The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[mfbukowski]

lol...the fact you do not see what I am saying is just as mysterious to me

 

Again, I have said on several occasions.....the miracles of the Bible must be taken on faith.  Finding Jericho would simply mean that something the Bible said existed actually existed.  It does, in its own way, add credibility.  Now, finding Jericho does NOT mean that we have proven that walls came down as the Bible describes......but..... 

To me it adds no credibility whatsoever.  I have no clue why it SHOULD.   Maybe you could help me with that, because everyone thinks I do not believe in the historicity of the BOM.   I DO believe in its historicity- as an act of faith in itself

 

Belief in the historicity of the bible- OR EQUALLY the BOM- against all the secular evidence- is itself an act of faith.  No less for the blible as far as I am concerned.

[mfbukowski]

Objective evidence is subject to objective interpretation

Spiritual evidence is subject to spiritual interpretation

 

Either way it boils down to interpretation- essentially seeing things the way you want to see them.

 

There is no such thing as "objectivity".   As a lawyer you should know that.  Everybody has an axe to grind

Edited February 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"What's in it for me??"

That is the "Will to Believe" in 25 words or less

Edited February 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

I I say, "I had a great job in the town of DiddlySquat" and there is no such town, then my statement has zero credibility.

 

If I say, "I had a job in Salt Lake City", I might be lying about the job, but the fact I said it was in SLC makes it more credible than when I said the town of DiddlySquat.....

 

Does that make sense?

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

One could find the tomb Jesus was laid in with an inscription on it saying "The Tomb of Jesus, From Which He Arose" and date the inscription to the year 33 and that STILL would not prove that Jesus even existed.

 

...

 

I'd accept a pottery shard, as being much more compelling.

Scratched into its inner surface a short note, like, say ---

 

"Jesus the carpenter son of Mary, owes ten drachma, payable

by (insert month and a year of the reign of an Emperor)..."

 

 

Discovered in a rubbish heap, buried a meter under the

presumed outer courtyard of the Cana synagogue, alongside

assorted ancient trash, including a lost temple tax half- shekel

and innumerable Sea of Galilee fish bones.

 

UD

Then again, the koine of that period might best be

rendered stone-mason, or builder -- and a carpentry

shop would not be the place to go looking for Mary's son

[mfbukowski]

lol...the fact you do not see what I am saying is just as mysterious to me

 

Again, I have said on several occasions.....the miracles of the Bible must be taken on faith.  Finding Jericho would simply mean that something the Bible said existed actually existed.  It does, in its own way, add credibility.  Now, finding Jericho does NOT mean that we have proven that walls came down as the Bible describes......but..... 

The walls coming down is the only important thing in the story!!

 

Without that- it might just as well be Star Wars

[mfbukowski]

I I say, "I had a great job in the town of DiddlySquat" and there is no such town, then my statement has zero credibility.

 

If I say, "I had a job in Salt Lake City", I might be lying about the job, but the fact I said it was in SLC makes it more credible than when I said the town of DiddlySquat.....

 

Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense......   IF IT IS ON A JOB RESUME and you are documenting job experience

 

BUT IF YOU ARE TELLING ME ABOUT SOMETHING YOU LEARNED SPIRITUALLY I don't give a ....fig... about what town you were in when you learned that!!!

 

Do I care what city Kant lived in when he wrote Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics??

 

It makes no difference!!   I don't even care if KANT wrote it- I only care about whether or not it expands my understanding of metaphysics!!

[mfbukowski]

I'd accept a pottery shard, as being much more compelling.

Scratched into its inner surface a short note, like, say ---

 

"Jesus the carpenter son of Mary, owes ten drachma, payable

by (insert month and a year of the reign of an Emperor)..."

 

 

Discovered in a rubbish heap, buried a meter under the

presumed outer courtyard of the Cana synagogue, alongside

assorted ancient trash, including a lost temple tax half- shekel

and innumerable Sea of Galilee fish bones.

 

UD

Then again, the koine of that period might best be

rendered stone-mason, or builder -- and a carpentry

shop would not be the place to go looking for Mary's son

Makes no difference to the discussion

 

I will stipulate that- I don't care where it was found or what it was.   Imagine anything you like

 

It would still be totally naive to think that a man came back from the dead on that kind of evidence.  Just plain stupid in my book.

I have a bridge here in Brooklyn you might want to buy...  Here is the deed.....

Edited February 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

That makes perfect sense......   IF IT IS ON A JOB RESUME and you are documenting job experience

 

BUT IF YOU ARE TELLING ME ABOUT SOMETHING YOU LEARNED SPIRITUALLY I don't give a ....fig... about what town you were in when you learned that!!!

 

Do I care what city Kant lived in when he wrote Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics??

 

It makes no difference!!   I don't even care if KANT wrote it- I only care about whether or not it expands my understanding of metaphysics!!

 

ok.....what if I I say, "Jesus preached in the town of DiddlySquat" and there is no such town, then my statement has zero credibility.

 

If I say, "Jesus Preached in Salt Lake City", I might be lying about the incident, but the fact I said it was in SLC makes it more credible than when I said the town of DiddlySquat.....

[mfbukowski]

ON second though, with this group- I have this investment you all might want to look at......   

[Kenngo1969]

Not really. The problem is a logical one.

 

One could find the tomb Jesus was laid in with an inscription on it saying "The Tomb of Jesus, From Which He Arose" and date the inscription to the year 33 and that STILL would not prove that Jesus even existed.

 

The problem is that you are not skeptical ENOUGH.  I have no clue why finding Jericho has anything to do with believing ANYTHING the bible says spiritually.

 

Why you see the distinction in one place and ignore it in another is total mystery to me.

Quoted for truth.  That is all.

[mfbukowski]

 

ok.....what if I I say, "Jesus preached in the town of DiddlySquat" and there is no such town, then my statement has zero credibility.

 

If I say, "Jesus Preached in Salt Lake City", I might be lying about the incident, but the fact I said it was in SLC makes it more credible than when I said the town of DiddlySquat.....

 

WHO CARES WHERE HE WAS WHEN HE PREACHED???

 

Suppose he preached the moon is made of green cheese- does that make it more credible????

[mfbukowski]

I am writing this in ......  St Louis Missouri.

 

Does that make it more logical?

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally, I am actually in Los Angeles.

 

What difference does that make in what I said??

[mfbukowski]

No wait- I am actually on Mars but I cannot prove it

[UtahTexan]

WHO CARES WHERE HE WAS WHEN HE PREACHED???

 

Suppose he preached the moon is made of green cheese- does that make it more credible????

Because if I said He preached in Diddlysquat, which does not exist....you will not believe he preached at all

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I I say, "I had a great job in the town of DiddlySquat" and there is no such town, then my statement has zero credibility.

 

If I say, "I had a job in Salt Lake City", I might be lying about the job, but the fact I said it was in SLC makes it more credible than when I said the town of DiddlySquat.....

 

Does that make sense?

Or you are trying not to reveal were the city is because it really is not important. You could still have a job.

[mfbukowski]

Fine. Go there, no problem. What is important is the message, not even his existence.

Who wrote the constitution of the U.S.?

Do you even know without looking it up?

What if he never existed? The ideas would still work. Parliamentary government as a concept would still exist.

We take it on faith as a religious principle that he did existence and overcame death, but the idea of resurrection is much older than Christ, as are ALL the ideas of Christianity, and they are all true.

Real life is intruding, and I have promises to keep

[mfbukowski]

Because if I said He preached in Diddlysquat, which does not exist....you will not believe he preached at all

No, YOU would not believe he preached at all.

I don't care where or even when he preached

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Fine. Go there, no problem. What is important is the message, not even his existence.

Who wrote the constitution of the U.S.?

Do you even know without looking it up?

What if he never existed? The ideas would still work. Parliamentary government as a concept would still exist.

We take it on faith as a religious principle that he did existence and overcame death, but the idea of resurrection is much older than Christ, as are ALL the ideas of Christianity, and they are all true.

Real life is intruding, and I have promises to keep

This is good stuff. I think this speaks to "eternal truths".

[Kenngo1969]

 

ok.....what if I I say, "Jesus preached in the town of DiddlySquat" and there is no such town, then my statement has zero credibility.

 

If I say, "Jesus Preached in Salt Lake City", I might be lying about the incident, but the fact I said it was in SLC makes it more credible than when I said the town of DiddlySquat.....

 

In general, the U.S. legal system values finality.  In general, courts are exceedingly reluctant to reopen cases that already have been litigated or prosecuted, and oftentimes, this is even true when credible, highly-convincing evidence is discovered following a verdict that throws that verdict into serious doubt.  The most we can say with respect to many scientific or historical questions, however, is that a particular conclusion is the best possible conclusion based on the currently-available scientific or historical evidence.  If, 'til now, no evidence has been found  for the existence of the town of DiddlySquat, does that mean DiddlySquat never existed? (If so, such a contention seems to violate the rule of logic that holds that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.) What if the site where DiddlySquat once existed has never been excavated?  What if DiddlySquat were not continuously settled from Jesus's time?  What if the people who now live on the site that once was DiddleySquat have a different language, a different culture, different customs, and so on?  Wouldn't such differences make it harder to find evidence of DiddleySquat's existence?  It's much more common to reopen scientific or historical inquiries if the answer to these questions change than it is to reopen legal inquiries.

[Kenngo1969]

I am writing this in ......  St Louis Missouri.

 

Does that make it more logical?

No, but perhaps it would make it more logical if you were writing it on ... Vulcan!

 

 Sorry; couldn't resist!

 

(We have a Vader emoticon; we need a Spock emoticon.)

[UtahTexan]

Fine. Go there, no problem. What is important is the message, not even his existence.

Who wrote the constitution of the U.S.?

Do you even know without looking it up?

What if he never existed? The ideas would still work. Parliamentary government as a concept would still exist.

We take it on faith as a religious principle that he did existence and overcame death, but the idea of resurrection is much older than Christ, as are ALL the ideas of Christianity, and they are all true.

Real life is intruding, and I have promises to keep

 

Yes...I know who wrote it.

 

By several sources.  

 

Hence, I believe it happened.

 

Further, I have been to where it was written 

 

Which adds to the credibility

[UtahTexan]

In general, the U.S. legal system values finality.  In general, courts are exceedingly reluctant to reopen cases that already have been litigated or prosecuted, and oftentimes, this is even true when credible, highly-convincing evidence is discovered following a verdict that throws that verdict into serious doubt.  The most we can say with respect to many scientific or historical questions, however, is that a particular conclusion is the best possible conclusion based on the currently-available scientific or historical evidence.  If, 'til now, no evidence has been found  for the existence of the town of DiddlySquat, does that mean DiddlySquat never existed? (If so, such a contention seems to violate the rule of logic that holds that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.) What if the site where DiddlySquat once existed has never been excavated?  What if DiddlySquat were not continuously settled from Jesus's time?  What if the people who now live on the site that once was DiddleySquat have a different language, a different culture, different customs, and so on?  Wouldn't such differences make it harder to find evidence of DiddleySquat's existence?  It's much more common to reopen scientific or historical inquiries if the answer to these questions change than it is to reopen legal inquiries.

 

good points.

 

Loving this discussion.

 

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate y'alls patience with me

[mfbukowski]

This is good stuff. I think this speaks to "eternal truths".

this nails it, and is ultimately why I became Mormon. There are eternal truths in the sense that humanity requires them for our very existence

Laws are ultimately based on the golden rule because that is the way humans want to be treated.

We worship Human values Our God is even Human- our highest Ideal of what exalted Humanity should be

We worship The Family and want it to exist forever.

This is why humanist philosophy is so close to us, with a few exceptions.

This is how I became Mormon because I realized that Mormonism elevated humanism to the level of Christianity as a religion

Like no other faith it saw Christ's humanity and said we could emulate him to the level of even be coming like him.

These ideas rise above time and space and make those kinds of considerations seem pretty and actually somewhat childish

It's like worrying about whether or not Santa lives at the North Pole

Edited February 26, 2015 by mfbukowski