gregor

Pick your horse, steve.

Is the Bible inerrant and inspired, with four gospels written by known "eye witnesses" to all events contained therein - or does the bible merely contain some kernal of truth, but only in the fact that someone claimed to see a resurrected Jesus. You've taken the former position, not the latter.

And I don't know anything about you, personnally. I know your posts reflect a lack of basic foundational information to support the positions you assert.

James Brown

Goodness, I hope you don't think I'm trying to defend Mormonism. No, I only responded with your claim that there were no other eyewitnesses to the golden plates. You know what? I completely agree. I don't believe there were any eyewitnesses of any golden plates, because I believe they were made up whole cloth by the con artist Joseph Smith.

But try to make that assertion to a Mormon apologist, and he'll have as many well-rehearsed answers as you do regarding your own set of eyewitnesses.

First off, your original assertion was incorrect. The angel did not tell Joseph Smith to not show the plates to anyone; he said to not show them to any unauthorized person. That's a different claim, no? The author of Mark said the women didn't tell anyone, but I'll bet you don't think that means they really told no one nothing forever.

Oliver Cowdery claimed to have seen the plates. Yes, he was later excommunicated, but for political and financial wranglings with church leaders. David Whitmer also continued to affirm the existence of the plates and even used his testimony as an argument for why Joseph Smith should be displaced as church leader. Even after both were excommunicated they still affirmed the existence of the plates. You might not like them because they were excommunicated (a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy) but it wasn't over their viewing of the plates. After all, does Paul's and Peter's initial distrust of each other somehow sully either one of their eyewitness testimony?

Martin Harris seemed particulary unbalanced. Throughout his adult life he claimed to have seen the plates both with his natural eyes and his spiritual eyes (whatever that means.) I know that you discount that because you, like me, don't believe in the existence of the golden plates. But then what do we make of Paul's seeing the risen Jesus in a vision, when others around him neither heard nor saw anything? When you have explained why you dismiss Harris' claim as illegitimate, then you will understand why I dismiss Paul's claim equally.

Plus there is the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, all of whom signed a document affirming the existence of the plates. True, Martin Harris said they were all pressured to sign, but he also said he saw the plates with his natural eyes, so who knows what to believe?

And you forgot some of the witnesses who acted as scribes. Emma Smith felt them through a cloth and heard them clink. William Smith also felt them.

Meanwhile, what do we have for the eyewitness testimony of say, Philip? Or Bartholomew? Or Simon the Zealot? Or other disciples of Jesus who are essentially spear carriers? They get little to no mention in the gospels, no on-stage lines to speak, no recordings in the New Testament about their lives after the Resurrection? No, they get lumped into a group, someone else says they all saw Jesus, and nothing else is ever mentioned about them again. How many of them were pressured to affirm they saw something by the charismatic leader Peter? How many of them later denied seeing a risen corpse but no one cared to write it down? How many of them did write down a denial but their writings were destroyed by the Orthodox church seeking to stamp out heresy?

No way to really know, is there?

Again, this is not about defending Mormonism. What I'm concerned about is that you want Christianity to have special privilege on the grounds that no other religion has eyewitnesses to the supernatural, and that's just silly. It's as silly as saying that no other religion centers on a miracle worker, and any religion that does have a miracle worker doesn't count because their miracles aren't real.

sschlichter

Here are the problems with this explanation:

This explanation does not account for the entire body of messianic prophecy.

It does not account for the gospels that were clearly written before AD 70 (such as Hebrews which makes an argument for the supremacy of christ over the sacrificial system - an argument made moot by a destroyed temple.)

It also does not account for the early witness to the existence of the apostles.

It refers to clear references to the risen Christ as vague in Paul's writings when they are not vague in any way such as one of the passages discussed in this thread.

Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand,
(1 Cor 15:2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you - unless you believed in vain.
(1 Cor 15:3) For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
(1 Cor 15:4) and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
(1 Cor 15:5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(1 Cor 15:6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
(1 Cor 15:7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(1 Cor 15:8) Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.
(1 Cor 15:9) For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

sschlichter

So, Ignatius and Polycarp, while quoting from the gospels and epistles were actually quoting books that were possibly written during the 2nd century by someone else, or were these also written by someone else as well?

~Steve

andrewcriddle

The fact that there is a single striking resemblance between two stories is not really evidence of borrowing. Any two long stories are likely to share some elements purely by coincidence.

Of the parallels you listed from the Jesus Mysteries some are stronger than others, but IMO none of them provides an example of probable borrowing by Christians from the myths of Dionysus and/or Osiris.

Maybe you could give in detail the evidence for one of the parallels and explain why you think Christian borrowing from the myths of Osiris and Dionysus is the most likely explanation.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

[QUOTE=sschlichter;5527696] You have a lot of problems.

The Jewish writers, Philo a contemporary of the so-called Jesus of the NT and Josephus wrote NOT one single thing about any prophecy regarding a Son of the God of the Jews who would be the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a Virgin, who would be crucified and RISE on the third day, and then ascend through the clouds during the reign of Tiberius.

And, further in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Josephus the Jew claimed that the Jews expected a Messiah or a ruler from the Jews around 70 CE and may have been part of the reason for the War.

Your explanation is flawed.

You have failed to take into account that the Gospels may have been deliberately written anonymously because the authors knew that they were writing fiction.

There are no clear indications that the Gospels were written before 70 CE. The authors of the Gospels, Acts and Hebrews did not identify themselves in their writings and idid not ndicate when they actually wrote.

You are completely mistaken by thinking that an argument for Christ supremacy over the sacrificial system can only be made before the temple was destroyed.

The very same argument can be made immediately after the Temple was destroyed or whenever re-building of the Temple is under consideration.

The NT cannot be a witness to itself.

Again, you have failed to consider that the NT may have been deliberately compiled and written to distort history in order to dupe its readers in believing a God call Jesus was on earth during the days of Tiberius.

You must rely on non-apologetic witnesses external of the NT to corroborate the events and characters therein.

But Paul's conversion itself is not really vague, it is implausible. And his revelations from an implausible entity, are NOT vague at all, but clear fiction.

Excerpts of Paul's conversion: Acts 9.9-18

sschlichter

the question is what the Old Testament says, not what Philo and Josephus were expecting. You just stated that their is no proof that the Jews were expecting a Messiah and then stated the war in AD 70 was proof that the Jews were expecting a Messiah.

They were (as you stated) and they rejected the one that came (as prophesied).


I have not failed to take into account. I have found it implausible.

This present tense argument would have been served by a destroyed temple and loss of sacrifice. Would it not?

(Heb 10:11) And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again - sacrifices that can never take away sins.
(Heb 10:12) But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God,
(Heb 10:13) where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
(Heb 10:14) For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.
(Heb 10:15) And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after saying,
(Heb 10:16) " This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts and I will inscribe them on their minds,"
(Heb 10:17) then he says, " Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no longer."
(Heb 10:18) Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

It is separate accounts from separate people. You can rely on whatever accounts you like. I do not have the disdain for apologetic sources that you have.

However, I was referring to other writings as witness of the lives of the apostles.

~Steve

ChristMyth

You have got to be kidding, sschlicter. Now I remember why I got out of this conversation.

So let me get this straight. Paul is confirmed by the apostles who is confirmed by Paul who is confirmed by the apostles....and so forth. Am I missing something here?

And the voice was not "confirmed" by the apostles because the apostles never wrote anything to confirm the voice.




Of questionable origin.

Ok, lets see exactly what Clement had to say:

The problem I have with this passage is that, much like the gospels, we have no idea who actually wrote 1 Clement nor where he is getting his information from. As stated here, whoever it was that was writing this letter was not an eye-witness to their deaths. This places it in the realm of tradition more than fact.

None of whom were apostles of Jesus.

I do not argue that people are not willing to die for something that they believe in. It has been proven throughout history that people will more than gladly face death for their beliefs, but it has also been proven that, more often than not, those beliefs are not founded in reality. Just because someone is willing to die does not make the belief true.



I looked at this website but could not find exactly where it was shown that the apostles died poor. Could you please be more specific. Thank you.

None of whom were eye-witnesses. Your going to have to do better than this.

Christmyth

aa5874

How can the Jews reject what they never expected in the first place and who they wrote nothing about.

Josephus and Philo never wrote about a God called the Son of the God of Jews, born of a Virgin, who would be crucufied, resurrected and ascend through the clouds.

Josephus made commentaries on the books of the prophets like Isaiah, and NEVER once stated that some-one called the son of God of the Jews would be coming to earth.

And according to Trypho the Jew, Isaiah 7.14 is not prophecy about the son of the god of the Jews , but was fulfilled in Hezekiah.


You have not found anything implausible, you only say it is implausible.

People writing fiction is not implausible at all. The author of Matthew wrote fiction when he wrote Jesus resurrected. Fiction writers are common in any century or any place.

The tense is irrelevant.
You cannot use the present, past or furure tense to determine the veracity of a text.

According to Hebrews, Jesus was resurrected and is sitting on the right hand of God, but whether the author used the present or past tense, this is/was just not true, or can/could not be true.


So, do you accept apologetic sources of all religions? Marcion according to Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was not the son of the God of the Jews. Do you have disdain for Marcion? He rejected the epistles to Timothy and Titus. He was an apologetic source.

Cerinthus, separately, claimed Jesus was just human, not born of a virgin, and his father was Joseph and that Christ entered Jesus when he was baptised by John the Baptist. Do you have disdain for Cerinthus, he was an apologetic source? Do you accept Cerinthus?

And there are multiple conflicting apologetic sources, do you accept all of them?

angelo

I have already given some perallels, it's up to you to show why you reject the hypothesis.
Christianity was not a new and unique revelation but a Jewish adaption of the Pagan religions that pre-date Christianity by centuries.
There's an icon in Poland I think, which depicts a black Madonna with the infant Horus in her arms, which dates to centuries before Mary and infant Jesus.
I don't have the time to Google it, but you're welcome to do so if you so feel.