Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[Mark Beesley]

The opening post is perhaps the most elaborate strawman argument I have ever seen. And the poster's later offerings don't get any better.

Frankly, the Book of Mormon is the only witness one needs to attest that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And the blind that refuse to see that truth will also refuse to see and hear the countless other witnesses for his divine calling.

[volgadon]

: how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

That is part of the atonement.

[wenglund]

To reiterate, here to me is the dispute in the nutshell: Rob and the Pharisees have been focused on the RULES, whereas Christ and his restored gospel have been focused on RESULTS.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rodheadlee]

I have not read the whole thread but has anyone mentioned the Trek to Utah as a first level historical event? Sure Joseph Smith was dead but Brigham Young took over where he left off and BY could be considered the Moses of our dispensation. If it were not for the movement of 70k + or - Mormons to a land separate from what was then the United States, just before the start of the Civil War, the Church may have died an early death. It surely was wisdom for our Heavenly Father to foresee this and act accordingly.

[Rob Bowman]

Calmoriah,

You wrote:

Mr. Bowman (hope that is the correct title, if not please correct me),

Could you please explain why it is the death of Christ and not his birth or even John the Baptist's ministry of preparation that marks the beginning of the Lord's dispensation? Without his birth and life, his death seems to be out of context. Even the numbering of the years seems to indicate a general agreement that time began anew at the Lord's birth since the Christian era begins at Jesus' birth, not his death.

Thank you so much for your respectful and thoughtful question.

Obviously, Jesus needed to be born and to live before he could die and rise from the dead. However, I refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the inaugural events of the Christian "dispensation" (this isn't a term I commonly use myself) in the sense that they inaugurate the "new covenant." Jesus referred to his death, commemorated in the Lord's Supper, as effecting the "new covenant" in his blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). By his death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 7:15-22; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

[Vance]

However, I refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the inaugural events of the Christian "dispensation" . . .

What?

"inaugural"?

Main Entry: 1in

[maklelan]

I am not sure if I understand you correct.

What I understand from you is: You said: It is not for sure that Christ died again? (for the second time) Because you got one witness, namely Christ him self.

If I understand you not correct, I hope you will explain what you are meaning.

So you do agree, that Jesus is raised again. And you do believe that He went to heaven with Pentecostal? But you doubt that He isn't die again there? Because you got only the word of Christ?

Is that correct? Before I will respond on it. I hope you confirm what I think that you are saying?

I don't doubt personally that he is still alive, but within Rob's paradigm, the actual event of Christ's physical resurrection fails his test. What is witnessed by the many people in the New Testament is simply the fact of his reanimation, which is something that is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. That his reanimation is something unique and soteriologically significant is something they had to take his word for.

[Tsjoeva]

What?

"inaugural"?

Main Entry: 1in

[Vance]

Why do you think this?

Because it was the event that "mark(ed) the beginning" of the ancient Christian "dispensation".

[Tsjoeva]

I don't doubt personally that he is still alive, but within Rob's paradigm, the actual event of Christ's physical resurrection fails his test. What is witnessed by the many people in the New Testament is simply the fact of his reanimation, which is something that is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. That his reanimation is something unique and soteriologically significant is something they had to take his word for.

Thank you for your explanation.

Well the word reanimation here in Holland doesn't mean that He was definitive dead. And I think it was prove He was dead. Not clinical, like it is normal when we speak (here in Holland) about reanimation.

But, there is more.

First the angel(s) in Mt 28, Mr 16, Lc 24, John 20 He(They) testify that Jesus is physical raised again. Yes it is true, they didn't say: I saw Jesus raised. But that isn't necessary. They know and testify about it.

Than the Holy Spirit, 1Pt 3:18, Act 4:10, Rm 8:11

So I think there is evidence enough.

[Tsjoeva]

Because it was the event that "mark(ed) the beginning" of the ancient Christian "dispensation".

I understand what you mean. But I disagree. Because it begin with the death and resurrection. Without this, there was no Christian dispensation.

After that, there was a change, not before.

[Vance]

I understand what you mean. But I disagree. Because it begin with the death and resurrection. Without this, there was no Christian dispensation.

After that, there was a change, not before.

So your saying that everything that happened prior to the death of Christ was not a part of the "Christian dispensation"?

Things like the birth of Christ are not a part of the "Christian dispensation"?

I don't buy it.

[Droopy]

Calmoriah,

You wrote:

Thank you so much for your respectful and thoughtful question.

Obviously, Jesus needed to be born and to live before he could die and rise from the dead. However, I refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the inaugural events of the Christian "dispensation" (this isn't a term I commonly use myself) in the sense that they inaugurate the "new covenant." Jesus referred to his death, commemorated in the Lord's Supper, as effecting the "new covenant" in his blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). By his death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 7:15-22; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

Clearly, however, as Paul mentions in Gal. 3:8 that God "preached before the gospel unto Abraham", it would appear that the concept of a singular "Christian dispensation" is not a biblical one but a medieval or post-medieval idea, understood only by modern Protestants in retrospect from their own perspective.

This would also partially explain why, for one example, the Qumran community held beliefs and ideas that closely paralleled NT Christianity but shouldn't have existed if the meridian Church was, in reality, a singular, isolated event separate from what LDS understand as other gospel dispensations.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand what you mean. But I disagree. Because it begin with the death and resurrection. Without this, there was no Christian dispensation.

After that, there was a change, not before.

Tell me, how could there be a death and resurrection if there never was a birth?

The birth of Christ was the start of the it all.

To be fair to Rob he did have a qualifier in his statement that the "inaugural events of the Christian dispensation" started with Christ fulfilling the law of Moses and bringing in the new Covenant.

His words are

I refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the inaugural events of the Christian "dispensation" (this isn't a term I commonly use myself) in the sense that they inaugurate the "new covenant."

I think Rob could have worded his statement a little bet as it was confusing.

[Zakuska]

Tell me, how could there be a death and resurrection if there never was a birth?

The birth of Christ was the start of the it all.

I'd have to say that at a minimum it started at the beginning of his public ministry.

We are told in Acts 1 that the Kingdom had been taken away from the Jews and Given to the Gentiles.

For how long?

Dan 8

13

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd have to say that at a minimum it started at the beginning of his public ministry.

I added more to my post. I think it might shed a new light on some things.

[Tsjoeva]

So your saying that everything that happened prior to the death of Christ was not a part of the "Christian dispensation"?

Things like the birth of Christ are not a part of the "Christian dispensation"?

I don't buy it.

Hoi Vance

I didn't say you have to buy

Well actually I believe the whole Bible is the part of the Christian dispensation. But it start after He raised by the death.

I agree John is pointed at Jesus. He is the Lamb that take the sin away. And How did He that? By His death.

If Jesus said in the Garden, Father, I don't do it... than we got a problem. Because nothing will be happen.

Jesus live was actually for Israel and the Jew. And He kept the Torah.

[Tsjoeva]

Tell me, how could there be a death and resurrection if there never was a birth?

The birth of Christ was the start of the it all.

But that doesn't meaning that the Christian dispensation is started by that. Sorry... it start with the death and resurrection.

If Jesus didn't do that there was no Christian dispensation.

[Calm]

Obviously, Jesus needed to be born and to live before he could die and rise from the dead. However, I refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the inaugural events of the Christian "dispensation" (this isn't a term I commonly use myself) in the sense that they inaugurate the "new covenant." Jesus referred to his death, commemorated in the Lord's Supper, as effecting the "new covenant" in his blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). By his death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 7:15-22; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

You have explained why you think Christ's death is "inaugural", but not why this also applies to the First Vision since chronological order isn't relevant according to your standard. If you see them as comparable in this way, then I think there is at least one problem with using the First Vision as a similar event in that there was no "new covenant" effected in the First Vision with anyone except perhaps Joseph Smith. Even if the covenant was made with him, how does that make it on the same level of covenant with mankind that occurs with the Atonement?

[Tarski]

What do you call it when one takes a look at one's own religion and designs a set of criteria based on it to judge all other religions? It's some kind of sophistry.

Anyone can play that game. Why don't you LDS apologists whip out the "17 Points of the True Church"?

Here for easy reference:

1. Christ organized the Church (Eph 4:11-14)

2. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Eph 5:23)

3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2:19-20)

4. The true church must have the same organization as Christ's Church (Eph 4:11-14)

5. The true church must claim divine authority (Heb 4:4-10)

6. The true church must have no paid ministry (Acts 20:33-34; John 10:11-13)

7. The true church must baptize by immersion (Matt 3:13-16)

8. The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)

9. The true church must practice divine healing (Mark 3:14-15)

10. The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17)

11. The true church must teach that God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 23:36-39; Acts 1:9-11; Heb 1:1-3)

12. The officers must be called by God (Heb 4:4; Ex 28:1; 40:13-16)

13. The true church must claim revelation from God (Amos 3:7)

14. The true church must be a missionary church (Matt 28:19-20)

15. The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)

16. The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1Cor 15:16&29)

17. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:20)

[Zakuska]

But that doesn't meaning that the Christian dispensation is started by that. Sorry... it start with the death and resurrection.

If Jesus didn't do that there was no Christian dispensation.

Its more appropriate to call it the dispensation of the Gentiles. As that is what the scriptures call it.

Acts 1

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Rom. 11: 25

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Acts 3

19

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But that doesn't meaning that the Christian dispensation is started by that. Sorry... it start with the death and resurrection.

If Jesus didn't do that there was no Christian dispensation.

Yeah, this sounds and looks like the wave of your hand here. You didn't even give a good rebuttle other than "nu'uh".

If he wasn't born there would be no Christian Dispensation.

[AllenJ]

Rob,

Could you explain why you don't believe the restoration of the priesthood to be a "level 1" event?

Your definition - "Level-one: Events that are so important that if they happened, the religion associated with them must be true, and if they did not happen, the religion must be false."

I can't comprehend that the LDS church would exist without these events. First, John the Baptist, and then Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry (2 witnesses) and ordained them giving them the authority to restore Jesus Christ's church, perform ordinances such as baptism, etc.

I understand you don't believe this really happened, but given the importance of these events to Mormons, why don't you think they are "level 1" events?

Thank you,

Allen

[Zakuska]

Isn't the answer obvious... "Because they have more than one witness". It doesn't fit into Rob's little box and do his theme anygood.

[Vance]

Jesus said, (Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

No, the inaugural event was the angelic annunciation to Zacharias.