If You Received An Answer...

[Brade]

Then do you agree that you can't show that Joseph saw an angel, Jesus, God the Father, or that the witnesses ever saw what they said they saw?

I most certainly agree with that.

[William the Conqueror]

Ryan,

How do you explain those of us who are asked in sincere and devote prayer if Mormonism was valid and got the answer that it was not?

Well now Verdad,

If I was a Mormon or rather a Brutus (and I have explained this term to Pahoran and Hermes thus escaping or rather passing through their gauntlet), I would say that you were duped and deceived by Satan (the spirit brother of Yahweh).

2 Peter 1:

16 We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming 9 of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17

For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10 when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

18

We 11 ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain.

19

Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

20

12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

21

for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

[Thunderfire]

Then do you agree that you can't show that Joseph saw an angel, Jesus, God the Father, or that the witnesses ever saw what they said they saw?

Hello Billy,

The problem with this is that it's the same argument atheist use against Christians. As example, can your prove that Jesus exists or that any of the scripture witnesses are telling the truth? Of course not. Yet we rest on the integrity of the witnesses and how the event changed their lives.

But then, we can prove it true (at least to ourselves) when we follow the commands and receive our own witness! I believe in the testimony of Joseph and the other witnesses, because God proved these things true to me. Now can I convince you of these things? Of course not. But what I can do is stay true to my testimony regardless of the many who seek to discredit me for what I believe!

[William the Conqueror]

Hello Billy,

The problem with this is that it's the same argument atheist use against Christians. As example, can your prove that Jesus exists or that any of the scripture witnesses are telling the truth? Of course not. Yet we rest on the integrity of the witnesses and how the event changed their lives.

That is what Madalyn Murray told me in 1973, that Jesus never existed. I asked her what denomination she grew up in and she replied Presbyterian. She said the women in her family always sat in the back seat of the auto.

[selek]

Bump for Ulysses.

And we're still waiting for Billy to put up or shut up, too.

[Billy]

Do you agree, that you can't show that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead, that Paul actually had his spiritual awakening on the way to Damascus or that all the other Apostles were witnesses to what they claim they saw?

Can I prove it--No

Can I give reasons for why I believe that Jesus rose from the grave--Yes

From scripture

1. Jesus died

2. Buried

3. Empty tomb

4. Witnesses saw the resurrected Christ after he rose from the dead.

[selek]

Can I prove it--No

Can I give reasons for why I believe that Jesus rose from the grave--Yes

From scripture

1. Jesus died

2. Buried

3. Empty tomb

4. Witnesses saw the resurrected Christ after he rose from the dead.

So in other words, from an objective standpoint, your witness is no more reliable than ours.

How do you know that you have not been deceived when you stand forth to condemn us?

[Brade]

Can I prove it--No

Can I give reasons for why I believe that Jesus rose from the grave--Yes

From scripture

1. Jesus died

2. Buried

3. Empty tomb

4. Witnesses saw the resurrected Christ after he rose from the dead.

Do you have a further reason or reasons as to why you believe the biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection correspond with reality?

[Billy]

Do you have a further reason or reasons as to why you believe the biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection correspond with reality?

A spiritual conviction

[ttribe]

A spiritual conviction

Ahh, so you're allowed to have a "spiritual conviction" of truth, but we are not. Got it.

[Deborah]

A spiritual conviction

And yet when a LDS gives that answer it's somehow of the devil or wishful thinking.

[Brade]

A spiritual conviction

You must agree that we're in the same epistemological boat with respect to our religious beliefs. That is to say, neither of us has proof or evidence over and above our putative spiritual experiences that what we justifiably believe corresponds with reality.

[Brade]

And yet when a LDS gives that answer it's somehow of the devil or wishful thinking.

Well, to be fair, a lot of LDS think that about, say, Billy's spiritual experiences. I can think of several LDS posters on this forum that have that attitude. I think that's an unjustified position to take by either side. It strikes me as ignorant, arrogant, or dogmatic or some combination of all three.

[selek]

Well, to be fair, a lot of LDS think that about, say, Billy's spiritual experiences. I can think of several LDS posters on this forum that have that attitude. I think that's an unjustified position to take by either side. It strikes me as ignorant, arrogant, or dogmatic or some combination of all three.

To be fair, give us some examples.

I've never heard a genuine, living, breathing LDS on these boards being casually dismissive of another person's spiritual witness.

The most oft repeated refrain (to my ears, at least) is that we don't know precisely why they received a witness different from our own.

That notwithstanding, please don't distract from the core issue:

Since Billy, as do we, relies on a spiritual witness, how does he know he hasn't been deceived when he condemns us for using precisely the same method to determine the truth?

[Billy]

You must agree that we're in the same epistemological boat with respect to our religious beliefs. That is to say, neither of us has proof or evidence over and above our putative spiritual experiences that what we justifiably believe corresponds with reality.

Bottom line I would agree with you it is on faith. But I would disagree with you with respect to the fact that the Bible does have historical evidence which I think supports it more than a book that has no historical evidence, especially if both books claim to be historically accurate.

Example one

If I interviewed a person for a job and that person gave me his life story, I could go back and verify events in his life and see if they checked out. I could verify the things that he told me to see if in fact what he said was truth or a lie. I could verify places that he said existed at the time, like schools, churches, pastors, friends etc. I could also verify equipment that he said he used at the time he used them, such as computers or cell phones. What I mean by this is that if he told me he used a cell phone in the 1960's then I know that this would not be true and would make me question his truthfulness or his story. It would be impossible to check out every single aspect of that persons life, but by cross checking many different aspects of his life I could come to a reasonable conclusion of that persons honestly and reliability of his story.

Example two

Say you have two hypothetical books, Book A and Book B

Both state that they ARE a historical record along with a spiritual account. If Book A proves to be historically accurate and Book B proves to be historically inaccurate, can you trust both books equally in terms of the spiritual message?

[selek]

Bottom line I would agree with you it is on faith. But I would disagree with you with respect to the fact that the Bible does have historical evidence which I think supports it more than a book that has no historical evidence, especially if both books claim to be historically accurate.

So do you worship Zeus, Billy?

The Illiad and the Odyssey both have historical and archeological evidence to back up their claims. There is as much archeological and histographical evidence for Olympus as there is for Bethlehem.

And the historical evidence does not always cut the way you wish it did.

Where is the evidence of the Egyptian captivity of Israel? There is none.

Where is Moses tomb?

Where is the ark?

Your faith and your answers rely on precisely the same foundation as ours- faith and revelation.

You have no more genuine, reliable evidence than do we.

Your only claims that the Book of Mormon have no historical tie-ins is both factually in accurate and an argument from silence.

As a matter of fact, where is Mount Ararat?

Example one

If I interviewed a person for a job and that person gave me his life story, I could go back and verify events in his life and see if they checked out. I could verify the things that he told me to see if in fact what he said was truth or a lie. I could verify places that he said existed at the time, like schools, churches, pastors, friends etc. I could also verify equipment that he said he used at the time he used them, such as computers or cell phones. What I mean by this is that if he told me he used a cell phone in the 1960's then I know that this would not be true and would make me question his truthfulness or his story. It would be impossible to check out every single aspect of that persons life, but by cross checking many different aspects of his life I could come to a reasonable conclusion of that persons honestly and reliability of his story.

Example two

Say you have two hypothetical books, Book A and Book B

Both state that they ARE a historical record along with a spiritual account. If Book A proves to be historically accurate and Book B proves to be historically inaccurate, can you trust both books equally in terms of the spiritual message?

And yet again, you are engaging in a logical fallacy: Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

The fact that we did not know about the existence of radio waves or the atom does not mean they did not exist prior to the turn of the last century.

[Billy]

So do you worship Zeus, Billy?

The Illiad and the Odyssey both have historical and archeological evidence to back up their claims.

Do you at least find it interesting that The Illiad has more archeological evidence than does the Book of Mormon?

You also failed to show me that there is any prophecy in the Illiad. (Note the stipulation of prophecy is that there is a record of it happening before it happens)

[selek]

Do you at least find it interesting that The Illiad has more archeological evidence than does the Book of Mormon?

Interesting, yes, but not damning. The two environments and cultures are sufficiently far apart to make the dichotomy reasonable.

Does it bother you that there Illiad has as much archaeology as the Bible?

You also failed to show me that there is any prophecy in the Illiad. (Note the stipulation of prophecy is that there is a record of it happening before it happens)

Please demonstrate objectively that there is any prophecy in the Bible.

Since it was written and compiled well after the fact, you face a harder hurdle than I.

Any fool can go back and draw historical connections and correlations to earlier and greater times.

It has been demonstrated factually that certain Egyptian monarchies were quite fond of re-writing geneologies in order to tie themselves into the lines of the great pharaoahs of the past.

Please demonstrate conclusively that the compilers and revisers of the Bible did not do the same.

For the record, I'm not interested in disproving the Bible- only your double standard.

The same rocks you throw at the "glass house" of Mormonism have equal utility in shattering the presumptions of Evangelical christianity.

[Billy]

Please demonstrate conclusively that the compilers and revisers of the Bible did not do the same.

For the record, I'm not interested in disproving the Bible- only your double standard.

1. 70 weeks of Daniel--predicting the presentation of Christ

"The Precision of Prophecy

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

How could Daniel have known this in advance? How could anyone have contrived to have this detailed prediction documented over three centuries in advance? But there's more." http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

2. Messianic prophecies in the OT. The Septuagint translated from Hebrew to Greek 200+ BC

Such as

Micah 5:2

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins [c] are from of old,

from ancient times. [d] "

Zec 12:10

10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Isa 53:5

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!

Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you,

righteous and having salvation,

gentle and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

[Phinehas]

If I receive a spiritual witness that Historical Christianity is true, and someone else receives a spiritual witness that Mormonism is true, Can both be correct?

One cannot be IMHO

So how do we know which is correct?

[ed2276]

I am wondering why Billy has been let off the hook with his statement that his reliance on the Bible is based on a " spiritual conviction"? It seems he danced off in another direction without answering the question put to him. Why does he claim this confirming spiritual conviction for himself as to what is scripture, but deny that LDS spiritual convictions are either possible or valid?

[Grothar]

In response to the original question.

Easy, if it feels warm and fuzzy God's confirming it.

If it doesn't do anything, keep on praying. It took Brigham Young two years before gaining his witness.

If it feels bad then it's probably false.

[Billy]

I am wondering why Billy has been let off the hook with his statement that his reliance on the Bible is based on a " spiritual conviction"? It seems he danced off in another direction without answering the question put to him. Why does he claim this confirming spiritual conviction for himself as to what is scripture, but deny that LDS spiritual convictions are either possible or valid?

Are you asking me or somebody else this question?

I do not deny your testimony, you must have one to believe what you do.

People from different faiths have testimonies that confirm the truthfulness of what they believe. This raises the important question which Phinehas addresses above, can people with mutually exclusive beliefs receive a testimony that is from God that confirms what they believe is true, if their beliefs are mutually exclusive?

Is there any role to looking at the evidence first and then "studying it out in your mind" prior to receiving a spiritual witness? Or should you forgo any evidence and go straight for the testimony?

[ryanelwood]

You have got to be kidding!

1. 70 weeks of Daniel--predicting the presentation of Christ

"The Precision of Prophecy

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

How could Daniel have known this in advance? How could anyone have contrived to have this detailed prediction documented over three centuries in advance? But there's more." http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

That Daniel knew what? This is crazy!

2. Messianic prophecies in the OT. The Septuagint translated from Hebrew to Greek 200+ BC

Such as

Micah 5:2

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins [c] are from of old,

from ancient times. [d] "

Can't be Jesus, he never ruled Israel. He was a peasant that was put to death.

Zec 12:10

10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

I think this is referring to David Koresh, didn't he have his ears pierced? Read verse 9, he says he is determined to wipe out every nation that attacks Israel. Hmmm, guess he failed there.

Isa 53:5

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

Sounds like Koresh again. Of course, Isaiah 53 is more likely talking about the nation of Israel. Nor is the chapter presented as a prophecy of what is to come, it even speaks in past tense. Verses 11-12 make it clear it is the Lords servant being talked about, likely the nation of Israel, and not the Lord himself. Remember, the writer has no concept of a triune god of three persons existing in some undivided blob.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!

Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you,

righteous and having salvation,

gentle and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Jesus was never a king, can't be him. I presume we could find some ruling king that road a donkey to better fit this prophecy. Verse 10 says the King would rule from sea to sea, hmm, not Jesus, he didn't rule anything! And no, it doesn't say the king would first come as a suffering messiah and then return as a triumphant king. Ya know, there is a reason the Jews then and now do not recognize Jesus as their promised King, perhaps because he didn't fulfill the prophecies.

[shalamabobbi]

ryanelwood, for being an atheist, sure invests a lot of time in the scriptures..

and for being an atheist, sure qualifies himself to be the one that we should go to for clarification of the same..