If You Received An Answer...

[Billy]

You're missing his point Billy. He's not saying that the OT verses were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus. He's saying there's no way to prove they weren't. There's quite a difference.

I understand the point that selek is trying to make. But isn't that really true with any historical document? How can you really trust an old document, or how can you prove that a document wasn't altered in some way? If this is the case, how can you possibly trust anything outside your subjective spiritual witness?

[ttribe]

I understand the point that selek is trying to make. But isn't that really true with any historical document? How can you really trust an old document, or how can you prove that a document wasn't altered in some way? If this is the case, how can you possibly trust anything outside your subjective spiritual witness?

We have a winner!

[urroner]

We have a winner!

Yep, when somebody hangs around with the likes of us, we kind of rub off on them. They get smart like us.

[selek]

I understand the point that selek is trying to make. But isn't that really true with any historical document?

In many respects, yes.

How can you really trust an old document, or how can you prove that a document wasn't altered in some way? If this is the case, how can you possibly trust anything outside your subjective spiritual witness?

And this is where reason, intellect, and judgement come into play.

I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon are what they claim to be based upon the preponderance of evidence, as well as the testimony God has granted me.

While no proof exists for either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, there is plenty of evidence at hand.

While my own witness is inevitably, irredeemably subjective, my voice matched with others indicates (but does not prove) that it's more than just "warm fuzzies".

One man alone may very readily be wrong. A thousand men together are much less likely to be so.

While a mere emotional or visceral reaction is irretreiveably subjective, that is not what an LDS testimony is (or at least should not be). It is an informed, reasoned understanding based upon study and consideration which is then confirmed by the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Contrary to the derision heaped upon our insistence on spiritual confirmation, we do not ask in a vacuum- and in point of fact teach against doing so.

We do not stand at the cross roads with the map folded securely in our backpack and confidently demand that God tell us which way to go.

Instead, we study the map, apply our own judgement and experiences, apply our intellect and then ask of God to ratify our judgement and understanding.

We are commanded to read these things, study them, ponder them, and then ask if our understanding be right.

The scriptures say, "Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door will be opened." But we don't expect someone to bring the door to us. We have to get on our feet and make the journey- whether it be five feet or five thousand leagues.

Contrary to the mockery and the stereotype, Mormons believe in an informed, reasoned faith. God wants us to develop our own capacities, and does not reward us with knowledge for merely asking.

[sleepyhead]

Instead, we study the map, apply our own judgement and experiences, apply our intellect and then ask of God to ratify our judgement and understanding.

We are commanded to read these things, study them, ponder them, and then ask if our understanding be right.

The scriptures say, "Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door will be opened." But we don't expect someone to bring the door to us. We have to get on our feet and make the journey- whether it be five feet or five thousand leagues.

Contrary to the mockery and the stereotype, Mormons believe in an informed, reasoned faith. God wants us to develop our own capacities, and does not reward us with knowledge for merely asking.

Hello selek,

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

[ttribe]

Hello selek,

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

And that would be a supposition based on stereotypes and lack of critical thinking on your part.

[Brade]

Hello selek,

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

"Typical Mormon reasoning" may appear one way or another. However, it's clear from our own scriptures and the words of our authorities that we ought to have a "reasoned faith", as Selek calls it. Also, I think it's inherent in our own teachings that we should allow that other people with whom we may disagree have "reasoned faith" as well. I think we should all be willing to grant that reasonable people everywhere, even when they disagree with us, our ultimately forming beliefs based on their own best evidence. You might wonder, "well, then, how do I know that what I believe is true?" The answer is that, ultimately, you don't. Rather, you hope for things which are unseen. You hope what you believe is true. I hope what I believe is true. Do I know, with certainty, that it is. No. But if it is true, then I'm certain I will know it. And that's good enough for me right now.

[selek]

Hello selek,

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

You might check out my last post in the Heart of hte Matter thread.

Granted that I'm biased, but I think it answers this criticism very nicely.

And since you don't know me, I'll assume that when you say "you" in your post above, you mean "Mormons as a people".

As ttribe has already pointed out, that's stereotyping.

While there are undoubtedly Mormons who have not reasoned out their faith, the Mormon people as a whole are not all of a type.

It is unfair to judge eleven million people by a single example.

[Brade]

It is unfair to judge eleven million people by a single example.

Or 13 Million as the case may be.

[selek]

So.....where did Ulysses go?

I know he begged off because of family problems, but that was more than forty-eight hours ago- and he was here long enough to spend more than a half-hour reading up on our old friend Erik Johnson.

Coincedence or sock puppet?

[ryanelwood]

Do you have any experts that would support the notion that the Gospels were changed in such a dramatic way as you noted above? (And I am not talking about known minor things like the women caught in the act of adultery or the last several verses of Mark)

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Sto...8624&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-...8799&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Faces-Jesus...8859&sr=1-1

[Deborah]

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?

Yes. I think we receive what light and knowledge we are prepared and willing to receive. That is why LDS don't deny the spiritual experiences of others. I think most people are sincere in their beliefs but when someone starts damning and persecuting and harassing (ie demonstrating in front of sacred places of worship) another for his beliefs then I feel that the supposed "light and knowledge" he has may indeed be from a darker source.

[Billy]

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Sto...8624&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-...8799&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Faces-Jesus...8859&sr=1-1

I own and have read significant sections of "Misquoting Jesus", but not every page so far. I don't think that Bart characterizes the changes in the text to what selek was describing.

Several major changes that I have highlighted in his book include

1. Woman taken in adultery John 7:53-John 8:12 (Ehrman page 63)

2 Last 12 verses of Mark 16:9-20 (Ehrman 65)

3. Criticism of the KJV-NT which includel errors noted in 1. and 2. (Ehrman 79)

4. Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7-8 (Ehrman 81)

5. Thousands of changes that are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance. . .(Ehman 207)

The other two books that you mentioned, I have not read.

I just got a copy of

"The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (4th Edition) (Paperback)

by Bruce M. Metzger (Author), Bart D. Ehrman (Author)

but I have not started reading it yet.

[cdowis]

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

Well, the BOM is scripture, which makes JS a prophet. JS received authority to organize the church, and it is reasonable to assume that the LDS church is the continuation of the church which he organized.

OK, now what? It all comes down to whether the BOM is true, whether it is scripture. And that is what this thread, and others, is all about.

[sleepyhead]

Well, the BOM is scripture, which makes JS a prophet. JS received authority to organize the church, and it is reasonable to assume that the LDS church is the continuation of the church which he organized.

OK, now what? It all comes down to whether the BOM is true, whether it is scripture. And that is what this thread, and others, is all about.

1. We'll assume the book of mormon is true.

2. whoever puts forth the effort to communicate with God can be a prophet. I don't see any reason toi assume that JS is in any way special

3. According to JS account God told him not to join any churches, he wasn't told to start one. In the original Book of commandments (before it was edited) his only function was to to translate the book of mormon.

4. It would be reasonable to form a determination of which church is the continuation, only after examining the claims of some of the other breanches.

[Anijen]

Sleepyhead said to selek;Hello selek,

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

Selek answered;

You might check out my last post in the Heart of the Matter thread.

Granted that I'm biased, but I think it answers this criticism very nicely.

And since you don't know me, I'll assume that when you say "you" in your post above, you mean "Mormons as a people".

As ttribe has already pointed out, that's stereotyping.

While there are undoubtedly Mormons who have not reasoned out their faith, the Mormon people as a whole are not all of a type.

It is unfair to judge eleven million people by a single example.

In which Selek replied which I think is very poignant it needs more attention than it received.

* I have the written, repeatedly avowed, and never denied testimony of the three and eight witnesses.

* I have the original manuscripts of the translation and printing process and have evidence for the provenance of all of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants revelations. I know in who's hands the books passed, what changes were made, and why.

* I have the physical evidence of the survival and success of the Church over the last (roughly) two hundred years, and the testimonies of the millions of other Latter-day Saints who have come to know and regularly profess their witness of the Restoration of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this dispensation.

* I have the translated text of the Book of Mormon itself, which despite (almost) two hundred years of nit-picking, has yet to be definitively proven to be anything other than what it claims to be. Tyrants rage and fools deride, but they've yet to prove any of their insinuations, rumors, and accusations.

* I have the track record of the Church- the fruits of its labor- by which to judge whether the tree be good or evil.

* I have the written and attested witnesses of the faithful and the faithless who themselves knew Joseph Smith, who lived and died believing in his words and in the truth of what he taught.

* And thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, I have the systematic and scholarly dismantling of a century-and-a-half of lies, propoganda, and revisionism that sought desperately to paint Joseph in the same colors you do.

* I have the scholarly and textual analysis of Middle Eastern artifacts, cultures and places, that are sifting away not only layers of dirt and grime, but of ignorance and dogma- and revealing corrolaries long forgotten that lend sustenance and reaffirmation to the truths revealed to an ignorant farm boy in New England.

* The facts are coming forward and the light of day is washing away what poor little tarnish you and your confederates have attempted to heap upon the name of the Church.

* I have the fact that everyday, more and more evangelical churches seeking for light are moving closer to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been teaching for almost two centuries.

* I have the fact that the churches who did teach and now preach most vehemently against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are either forgotten relics of a by-gone era or are desperately redefining and reshaping themselves, casting aside sound doctrine and the teachings of Christ in order to obtain some kind of devalued street-cred.

Those Churches that taught most violently against the LDS Church are now prostituting themselves before the throne of the great whore in order to remain "hip" and "relevant" or are slowly dying- withering on the vine.

I have all this and more- but I don't need it.

For I have the witness of the Holy Spirit of Promise.

I have the witness that Christ himself gave me when he led me out of Babylon and into Zion.

The sheep know the voice of their master, and I know that Christ has called me and millions more just like me.

as Lamanite would say;

Big Up

[Billy]

In which Selek replied which I think is very poignant it needs more attention than it received.

* I have the written, repeatedly avowed, and never denied testimony of the three and eight witnesses.

This post received a lot of fan fare, so maybe we can look at the points one by one. The first being the three and eight witnesses. Can you believe every witness to any event? Does this prove truth? If it does then you would have to believe that Travis Walton was indeed abducted by a UFO in Arizona. This event was witnessed by 6 men and these men passed polygraph examinations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

"Supporters argue it is an important and persuasive case, because of the number of corroborative eyewitnesses (the vast majority of alien abduction reports are based on a single individual's testimony), the fact that all of the witnesses passed polygraph exams in support of their accounts, and because in the more than thirty years since the event happened, none of the witnesses have changed their accounts, in spite of at least one cash offer to do so."

[Brade]

This post received a lot of fan fare, so maybe we can look at the points one by one. The first being the three and eight witnesses. Can you believe every witness to any event? Does this prove truth? If it does then you would have to believe that Travis Walton was indeed abducted by a UFO in Arizona. This event was witnessed by 6 men and these men passed polygraph examinations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

"Supporters argue it is an important and persuasive case, because of the number of corroborative eyewitnesses (the vast majority of alien abduction reports are based on a single individual's testimony), the fact that all of the witnesses passed polygraph exams in support of their accounts, and because in the more than thirty years since the event happened, none of the witnesses have changed their accounts, in spite of at least one cash offer to do so."

Billy, this is not even an issue. Selek is not asserting that the 3 and 8 witnesses are proof. Essentially, you're beating a dead horse. You're arguing against something that both you and Selek agree on. Notice the following quote by Selek:

While my own witness is inevitably, irredeemably subjective, my voice matched with others indicates (but does not prove) that it's more than just "warm fuzzies".

Selek agrees that things like the number of people accepting a certain belief, written statements about what one supposedly saw, and so forth do not prove you are right with respect to religious beliefs. They are really only spiritually valuable to a believer as some sort of evidence after the fact of having already had a putative spiritual experience confirming those beliefs.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I own and have read significant sections of "Misquoting Jesus", but not every page so far. I don't think that Bart characterizes the changes in the text to what selek was describing.

Several major changes that I have highlighted in his book include

1. Woman taken in adultery John 7:53-John 8:12 (Ehrman page 63)

2 Last 12 verses of Mark 16:9-20 (Ehrman 65)

3. Criticism of the KJV-NT which includel errors noted in 1. and 2. (Ehrman 79)

4. Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7-8 (Ehrman 81)

5. Thousands of changes that are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance. . .(Ehman 207)

The other two books that you mentioned, I have not read.

I just got a copy of

"The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (4th Edition) (Paperback)

by Bruce M. Metzger (Author), Bart D. Ehrman (Author)

but I have not started reading it yet.

Billy, I don't think the issue here is changes to the New Testament texts. The issue more pertains to how/why the original texts were created. Specifically, it remains a distinct possibility that the New Testament writers, familiar as they were with the Old Testament and its many prophecies, composed their accounts of the Saviour's life in such a way as to make it appear that Jesus was the fulfilment of earlier prophecies--having Him entering Jerusalem on the back of donkey, for example, when He really may have walked. Having spent the past five years working on a PhD in history, I can assure you that these kinds of embellishments in narratives are quite common.

Nevertheless, as a believing Latter-day Saint Christian, I completely reject this possibility and accept Jesus Christ as the literal fulfilment of even the most obscure Messianic prophecy from the Old Testament. I take this position, however, not because I have any conclusive 'external' evidence that what the New Testament writers recorded was accurate (and therefore not some kind of post hoc mythmaking), but simply because I know Jesus Christ personally, and He is who the New Testament writers claimed He was and who the Old Testament prophets said would come.

[Anijen]

This post received a lot of fan fare, so maybe we can look at the points one by one. The first being the three and eight witnesses. Can you believe every witness to any event? Does this prove truth? If it does then you would have to believe that Travis Walton was indeed abducted by a UFO in Arizona. This event was witnessed by 6 men and these men passed polygraph examinations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

"Supporters argue it is an important and persuasive case, because of the number of corroborative eyewitnesses (the vast majority of alien abduction reports are based on a single individual's testimony), the fact that all of the witnesses passed polygraph exams in support of their accounts, and because in the more than thirty years since the event happened, none of the witnesses have changed their accounts, in spite of at least one cash offer to do so."

First none of the LDS witnesses recanted what they said. Second Travis Walton was missing and claimed he was abducted none of the six guys actually claimed they saw the abduction as portrayed in the movie. Also as years has gone by IIRC some if not all of these witnesses has changed their statements. To the contrary none of the witnesses for the BoM ever did.

[Billy]

Specifically, it remains a distinct possibility that the New Testament writers, familiar as they were with the Old Testament and its many prophecies, composed their accounts of the Saviour's life in such a way as to make it appear that Jesus was the fulfilment of earlier prophecies--having Him entering Jerusalem on the back of donkey, for example, when He really may have walked. Having spent the past five years working on a PhD in history, I can assure you that these kinds of embellishments in narratives are quite common.

I was specifically referring to Bart's book "Misquoting Jesus" where he makes the case for lots of typos insignificant changes, spelling errors, some issues with discrepancies between the Gospels, and several issues that I noted in my previous post, but I do not recall him stating that the accounts were outright fabrications to somehow make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies if he in fact did not fulfill those prophecies.

Do you have any evidence that this took place, i.e. that the writers of the NT "composed their accounts of the Saviour's life in such a way as to make it appear that Jesus was the fulfilment of earlier prophecies" when if fact that these events did not take place? (Especially given the fact that the Gospels were written within the time frame of the life of many other witnesses that could of disputed the "falsified" accounts)

Having spent the past five years working on a PhD in history

Can you comment on the manuscripts of the NT with respect to the number of manuscripts and the dating of the manuscripts compared with other ancient books?

[Billy]

First none of the LDS witnesses recanted what they said. Second Travis Walton was missing and claimed he was abducted none of the six guys actually claimed they saw the abduction as portrayed in the movie. Also as years has gone by IIRC some if not all of these witnesses has changed their statements. To the contrary none of the witnesses for the BoM ever did.

Maybe my "authoratative source" (Wiki) is wrong, but if you note the last sentence it says that they did NOT recant their testimony as you claim that they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

"Supporters argue it is an important and persuasive case, because of the number of corroborative eyewitnesses (the vast majority of alien abduction reports are based on a single individual's testimony), the fact that all of the witnesses passed polygraph exams in support of their accounts, and because in the more than thirty years since the event happened, none of the witnesses have changed their accounts, in spite of at least one cash offer to do so."

[Hamba Tuhan]

Do you have any evidence that this took place, i.e. that the writers of the NT "composed their accounts of the Saviour's life in such a way as to make it appear that Jesus was the fulfilment of earlier prophecies" when if fact that these events did not take place? (Especially given the fact that the Gospels were written within the time frame of the life of many other witnesses that could of disputed the "falsified" accounts)

No! As I mentioned above, I reject any such 'evidence' outright based on my personal knowledge of the Saviour. Plenty of people, however, lacking the evidence I possess, have reached this very conclusion. You might want to start with these various Wikipedia entries if you're genuinely interested in what evidence scholars have amassed:

Jesus Myth Hypothesis

Historicity of Jesus

Can you comment on the manuscripts of the NT with respect to the number of manuscripts and the dating of the manuscripts compared with other ancient books?

No. My PhD research involves 16th-century religious texts.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Can you believe every witness to any event? Does this prove truth?

No and no. Other witnesses can invite to truth but no more. This is why it is so essential that we become witnesses for ourselves.

[Anijen]

Maybe my "authoratative source" (Wiki) is wrong, but if you note the last sentence it says that they did NOT recant their testimony as you claim that they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

"Supporters argue it is an important and persuasive case, because of the number of corroborative eyewitnesses (the vast majority of alien abduction reports are based on a single individual's testimony), the fact that all of the witnesses passed polygraph exams in support of their accounts, and because in the more than thirty years since the event happened, none of the witnesses have changed their accounts, in spite of at least one cash offer to do so."

IIRC (still searching) that some of the guys did come out and recant what they actually saw and embellished the rest as if it wasn't so bizarre to begin with. I think it was also common knowledge that Travis Walton was a huge UFO guy and publically stated several times before the event happend that he wanted to be inside a flying saucer.

I enjoyed the show the book considerably less. As if I believe it or not I just dunno. Could it have happened I guess so. But it really doesn't matter to me if he was or wasn't.

Anyway enough of the thread derailment, my apologies.

Anijen ~who wouldn't mind a spaceship ride.