Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[USU78]

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.

Yup:

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness:

"Prepare ye the way of the Lord! Make straight in the desert a highway for our G-d!"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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:

I think that is the main reason no one here has done that. We don't want to play the game.

Though I did enjoy your post. I can't wait until Rob rips you a knew one. Lol.

[Rob Bowman]

Several Mormons have objected to my argument by appealing to the example of Moses. They have cited either his encounter with God in the burning bush, or his encounter with God on Mount Sinai, as examples of crucially important events in biblical history for which Moses was the only witness. These objections fail to understand the argument I presented, and they ignore what the Bible actually says about these events in the life of Moses.

First, before I discuss Moses, a reminder about what my argument claims and does not claim. My argument does not claim that two or more human witnesses observed every important event in the Bible. My argument does not claim that every incident of a divine revelation requires a plurality of witnesses physically present to be acceptable or credible. For example, it is not a problem that Peter was apparently alone when he first saw the risen Jesus (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5). The reason this is not a problem is that multiple witnesses corroborated the truth to which Peter testified, namely, that Jesus had risen from the dead. What my argument claims is that we should expect multiple attestation for stupendous historical claims like the Resurrection or the First Vision if those historical claims are themselves essential objects of faith. It is not essential to my faith to confess that Mary Magdalene saw the risen Jesus, although it supports something essential to my faith (the belief in Jesus

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

I did not read thru the entire thread, but I think the greatest witness of all is being overlooked and that is the witness of the Holy Ghost. I can say as Alma did:That is how I can say that I know the First Vision and all the other "foundational" events of the restoration did occur.

Not only did you not read the entire thread, you did not read the entire opening post. I addressed the matter of the witness of the Holy Ghost in my opening post.

[volgadon]

It is not essential to my faith to confess that Mary Magdalene saw the risen Jesus, although it supports something essential to my faith (the belief in Jesus

[volgadon]

that is, this event was not an element in Israelite confession or creedal affirmation.

Neither was the 1st vision. It was considered a valuable, personal experience of Joseph's. The Book of Mormon, however, was such an from the very beginning. That has witnesses.

[volgadon]

Moses

[Zakuska]

Yet isn't she one of those witnesses?

First, before I discuss Moses, a reminder about what my argument claims and does not claim. My argument does not claim that two or more human witnesses observed every important event in the Bible. My argument does not claim that every incident of a divine revelation requires a plurality of witnesses physically present to be acceptable or credible. For example, it is not a problem that Peter was apparently alone when he first saw the risen Jesus (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5). The reason this is not a problem is that multiple witnesses corroborated the truth to which Peter testified, namely, that Jesus had risen from the dead. What my argument claims is that we should expect multiple attestation for stupendous historical claims like the Resurrection or the First Vision if those historical claims are themselves essential objects of faith. It is not essential to my faith to confess that Mary Magdalene saw the risen Jesus, although it supports something essential to my faith (the belief in Jesus

[volgadon]

And as I have pointed out, it

[volgadon]

The differences between Moses

[maklelan]

Yet Peter was alone at the Table Cloth Vision. AND you are comparing apples and unicrons again. Joseph Smith is just another witness to the Risen Lord jesus Christ. Just like Mary, Peter and Paul. The only difference? He is ~2000 years later The times of the Gentiles came in.

The nature of the two events are also quite distinct. Joseph Smith's vision was a singular event with a definite beginning and end within a short window of time. Rob's example of Christ's resurrection is qualitatively distinct in that the event had a beginning, but has no real end, and so the window of time for people to become proper witnesses is infinite. If we speak of the physical event of his resurrection, there were no witnesses. Those who witnessed the result of his resurrection did so beginning the day after the event. Again, the nature of the witnessing is different. What they are witnessing is the state of Christ's existence, not an event. In this way, the demand for witnesses holds up an open ended example of witnessing the state of someone's existence and aims the rhetoric at an extremely confined example of a singular event in time. I find this to be quite a fallacious argument.

[volgadon]

I find this to be quite a fallacious argument.

Worth repeating.

I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Moses on Mount Sinai

Moses

[Tsjoeva]

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

[Tsjoeva]

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.

Hoi Mola

I accept that you don't think it is a good rebuttle. Sorry for that. It may be sounds and looks for you like that.

he OT is telling about the suffering, the atonement and the resurrection of Jesus. The feast too, it start with the Passover. There is no feast that we have to remember that Jesus is born.

Actually Jesus Him self never said: Well, you have to remember my birth. Because there it all start. Paul didn't teach. Actually non of the apostle didn't teach that. You can convince me if you can find one verse that tell that. Everything start with the suffering, death and resurrection.

I think the Bible is clear about that. But if you don't agree with me. You can always convince me with the lines of the Bible, that tells different, instead only asking questions.

[Mortal Man]

All of the really crucial events in Joseph Smith

[cksalmon]

Hi Mak:

You wrote:

The nature of the two events are also quite distinct. Joseph Smith's vision was a singular event with a definite beginning and end within a short window of time. Rob's example of Christ's resurrection is qualitatively distinct in that the event had a beginning, but has no real end, and so the window of time for people to become proper witnesses is infinite.

Okay. But, that's not at all the sense in which the concept of "witnesses to the resurrection" is intended here. In the sense intended, the instantiation of a "proper witness" is a chronologically-bounded event.

Otherwise, we're equivocating. That is, we'd need to assume that a spiritual witness of the "truth" of the resurrection two thousand years down the line just is qualitatively the same sort of thing as a contemporary historical witness to a given historical event.

That strikes me as a fallacious way to go about thinking through the issue.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Nice points.

Pending further elucidation, I don't see it, MM.

Best.

cks

[Smith]

First, before I discuss Moses, a reminder about what my argument claims and does not claim. My argument does not claim that two or more human witnesses observed every important event in the Bible. My argument does not claim that every incident of a divine revelation requires a plurality of witnesses physically present to be acceptable or credible. For example, it is not a problem that Peter was apparently alone when he first saw the risen Jesus (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5). The reason this is not a problem is that multiple witnesses corroborated the truth to which Peter testified, namely, that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Yet that resurrection had no witnesses. A vital event to Christianity. How does one counter the arguments that the disciples took him from the cross before he died and revived him or that they hid his body and made up the stories of the resurrected Christ and cobbled these together into what we now have as the Bible. Which if that were the case then all your arguments are circular. How do you prove it isnt?

What my argument claims is that we should expect multiple attestation for stupendous historical claims like the Resurrection or the First Vision if those historical claims are themselves essential objects of faith.

Well, is not Joseph Smith's witness then to the resurrected Christ then not also an attestation to a stupendous claim that someone was born on the earth, lived, taught, loved and ultimately atoned for mankind and was resurrected and lives! Then, when he provides the Book of Mormon, another testament of Christ, is that not another attestation of the same, thus by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses every word is established? Showing that God loves not only Israel but all his children and showing that he provides multiple witnesses in separate places and in different times. Is this not exactly what you are requiring?

[Glenn101]

Stupendous Events - Single Attestation

God talking or God's angel to Hagar after she had been kicked out of Abraham's camp

God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the later stopping him.

Moses and the burning bush.

Paul's epiphany.

That's just for starters. Read the Bible and you will find many stupendous events for which there are only single attestations.

For the birth of Jesus, we have no known eyewitness accounts. All of the accounts are second hand, written years after the fact.

The only witness I really need is the Holy ghost.

Glenn

[maklelan]

Hi Mak:

You wrote:

Okay. But, that's not at all the sense in which the concept of "witnesses to the resurrection" is intended here. In the sense intended, the instantiation of a "proper witness" is a chronologically-bounded event.

But is not the terminus ante quem of a "proper witness" an ad hoc and subjectively defined point? Why is one person who sees the resurrected Christ a "proper witness" whereas another person who sees the resurrected Christ not a "proper witness"? What makes a witness a proper one in your opinion?

Otherwise, we're equivocating. That is, we'd need to assume that a spiritual witness of the "truth" of the resurrection two thousand years down the line just is qualitatively the same sort of thing as a contemporary historical witness to a given historical event.

But, again, they're not witnessing an event. They're simply witnessing a living Christ. That he used to be dead is not something that a modern individual cannot know with the same degree of certainty. And why the "spiritual" qualification? A person who today sees the resurrected Christ is witnessing a living Christ in the exact same historical sense that Paul or Peter did. Paul never knew Jesus while he was alive. What's the difference?

[Tsjoeva]

The nature of the two events are also quite distinct. Joseph Smith's vision was a singular event with a definite beginning and end within a short window of time. Rob's example of Christ's resurrection is qualitatively distinct in that the event had a beginning, but has no real end, and so the window of time for people to become proper witnesses is infinite. If we speak of the physical event of his resurrection, there were no witnesses. Those who witnessed the result of his resurrection did so beginning the day after the event. Again, the nature of the witnessing is different. What they are witnessing is the state of Christ's existence, not an event. In this way, the demand for witnesses holds up an open ended example of witnessing the state of someone's existence and aims the rhetoric at an extremely confined example of a singular event in time. I find this to be quite a fallacious argument.

Hoi Maklelan

I don't agree with you. Can you give a replay of this, what I yesterday wrote:

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.

The angels were the first persons who testify that Jesus was physical raised again. Actually they didn't say either the opposite. Peter was speaking by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was raised again. By the Holy Spirit, was Jesus raised. So it is clear that He is a witness too.

[Tsjoeva]

But, again, they're not witnessing an event. They're simply witnessing a living Christ. That he used to be dead is not something that a modern individual cannot know with the same degree of certainty. And why the "spiritual" qualification? A person who today sees the resurrected Christ is witnessing a living Christ in the exact same historical sense that Paul or Peter did. Paul never knew Jesus while he was alive. What's the difference?

That is no point:

The facts are:

1. The soldiers saw He died. They crucified people before.

2. The chiefman from the soldiers said it to Pilatus.

3. For sure they pierced a spear in Jesus side.

4. Blood and wather is coming out of his side.

5. the people at the cross was hanging. So they had to be death. Because they couldn't breath.

A famous prof here in Holland an atheist medical prof Smallhout, he said in his book: Jesus was death. No doubt.

[maklelan]

That is no point:

The facts are:

1. The soldiers saw He died. They crucified people before.

2. The chiefman from the soldiers said it to Pilatus.

3. For sure they pierced a spear in Jesus side.

4. Blood and wather is coming out of his side.

5. the people at the cross was hanging. So they had to be death. Because they couldn't breath.

A famous prof here in Holland an atheist medical prof Smallhout, he said in his book: Jesus was death. No doubt.

I'm not saying they didn't know for sure he died. I'm saying they did. I'm also saying a person today who sees the resurrected Jesus can know with equal surety that he has not simply lived for 2000 years, but that he did in fact die.

[Zakuska]

So when you read this complete. I don't think you are right.

Most of your quotes are speaking of the furture restoration.

You also forgot. The Jews finally turned their back.

Acts 13: 46

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.