Jump to content

Five Hundred Witnesses, Please Help!


volgadon

Recommended Posts

The NT records Paul as saying that the risen Christ was seen by 500 brethren at once (1 Cor 15:6).

What were their names?

What I fail to see is how this is a stronger witness than the 3 and the 8 for the BoM. We at least know who they were, which is more than can be said for Paul's statement. In fact, doesn't it constitute hearsay?

Link to comment

The NT records Paul as saying that the risen Christ was seen by 500 brethren at once (1 Cor 15:6).

What were their names?

What I fail to see is how this is a stronger witness than the 3 and the 8 for the BoM. We at least know who they were, which is more than can be said for Paul's statement. In fact, doesn't it constitute hearsay?

Silly, the mer fact that the 500 are mentioned in the bible means that by default it is more creditable.

Link to comment

How many peoople were Present at Kirtland when it was dedicated and saw the concorses of Angels accompanying the Chior?

It doesn't matter, for those events are not recorded in the bible.

Link to comment

The NT records Paul as saying that the risen Christ was seen by 500 brethren at once (1 Cor 15:6).

What were their names?

What I fail to see is how this is a stronger witness than the 3 and the 8 for the BoM. We at least know who they were, which is more than can be said for Paul's statement. In fact, doesn't it constitute hearsay?

Just 500?

3 Nephi 17:25 records 2500 people who not only saw, heard and felt the resurrected Lord, but also saw angels come down in a pillar of fire and minister to their little children.

If they want a numbers game, tell them to stick with the BoM. :P

Link to comment

is it published by the church?

Chech bcspace's sig line. The third point is the key. :P

I interpret the statement as saying it is scripture- ie: standard works only. BC and I disagree on this one.

Link to comment

The NT records Paul as saying that the risen Christ was seen by 500 brethren at once (1 Cor 15:6).

What were their names?

What I fail to see is how this is a stronger witness than the 3 and the 8 for the BoM. We at least know who they were, which is more than can be said for Paul's statement. In fact, doesn't it constitute hearsay?

Hello volgadon,

I'm not an evangelical, but the reason (for me) that the 3 and 8 witnesses don't carry any weight is because thus far I haven't seen there signatures attached to the statement in the front of the book of mormon. Seeing there printed names doesn't carry much weight with me.

Link to comment

The NT records Paul as saying that the risen Christ was seen by 500 brethren at once (1 Cor 15:6).

What were their names?

What I fail to see is how this is a stronger witness than the 3 and the 8 for the BoM. We at least know who they were, which is more than can be said for Paul's statement. In fact, doesn't it constitute hearsay?

You have to attack the Resurrection to justify the Book of Mormon? Last time I checked, you guys liked 1 Cor. 15:6. Is it not part of LDS Scripture? Don't you have a better way of defending your faith than saying that your own Scripture uses hearsay evidence?

Link to comment
I interpret the statement as saying it is scripture- ie: standard works only. BC and I disagree on this one.

Perhaps you meant doctrine? I agree that the standard works, which include the JST excerpts (which are scripture by the Church's own definition), are the only scripture (see below). The Church clearly teaches in the statement linked to below as well as to it's leaders and teachers that what is published by the Church is doctrine and this has been the case for decades.

Of course there is also the little matter of D&C 68:4.... :P

I don't recall any of you disagreeing with me on what is scripture except for the JST excerpts issue. I do know that some of you don't agree with the Church's position on doctrine.

Link to comment

Neither version is better than the other since they don't prove anything.

Its silly to argue what witness is more legit the 500 or the 3 and 8. Both examples are riddled with holes.

Paul never was around when Christ was supposedly resurrected so his 500 witnesses is second hand info at best, and he doesn't bother to mention any names.

As far as the 3 and 8 are concerned "out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established" is not a good way of gauging anything.

I don't get it. Does that mean that me and a couple of my buddies can get together and claim we were given a pot of gold by a leprechaun and as long as we write a document and sign our names to it we must be taken at our word even though we can produce no leprechaun or pot of gold?

Arguing Mormonism vs. Evangelical Christianity doctrinal points is like arguing if Pepsi is better than Coke. Its impossible to prove, and becomes a matter of personal choice.

Link to comment

"witnesses"

What happens after ten, twenty, thirty years. Does each one continue with their testimony, even on their death bed. Do they continue their witness at the death of the leader of the conspiracy, even at the risk of their own life, after losing all incentive to continue the story -- after leaving the church.

The witnesses risked so much, and got so little for their effort, even on their death bed.

No other claimant to the prophetic office has so many witnesses to multiple divine events over months and years -- the plates, an angel on three occasions, having hands laid on their head by an angel, a joint vision of the Saviour and other heavenly visitors in the temple. Count the number of events, the number of witnesses, and marvel that each of them continued that witness for the rest of their lives.

Link to comment

Perhaps you meant doctrine? I agree that the standard works, which include the JST excerpts (which are scripture by the Church's own definition), are the only scripture (see below). The Church clearly teaches in the statement linked to below as well as to it's leaders and teachers that what is published by the Church is doctrine and this has been the case for decades.

Of course there is also the little matter of D&C 68:4.... :P

I don't recall any of you disagreeing with me on what is scripture except for the JST excerpts issue. I do know that some of you don't agree with the Church's position on doctrine.

The disagreement is in interpretation I think. I think that what this says is that only the standard works are doctrine:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four
Link to comment

You have to attack the Resurrection to justify the Book of Mormon? Last time I checked, you guys liked 1 Cor. 15:6. Is it not part of LDS Scripture? Don't you have a better way of defending your faith than saying that your own Scripture uses hearsay evidence?

Not attacking the resurrection. What I was attacking is the silly claim I read earlier today, that the evidence is stronger, because 500 people saw the risen Lord. I believe wholeheartedly in the resurrection, but ridiculous attacks on the church, like this one, bug me. What I'm asking for is the same standard be employed towards both. Hearsay doesn't mean false, but it is hearsay.

Link to comment

"witnesses"

What happens after ten, twenty, thirty years. Does each one continue with their testimony, even on their death bed. Do they continue their witness at the death of the leader of the conspiracy, even at the risk of their own life, after losing all incentive to continue the story -- after leaving the church.

The witnesses risked so much, and got so little for their effort, even on their death bed.

No other claimant to the prophetic office has so many witnesses to multiple divine events over months and years -- the plates, an angel on three occasions, having hands laid on their head by an angel, a joint vision of the Saviour and other heavenly visitors in the temple. Count the number of events, the number of witnesses, and marvel that each of them continued that witness for the rest of their lives.

Hello cdowis,

I don't know. I haven't been able to find their **unedited** testimony anywhere. I'm stuck with the churches evaluation of there testimony.

Link to comment

Not attacking the resurrection. What I was attacking is the silly claim I read earlier today, that the evidence is stronger, because 500 people saw the risen Lord. I believe wholeheartedly in the resurrection, but ridiculous attacks on the church, like this one, bug me. What I'm asking for is the same standard be employed towards both. Hearsay doesn't mean false, but it is hearsay.

Okay...I would point out though that the verse that follows emphasizes that the majority were still around at the time of the writing. Presumably they were available for an eyewitness report. I am not very familiar with the LDS witnesses but I know you guys find it to be powerful. What was it exactly that they say they saw. The golden plates or what? Who can think of a reason why Paul's witnesses or the LDS witnesses would lie? I can't think of any. Both are credible. Hearsay can be pretty important in matters that don't involve jury trials where the presumption is in favor of innocence. I am glad you see value in hearsay evidence outside of the legal process. I assumed, wrongly, that you were dismissing all hearsay evidence.

Your explanation satisfies me. Thanks.

3DOP

Link to comment
I haven't been able to find their **unedited** testimony anywhere. I'm stuck with the churches evaluation of there testimony.

You conveniently ignore the fact that even the first to die had two decades to address any discrepancies in the testimony and none did. Martin Harris was alive nearly four decades later and not only never attempted to alter the "official" testimony, but repeatedly affirmed it as it stood (and as it currently stands). Since he was never reconciled to the Church, had he any reason to have done so, even without denying his testimony of the Book of Mormon, he could easily have done it.

Lehi

Link to comment

Not attacking the resurrection. What I was attacking is the silly claim I read earlier today, that the evidence is stronger, because 500 people saw the risen Lord. I believe wholeheartedly in the resurrection, but ridiculous attacks on the church, like this one, bug me. What I'm asking for is the same standard be employed towards both. Hearsay doesn't mean false, but it is hearsay.

People often mistake examples of Hypocrisy for an Attack.

Link to comment

Hello volgadon,

I'm not an evangelical, but the reason (for me) that the 3 and 8 witnesses don't carry any weight is because thus far I haven't seen there signatures attached to the statement in the front of the book of mormon. Seeing there printed names doesn't carry much weight with me.

So do the 500 that saw Christ carry more weight in your view than the 3 and 8?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...