E
Erich
Guest
There is archaeological evidence for Pontius Pilate, who of course dates from Christ’s time.
From Problems with the Book of Mormon,
What I don’t see is any proof from any time that validates Smith’s story.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
From Problems with the Book of Mormon,
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i have looked at the website. i’ve also studied history extensively.I suggest that you look at the Jeff Lindsay website. Plus, I am not sure that Josephus put such a thing in his book. I know that the crucifixtion is implied but proofs that christ is the christ are not to my knowledge. Such conclusive proof would destroy the basic nature of faith.
Josephus did put such things in his writings (he didn’t validate miracles, he simply reported that eye-witnesses say they saw Jesus and His apostles perform miracles… true historians don’t make judgements on events… they do attempt to interpret them).
i would disagree that conclusive proof “destroys” the basic nature of faith. it still takes faith because nothing can conclusively be proven, but we are not called to a “blind faith”.
J
JRKH
Guest
I’ve heard this argument many times but it fails to take into account that the Bible is actually a collection of independently written accounts. In actuality we have four independently compiled testiments of Jesus’ existance and miracles in the Bible. In addition there are at least two testiments not included in the Bible that support Jesus existance.Lets look at it this way: The bible’s geography does have claim in the bible. However, there is no proof that christ is the christ outside the bible. I see no other proof from that time that validates Christ’s story. The archeaological evidence does not validate the bible story. It only situates the story correctly…
To find conclusive evidence of the book of mormon would validate the entire notion that there is a god. I don’t believe that god works in such a fashion. God works through faith and not proof. Likwise, since we have no testimony outside the bible that christ did perform the miracles or that such stories actually happened, it also takes faith that the bible is actual history.
God Bless
James
W
why_me
Guest
It has nothing to do with Jesus’ existence. He existed. But whether or not he was the son of god or whether or not he was god in the flesh has not been proven. The christian experience depends on faith and not fact. If we had facts that were proven that he was divine, we would not need faith. And the world would not be in the shape it is now, filled with unbelief.I’ve heard this argument many times but it fails to take into account that the Bible is actually a collection of independently written accounts. In actuality we have four independently compiled testiments of Jesus’ existance and miracles in the Bible. In addition there are at least two testiments not included in the Bible that support Jesus existance.
God Bless
James
W
why_me
Guest
The gospels prove nothing. However, through faith that they are accurate we believe in Christ and his divinity. They were written long after the event. The bible is based on faith that jesus is the christ, the messiah. Not on fact since stories prove nothing.I’ve heard this argument many times but it fails to take into account that the Bible is actually a collection of independently written accounts. In actuality we have four independently compiled testiments of Jesus’ existance and miracles in the Bible. In addition there are at least two testiments not included in the Bible that support Jesus existance.
God Bless
James
W
why_me
Guest
Joseph Smith was an interesting guy. The biography Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman is a must read to see Smith’s life in perspective. It can be purchased in paperback in many bookshops. It is published by Knopf.There is archaeological evidence for Pontius Pilate, who of course dates from Christ’s time.
From Problems with the Book of Mormon,
What I don’t see is any proof from any time that validates Smith’s story.
There is much more to his life than what can be read on the internet.
W
why_me
Guest
This long quotation only proves my point. We believe based on our faith that the bible is a true record of Christ’s divinity. The whole idea that we believe because the catholic church tells us so, does not prove the bible true. It only proves that the bible’s geography is correct. Everything is based on faith.
W
why_me
Guest
The bible is history but whether or not christ is the christ has not been proven. It cannot be proven. If we knew absolutely that christ is divine, we would not need faith. We would know the truth based on fact and choose accordingly.You are so wrong, it’s not even funny. Read Dr. Werner Keller’s ‘The Bible as History’.
The so-called witnesses never saw the plates, except one who claimed he saw it in his mind. They were permitted to hold the ‘plates’ while they were covered in cloth. The ‘witnesses’ weren’t witnesses, just willing dupes of a monstrous fraud.
The witnesses saw the plates. Please don’t give me ‘spiritual eyes’ interpretations. I have heard it all before. Some witnesses were asked over and over again about their experience and they described it in various of ways. But none ever denied the book of mormon and their experience. And that says a lot. The witnesses gained nothing from the lds church or from JS. Many fell away but still remained faithful to the book. They could have made a windfall by denying it but they didnt deny it.
This is just one of the enigmas of the book of mormon.
D
dosdog
Guest
1.Christ was born in Bethlehem.This long quotation only proves my point. We believe based on our faith that the bible is a true record of Christ’s divinity. The whole idea that we believe because the catholic church tells us so, does not prove the bible true. It only proves that the bible’s geography is correct. Everything is based on faith.
2. Zion is not in Missouri
3. There never was or will ever be any gold plates dug up in NY unless you put them there
It can be purchased in paperback in many bookshops. It is published by Knopf. (mien kempf)
B
BartBurk
Guest
At least there is abundant proof the gospels were ancient texts that came out of a Christian community which really existed. There is absolutely no proof for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. None. Zip. Nada. The Book of Mormon conflicts with what archaeolgists have to say about what life was really like in ancient America. The Bible doesn’t. Sure it takes faith to believe that Jesus is God and believe in his resurrection, but it is faith based on the word of people who we know actually lived. The Book of Mormon simply does not have that at all. There is absolutely no evidence that Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc. were real people. The attempt to bolster the Book of Mormon by denigrating the Bible is an old Mormon tactic that doesn’t fly.The gospels prove nothing. However, through faith that they are accurate we believe in Christ and his divinity. They were written long after the event. The bible is based on faith that jesus is the christ, the messiah. Not on fact since stories prove nothing.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
whyme,It has nothing to do with Jesus’ existence. He existed. But whether or not he was the son of god or whether or not he was god in the flesh has not been proven. The christian experience depends on faith and not fact. If we had facts that were proven that he was divine, we would not need faith. And the world would not be in the shape it is now, filled with unbelief.
You are conflating two different issues here. You are mixing up historicity with religious truth.
It is true that we cannot prove that Jesus is God. But we can prove that the people, languages, cultures, monetary systems, wars, governments, cities, and nations described in the bible really existed.
This proves that the bible is a truly ancient document that records actual history. The only debatable issue is whether that history carries the eternal spiritual implications that we believe it does.
By contrast, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that the people, languages, cultures, monetary systems, wars, governments, cities, and nations described in the Book of Mormon ever existed.
This tells us that the Book of Mormon is NOT an ancient document, but is rather a 19th century work of fiction. Therefore, nothing it has to say about Jesus or religion makes any difference.
God bless you,
Paul
A
adrift
Guest
You are right about faith that Jesus is the Christ and that He preformed miracles. But it is not faith to say that He existed. That He was crucified. That the Jews existed. The bible has many verifiable facts along with faith filled elements. So it does not take faith to recognize the history in it. However, when it comes to the Book of Mormon none of the events that are in it can be verified. Even your so called witnesses can only say they saw a bag and took Smith’s word that it held the plates. The plates themselves cannot be produced. Unlike the bible, the book of Mormon has no verifiable history events.Lets look at it this way: The bible’s geography does have claim in the bible. However, there is no proof that christ is the christ outside the bible. I see no other proof from that time that validates Christ’s story. The archeaological evidence does not validate the bible story. It only situates the story correctly.
The book of mormon however does have 11 witnesses who never denied their testimony of seeing the gold plates regardless if they left the lds church or stayed.
To find conclusive evidence of the book of mormon would validate the entire notion that there is a god. I don’t believe that god works in such a fashion. God works through faith and not proof. Likwise, since we have no testimony outside the bible that christ did perform the miracles or that such stories actually happened, it also takes faith that the bible is actual history.
W
why_me
Guest
Let me put it this way: If the book of mormon can be proven true, for example, a coin is discovered with the word Nephi on it or Mormon on it, would you believe in the lds church? I think so. It would confirm the book true. Many exmos would return to the fold and the world would be topsy turvy for awhile. And many would believe in christ not because of faith but because of fact. And this would not be god’s plan.You are right about faith that Jesus is the Christ and that He preformed miracles. But it is not faith to say that He existed. That He was crucified. That the Jews existed. The bible has many verifiable facts along with faith filled elements. So it does not take faith to recognize the history in it. However, when it comes to the Book of Mormon none of the events that are in it can be verified. Even your so called witnesses can only say they saw a bag and took Smith’s word that it held the plates. The plates themselves cannot be produced. Unlike the bible, the book of Mormon has no verifiable history events.
What will happen I think is that certain facts will come to light but these facts can also be interpreted as conjecture. It will always depend on faith. Such is how god works.
The bible has a story but its divinity is based on faith. No signed witnesses to testify to its truthfulness and yet, geographically confirmed. The book of mormon has a story taken from gold plates seen by 11 witnesses but it is based on faith also. No proof that it is absolutely true.
E
Erich
Guest
You misread the quote, then…This long quotation only proves my point. We believe based on our faith that the bible is a true record of Christ’s divinity. The whole idea that we believe because the catholic church tells us so, does not prove the bible true.
The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. …
The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. His claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do. …
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name. …
Only after establishing the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history, and concluding that an infallible Church was founded, are we able to take the word of that infallible Church on matters of faith.
J
Jerusha
Guest
There is plenty of evidence that other civilizations visited the Americas in the 500 years before Columbus. And there is evidence that one of those contacts contributed to the story of the Book of Mormon.
solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm
But it is not as Mormons believe. There is even evidence that the Jewish cultural characteristics among Indians, noted by early settlers, was not Jewish, but Muslim.
doddog:
solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm
But it is not as Mormons believe. There is even evidence that the Jewish cultural characteristics among Indians, noted by early settlers, was not Jewish, but Muslim.
doddog:
That is so true. And it is exactly why I spent so much time on that research project. :hypno:Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
B
BartBurk
Guest
I don’t think we have to worry about discovering anything Nephite or Lamanite in the New World. I don’t think God is playing a game with us where he hides evidence just so we have to exercise faith. He did leave us witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus – it’s not purely a matter of faith without reason. And God made certain promises about the existence of his church which have come to pass if you look at the growth of the Catholic Church. Does that mean we are supposed to accept everything some shyster tells us because God demands faith? Are we supposed to deny the kingdom God has clearly established and rush after every false prophet that presents a new book? Am I to accept Muhammad and Joseph Smith just because they make claims which require more faith and because we can’t really prove what they claim didn’t happen? Everyone that has an angel appear to them with some new revelation is supposed to be accepted even when there is no real proof of their experience? Just pray about it and get a good feeling and abandon the church Jesus established 2000 years ago based on that? Please …Let me put it this way: If the book of mormon can be proven true, for example, a coin is discovered with the word Nephi on it or Mormon on it, would you believe in the lds church? I think so. It would confirm the book true. Many exmos would return to the fold and the world would be topsy turvy for awhile. And many would believe in christ not because of faith but because of fact. And this would not be god’s plan.
What will happen I think is that certain facts will come to light but these facts can also be interpreted as conjecture. It will always depend on faith. Such is how god works.
The bible has a story but its divinity is based on faith. No signed witnesses to testify to its truthfulness and yet, geographically confirmed. The book of mormon has a story taken from gold plates seen by 11 witnesses but it is based on faith also. No proof that it is absolutely true.
J
JRKH
Guest
Why me,The gospels prove nothing. However, through faith that they are accurate we believe in Christ and his divinity. They were written long after the event. The bible is based on faith that jesus is the christ, the messiah. Not on fact since stories prove nothing.
In your earlier post you alluded to the Bible being the only proof of Jesus being Christ or etc. My only intended point is that the Bible is a collection fo books. There fore there are at least 4 testiments to Jesus being Christ and because they do they are collected into the Bible. I meant no disrespect but only to demonstrate that when people refer to the Bible it is well to remember that it is a collection and not a single work.
Blessings
James
J
Jerusha
Guest
And the Book of Mormon is also a collection of works of others, all written (except excerpts from the Bible and possibly one other) in the early 1800’s.
E
ERose
Guest
Yeah, but most of that was already known to the general public at the time the Book of Morman was written by Mr. Smith.There is actually a lot of evidence for the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon says there were people in the Americas before the time of Christ. We are now absolutely sure there were people in the Americas before the time of Christ. The Book of Mormon talks of big temples and other buildings. We now know there were temples and other buildings in the Americas anciently. The Book of Mormon says that earthquakes occurred in the Americas in Book of Mormon times. There is archaeological evidence for that. I’m only scratching the surface, but it seems like that should be enough to begin with.
W
why_me
Guest
Here is an interesting discussion about what one critic of the lds church found to be compelling evidences for the book of mormon. Again he is not mormon. But an interesting discussion took place on the mormonapologetic board.
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=28359
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=28359
- Status
- Not open for further replies.