to believe and to exercise faith in Jesus. And THAT is when the Holy Ghost witnesses to our spirit that Jesus is the Christ.

If we decide NOT to believe another person's witness, then we will not exercise faith in Jesus. Therefore the mere "hearing" of someone else's witness does not equate to having the Holy Ghost give witness to our spirit. This should be clear through Jesus' teaching that those who got to see and hear Jesus speak and teach could blaspheme His words and the teachings of His Father. His words, the miracles He performed, etc., did not have the power to convince a man of who He was. Therefore, blasphemy against His words or Father's words could not condemn a person.

Since it is the Holy Ghost who is THE witness on earth sent from Heaven to provide the spiritual "proof" required to "know" that Jesus is the Christ, it is the witness of the Holy Ghost we receive once we believe in Jesus and take that leap of faith. The witness of the Holy Ghost comes AFTER we take our leap of faith. Hearing someone's testimony is an act of listening to words. But until a person takes a leap of faith, the Holy Ghost will not witness the Truth to his/her spirit whereby they can "know" spiritually the Truth that Jesus is the Christ. And so it is that AFTER a person has received the witness of Truth from the Holy Ghost that this is when they are in danger of committing the unpardonable sin (though even this sin is much more complicated).

It is not even necessary for people to have a Bible, or to have the testimonies which are written in the Bible read to them in order for them to believe or take that leap of faith. They just need someone who will teach them the Gospel message who then shares their own personal testimony. If those shared testimonies entice and cause another person to believe in Christ and take that leap of faith, it is still the Holy Ghost who will personally witness to their spirit that Jesus is the Christ. The Holy Ghost does not witness to us until AFTER we take our own personal leap of faith.

It is a sad and sore falacy for any Christian to believe that just because a person has heard the gospel message, who decides not to believe that message, that the person has rejected the Holy Ghost. Rather, all he has done is reject the message. A person needs to believe and take a leap of faith before they can receive the witness of the Holy Ghost. However, we should never give up on anyone. Continuing to teach the gospel message plants seeds; we can never know when a seed that has been planted will finally take root, cause the desire to believe to grow until a person will exercise faith in Jesus Christ. At that precious moment, the Holy Ghost will witness the Truth to that person.

Regards,

jo

Jo, very well said. I agree with the gist of your post. One nuance though, the only reason one would ever accept the Gospel is to first recognize that they are a sinner. Based on John 16:8, that itself is the work of the Holy Spirit on the front end of a faith decision. Certainly the indwelling of the Spirit takes place after that. Jesus used the words "with", "upon" and "in" to describe the various degrees of the work of the Spirit in our lives.

I'm not sure "denounce" is the right word, but my loss of faith in Christ and the Bible was the culmination of many discoveries, including my realization that much of the Bible is pseudepigraphal, the morality taught in the Bible is mediocre at best, the doctrine of the atonement is nonsensical, and Jesus's time-sensitive prophecy of the end of the world never came true. It was also the result of a new pessimism about the reliability of "spiritual" ways of knowing, as I studied spiritual experiences across many religions and cultures and found them to be totally unreliable and basically just reflections of the worldview of the time and place in which they occurred.

Chris, would you mind elaborating on why the atonement is "nonsensical"? You can PM me if you don't want to muddy this thread.

Thx

Really? Then show me the tomb. Then show me the nails. Then show me the cross. Then show me His foot steps. Then show me His crown of thorns. Show me His cloak. Show me the spear. Show me the blood on the ground. Can you place one piece of evidence in your hand?

Do you require the same direct evidence for Socrates and Plato?

We are a spirit. I know I am a spirit. I have no idea what you think you are. You are all over the map in your responses.

You didn't answer my question. You asserted that this is a 'heart' and not a 'mind' thing. I asked you to define what you meant by 'heart', and you answered that 'we are a spirit'. Again, please explain to me what you mean by 'heart'. I acknowledge I am a spirit. What association if any does that have to do with my mind? I want to move from conceptual (heart, mind, spirit) to application: how does this work?

Maybe you should take a Bible class.

You're one insult away from being ignored.

John 20:29

King James Version (KJV)

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Seems like a contrast to me. Please tell me how this is not a contrast between faith and evidence. But no matter how strong your argument is I will stay with Christ because my spirit tells me to. Not my head. It seems you read scripture with predetermined ideas and you refuse to let the Words in scripture interfere with those ideas. You might want to rethink that way of reading scripture.

It's not a contrast in the sense that one is superior over the other. Again, Christ provided Thomas the proof. As I stated before, that was necessary as the apostles are the personal witnesses of Jesus resurrection. You can't have personal witnesses without being... witnesses. Christ here does not in any manner diminish the necessity for evidence, but rather acknowledges that not all will be privy to seeing Him resurrected first hand.

Oh, and please point out in scripture where it talks about the tree of evidence I want to read all about it.

Romans 1:20, Job 12:7-9

This is so wrong. You really are mixed up. We are so far apart that I am not sure I can even help you.

You have to explain yourself. 'Nuh uh' and insulting me is not an answer. Please explain the fallacy of my statement:

This is a false dichotomy. Again you're pitting faith against evidence as though they are mutually exclusive. Faith is what you do with the evidence. If there is no evidence, then we have nothing to put our faith on.