What is the best evidence for Christianity?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, such persistence. And all this time I thought you were belaboring me about whether or not I accepted the Bible as both Reliable and Infallible to which I replied with a resounding YES.

Where did you get that idea? I never asked any such question in this thread.

Now as to your question concerning the construction of the Book of Mormon being erected on the foundation of the Bible by Joseph Smith being similar or in some way equivalent to Christ being erected on the Foundation of the Old Testament, I must answer with a resounding NO.

I never said a word about "Christ being erected on the foundation of the Old Testament." I never said a word about any such "equivalence." Why are you changing my words? Why don't you deal with what I actually have written? This is absurd. Have you gone blind? Here again, is what I asked about:

You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.

I would be happy to discuss your other arguments after you deal with the words that you wrote.

Here again is the main reason for rejecting the use of a weak illustration to make such a comparison. To begin, as a reminder, the question in this thread is about the resurrection and what is the best evidence for the Bible. Somewhere in this debate, you must have thought it a good idea to inject Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon into the discussion thereby implying some type of equal comparison between Joseph's story and the Disciple's story. To expose the fallacy of this propped up straw man will require setting the stage to demonstrate the disparity.

There is no "straw man." You are simply doing everything in your power to evade my direct question which was based on a direct quote of the words you wrote. Why do you refuse to simply quote my question and answer it directly?

What Joseph Smith did and what Christ accomplished are not to be compared, only contrasted. So let's review a condensed version of the facts again:

We are not talking about "what Christ did." We are talking about a false distinction you made between Mormonism and Christianity. I showed you why it is false, and now you refuse to deal with it. Here it is again:

We are discussing the equivalence between Mormonism and Christianity. In post 36 you said this:

jce: "The Book of Mormon was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Bible. Because the witness and testimony of the Bible was already accepted by a broad range of believers, Smith was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance."

I explained your error by replacing Smith and the book of Mormon with Paul and his letters:

Richard: "The Gospel of Paul was not an innovative idea, but was constructed on a very popular foundation, that being the Old Testament. Because the witness and testimony of the Old Testament was already accepted by a broad range of believers [Jews], Paul was able to construct a fantasy on the Biblical foundation by taking advantage of peoples faith which was already firmly established in the Word of God. By incorporating Biblical material into his cleverly devised fable, he was able to pull it off without much resistance."

Here it is in a nutshell, in large bold font so you will know what we are talking about:

You asserted that Mormonism was different than Christianity for two reasons. 1) Because it was built upon the foundation of an already existing set of Scriptures, and 2) Because it introduced new writings. I showed the same is true of Christianity. You have you not dealt with these facts.

What do I have to do to get you to deal with the words you wrote?

Smith's Challenge:

Smith is involved in a Bible believing church and at some point in his life, he experiences a vision based on an angelic appearance to him. The messenger tells Joseph about some buried tablets with cryptic encoding which he later acquires and translates into messages of accounts based on biblical times, places and doctrines. Because it resembles Biblical teaching, it becomes accepted by many as authentic and some form of an addition to the Bible. It must have met with little resistance as it presently occupies a space in the Mormon Church and is revered, along with the Bible, by many its members.

The Disciples Challenge:

The apprehension of Christ and the scattering of the disciples spelled the end of Christ's ascension to Messiahship. If Jesus was on His way to Kingship, that dream was now over. No Jew would be willing to accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah after being declared a blasphemer by the high priest and rejected by the Sanhedrin, not to mention being stripped naked by Roman soldiers and publicly beaten and crucified for all to see. Christ became an insult to every Jew in the land. The pummeled Christ was then presented to the crowd as their king. The crowd's reply was; Crucify Him, crucify Him. If there were any believers in Christ's Kingship remaining, they were now in hiding. The popularity of Christ had effectively been erased from Jerusalem and if you were a vocal supporter of His, you would likely be rounded up and imprisoned. Jesus had quickly descended to become the disgraceful "King of the Jews" and was no longer anyone's hero.

The main question that deserves an answer is this, how does one account for the sudden turnaround in Jesus popularity and the subsequent conversion of so many Jews after the culmination of these disparaging events? Was it a cleverly devised fabrication of the disciples? If not, then what? Why would anyone suddenly put everything at risk and start preaching Christ as the Messiah, the Fulfillment of the OT Prophesies. Jesus was dead. Everybody knew it. There is only one logical answer to that very important question... RESURRECTION! Jesus was alive and well. He presented Himself to over 500 witnesses and met and interacted with the disciples after they knew He was dead. But now, He's alive and speaking with them.

How do you know there was a "sudden" turn around? You don't. You are merely asserting that the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. That makes a wonderful little circle, but it's not something I would put forth as a serious argument. If you applied the same standards to Mormonism you would see your error in a heartbeat.

I would be happy to deal with these additional arguments after you answer the question I've been asking over and over again.

Please answer my question. This is getting ridiculous (in the extreme!),

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You say “they were written by believers and “they could have accepted and reported unconfirmed hearsay and could have made up stories that never happened.” The problem with what you say here is that many scholars agree that much of the NT were written by the original apostles themselves who were with Jesus throughout his ministry and were witnesses to his resurrection and ascension. Most scholars agree that Paul wrote 13 epistles, John 3 and Peter 2, a total of 18 epistles. Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John. So it can be seen that most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ, which is considered to be a first-hand historical testimony of the ministry, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Henry,

Where are you getting your information? Your statements are filled with errors. Most scholars accept only 7 of the epistles attributed to Paul as genuine. Only the most conservative would insist he wrote all 13 (or 14 if you count Hebrews). The wiki provides a good overview of the facts:

Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)^[3] considered genuine by most scholars (see main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles: section The undisputed epistles):

• First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
• Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
• Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
• First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
• Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
• Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
• Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:^[4]

• Pastoral epistles
  
  • First Timothy
  • Second Timothy
  • Titus
  
  

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:^[4]

• Ephesians
• Colossians
• Second Thessalonians

An anonymous text that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul^{[citation needed]} is:

• Hebrews

And your assertion that Peter wrote two epistles is rejected by almost all modern scholars. Most scholars consider 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical.

And your assertion that "Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John" has no foundation in fact. Very few if any scholars believe that. Where did you get this information? It's all wrong. Completely wrong.

Finally, your assertion that "most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ" is false.

And I have dealt and approached the Bible in my studies through the years in an objective fair and unbalanced way. For I was not brought up in any traditional way thus was not subject to presuppositions when I began studying the Bible and all the pro and cons written on the Bible by skeptics and Christians in all areas of scripture.

I think you meant "objectively fair and balanced way." Where's Freud when you need him?

Being self-educated does not mean you are fair and balanced. Given the erroneous "facts" you have reported, it is clear that you have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.

My point is we have thousands of biblical manuscripts that are consistent to the Old and New Testament historical writings and events. But where is the written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families debunking the Biblical testimony about the man named Jesus who had supposedly lived, performed miracles, died, and resurrected in their home town if the gospels and the epistles are a lie?

Your comment makes no sense. The "thousands of biblical manuscripts" have nothing to do with the fact that we don't have other literature from that period. The Bible was preserved because it was important to people. We don't have any extra-biblical letters saying anything about Jesus from the first century, so your point fails. I already explained this. We have no "written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families" concerning anything. We don't even have any written evidence from those people that they had ever heard of Jesus at all. You would think if the Bible were true and Jesus did all those miracles and raised people from the dead that everyone would be writing to everyone about it. But no, we find nothing. So if this proves anything, it would be that Jesus didn't even exist.

Also, your presumption that the Bible is true is not a proper foundation for proving the Bible is true.

But as I noted above, those “believers” were there, they were the apostles themselves who gave that written first-hand testimony to the churches. As can be seen, evidence has been given in several of my posts so I'm not pretending by giving just empty arguments, my arguments are being given based on a strong foundation; evidence, logic and facts.

I'm really glad that you are trying to answer with "logic and facts" but unfortunately both the facts and the logic of your post were very confused and inaccurate.

But hey - we've all got a lot to learn! And I am glad you are here to work with us on these issues.

All the very best,

Richard

[weeder]

Richard,

Where you see difference, I see similarity.

weeder: One builds on a foundation already established,( see lk 24) while the other introduces another set of writings.
Richard: Both (Paul / Joe) build on a foundation already established,(OT / Bible) and both introduces another set of writings (Paul's letters / book of Mormon).

Would you believe that there is a big difference in the similarities?

anyone can claim that they base a new revelation on the scriptures ...1800 years after the 1st century apostolic revelation.. ( NT).

Paul, by his own words states nothing but what OT scriptures said . Sure he wrote letters to Gentile people, but he always was sure to point people to an already established cannon....(Gods unique way of revealing himself through a particular people.)
He pointed to Jesus ministry as the foundation of the new cov , and used the OT to make his case.....just as Peter did on the day the church was born on pentecost..acts 2.

YOUNG joe, (15 years of age), introduces something extra, something that doesnt ring any bells for me , except an alarm bell lol....

One of Jesus last discourses states that he has told us everything in advance before he once again will reveal himself in a second coming, yet we see joe adding another witness ...as if we needed something else in these latter times.
Paul on the other hand refers to the Lords own word when discussing eschatalogical matters...see 1 thess 4...and Peter looks to the Lords own promise doing likewise.
Both clarify an already established revelation given by Jesus and the OT prophets, nothing more.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Would you believe that there is a big difference in the similarities?

Hey there weeder,

Yes, I would say there are many significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity and I will discuss them with you, but first it would be good for you to acknowledge that my point stands, or to find a way to refute it. My argument is very simple. I had asserted that people who make up new religions are free to make up whatever they want. I used the relatively recent example of Mormonism to prove this point. Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway. The same could have happened with Christianity. This refutes the argument - which has been repeated by countless apologists - that Christians could not have gone around making up stuff like the empty tomb if it didn't really happen. Do you agree that I have refuted that argument?

Now on to your points:

anyone can claim that they base a new revelation on the scriptures ...1800 years after the 1st century apostolic revelation.. ( NT).

That's my point exactly. Paul was just as free as Joe Smith to make up whatever he wanted. We have a lot of information about the opposition that Smith received, yet he still was able to sell his new religion. The only information about the opposition the early Christians received is from believers. It is biased, therefore, by definition. We have no newspapers from the first century like we do from Smith's time. So it is absurd to argue that the Christians were constrained in any way at all about the claims they could make. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that assertion. Do you agree with this point?

Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.

Paul, by his own words states nothing but what OT scriptures said . Sure he wrote letters to Gentile people, but he always was sure to point people to an already established cannon....(Gods unique way of revealing himself through a particular people.)
He pointed to Jesus ministry as the foundation of the new cov , and used the OT to make his case.....just as Peter did on the day the church was born on pentecost..acts 2.

I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity. You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.

YOUNG joe, (15 years of age), introduces something extra, something that doesnt ring any bells for me , except an alarm bell lol....

The fact that it doesn't ring any bells for you is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Would it be true if it did? Are the bells in your head the universal standard of truth?

One of Jesus last discourses states that he has told us everything in advance before he once again will reveal himself in a second coming, yet we see joe adding another witness ...as if we needed something else in these latter times.
Paul on the other hand refers to the Lords own word when discussing eschatalogical matters...see 1 thess 4...and Peter looks to the Lords own promise doing likewise.
Both clarify an already established revelation given by Jesus and the OT prophets, nothing more.

Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

[weeder]

Hey there weeder,

Yes, I would say there are many significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity and I will discuss them with you, but first it would be good for you to acknowledge that my point stands, or to find a way to refute it. My argument is very simple. I had asserted that people who make up new religions are free to make up whatever they want. I used the relatively recent example of Mormonism to prove this point. Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway. The same could have happened with Christianity. This refutes the argument - which has been repeated by countless apologists - that Christians could not have gone around making up stuff like the empty tomb if it didn't really happen. Do you agree that I have refuted that argument?

Now on to your points:


That's my point exactly. Paul was just as free as Joe Smith to make up whatever he wanted. We have a lot of information about the opposition that Smith received, yet he still was able to sell his new religion. The only information about the opposition the early Christians received is from believers. It is biased, therefore, by definition. We have no newspapers from the first century like we do from Smith's time. So it is absurd to argue that the Christians were constrained in any way at all about the claims they could make. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that assertion. Do you agree with this point?

Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.


I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity. You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.


The fact that it doesn't ring any bells for you is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Would it be true if it did? Are the bells in your head the universal standard of truth?


Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

Thanks Richard. Ill copy this post to wordpad and answer soon. I like to take my time and think before i open my mouth...believe it or not

[weeder]

yo Richard...

Yes, I would say there are many significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity and I will discuss them with you, but first it would be good for you to acknowledge that my point stands, or to find a way to refute it. My argument is very simple. I had asserted that people who make up new religions are free to make up whatever they want. I used the relatively recent example of Mormonism to prove this point. Joe Smith made up a bunch of crap that could easily be refuted, but his novel religion flourished anyway. The same could have happened with Christianity. This refutes the argument - which has been repeated by countless apologists - that Christians could not have gone around making up stuff like the empty tomb if it didn't really happen. Do you agree that I have refuted that argument?

Relieved to see that you see many significant differences

Yes, ..............could be crap and made up, but i find it not so easy to refute Paul or Peter as easily than i do joe.

That's my point exactly. Paul was just as free as Joe Smith to make up whatever he wanted. We have a lot of information about the opposition that Smith received, yet he still was able to sell his new religion. The only information about the opposition the early Christians received is from believers. It is biased, therefore, by definition. We have no newspapers from the first century like we do from Smith's time. So it is absurd to argue that the Christians were constrained in any way at all about the claims they could make. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that assertion. Do you agree with this point?

Yes ,they could have said anything, but personally i have decided to accept them as being genuine ministers of Gods will in my personel quest for the truth.....i hate lies and have no interest in them..God help me.

Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.

I have given it some thought and find the assertion logical. Paul and co died in the 1st century and therefore had written all letters.

I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity.

What evidence could Paul produce? What he did present to them was a reversal of his former motives toward the teaching of Jesus. Now he was the one rounded up and presented before the courts on charges that he formerly bought against other Christians....intriguing huh.

You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.

I understand that all too well. The disciples themselves were Jews and struggled with what Jesus was saying to them...religion lost and the truth prevailed with those Jews. Converting a religious Jew was no easy task.

Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?

The truth is out ther dude. Paul added to the witness already established by the eyewitnesses. Cant proove anything, but i can share what i have decided to have faith in.
Why i have to decided to take this leap is difficult to explain, but it has nothing to do with how i was bought up, or my culture...or the church that i attend, as i dont attend any church... its a bloody mystery mate.

No bibles in the parents house, no church on sunday, no reference to God of any kind in my upbringing, yet as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

[jce]

... as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts.

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

"Forbid not the children to come unto me, for of such, the Kingdom of God consists".

"The wise in their own eyes, He hath sent empty away".

We share the same Marvelous Grace of God Mr. Weeder.

John

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

Where are you getting your information? Your statements are filled with errors. Most scholars accept only 7 of the epistles attributed to Paul as genuine. Only the most conservative would insist he wrote all 13 (or 14 if you count Hebrews). The wiki provides a good overview of the facts:

And your assertion that Peter wrote two epistles is rejected by almost all modern scholars. Most scholars consider 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical.

And your assertion that "Most scholars also agree that that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the gospel of Matthew and John" has no foundation in fact. Very few if any scholars believe that. Where did you get this information? It's all wrong. Completely wrong.

Finally, your assertion that "most scholars agree that the majority of the New Testament was written by the original apostles of Christ" is false.

I'm not going to argue about who's source is more legitimate, for we know that even sources differ on some biblical difficulties such as this, and sources can be bias. The main point I was making is that we have enough evidence in the epistles (internal evidence) to confirm that the testimony given in the epistles and gospels came for the most part, first-hand by some of the apostles, even though some epistles/gospels were written by another hand and attributed to the apostles. It doesn't change the fact that the testimony therein came first-hand from the apostles themselves. The internal evidence shows that all the epistles and gospels verify and witness to each other as they do also with OT scriptures given in their testimony.

Being self-educated does not mean you are fair and balanced. Given the erroneous "facts" you have reported, it is clear that you have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.

Oh, so because I gave “one source” you see as “reporting erroneous facts,” of the hundreds I've given in the past on this forum you conclude (judge) that I “have not been reading any scholarly literature about the Bible.” And you say you only use fair and logical facts before drawing a conclusion?

Your comment makes no sense. The "thousands of biblical manuscripts" have nothing to do with the fact that we don't have other literature from that period. The Bible was preserved because it was important to people. We don't have any extra-biblical letters saying anything about Jesus from the first century, so your point fails. I already explained this. We have no "written evidence (letters) of the Sanhedrin, the priests, the elders, etc. of Jerusalem to their friends and families" concerning anything. We don't even have any written evidence from those people that they had ever heard of Jesus at all. You would think if the Bible were true and Jesus did all those miracles and raised people from the dead that everyone would be writing to everyone about it. But no, we find nothing. So if this proves anything, it would be that Jesus didn't even exist.

Also, your presumption that the Bible is true is not a proper foundation for proving the Bible is true.

There are two sides to a coin. What you say is conjecture, of why we have no writings from Christ's enemies. We on the other hand have the first-hand evidence in the gospels that state why there is no writings from the leaders of Jerusalem, because the testimony of the apostles could not be falsified in any way, shape or fashion from Pentecost on.


Concerning Christ and the validity of the NT/OT scriptures:

Concerning the scriptures.

Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell.

Concerning Christ.

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

I'm really glad that you are trying to answer with "logic and facts" but unfortunately both the facts and the logic of your post were very confused and inaccurate.

But hey - we've all got a lot to learn! And I am glad you are here to work with us on these issues.

All the very best,

Richard

Really, “my whole post?”

All the best to you also Richard,

God bless---Twospirits

[Rose]

No bibles in the parents house, no church on sunday, no reference to God of any kind in my upbringing, yet as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

Hi Weeder,

I too was raised in a non-christian household, but from the time I was very young (under 6) I had a deep inner sense that there was a god who took care of everything. I knew nothing of what the biblegod was supposed to be like, so consequently I created my own concept of what I thought god was like. Latter on when I became a Christian I mapped my own idea of god onto the biblegod, until finally I used my reasoning to figure out that the biblegod is no more than a construct of mans imagination...now I am back to where I started from.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

yo Richard...

Relieved to see that you see many significant differences

Yes, ..............could be crap and made up, but i find it not so easy to refute Paul or Peter as easily than i do joe.

Thanks for acknowledging my point!



Failure to acknowledge truth is very destructive to conversations like ours. We end up repeating ourselves and folks get frustrated fast and the whole conversation just ends in the ditch. So thanks again! You are providing a stellar example for everyone. I trust everyone will hold my feet to the same fire.

I too "find it not so easy to refute Paul or Peter as easily than i do joe." In spades! Joe falls under the weight of his own absurdity. Peter and Paul are of an entirely different class. Or maybe you and I just have a bias towards them? Would a Mormon agree with our assessment? Probably not. This shows the danger of self-delusion. Just imagine you were raised a devout Mormon. How would you escape that false religion if you began with the presupposition that it was true?

Yes ,they could have said anything, but personally i have decided to accept them as being genuine ministers of Gods will in my personel quest for the truth.....i hate lies and have no interest in them..God help me.

Again, thanks for admitting that point. I too hate lies, with a passion!

But I am curious why you would "decide to accept them as being genuine ministers of God." What went into making that decision? Was it purely emotional? When did it happen? Were you raised with a predisposition towards Christianity? [Edit - I see you answered this below.]

Now as for your assertion that Christianity is the result of the "1st century apostolic revelation" - that is the point to be established through logic and facts. It is fallacious to simply assume and assert it in your argument.

I have given it some thought and find the assertion logical. Paul and co died in the 1st century and therefore had written all letters.

Yes, the fact that the letters were written in the first century is eminently logical and supported by much evidence. But I was referring to your assertion that it was a "revelation." It is not logical to assume that because there is no direct evidence to support it. That was my point.

I don't understand your point. Paul claimed to receive the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ "by revelation" (Gal 1:12). Joe Smith claimed the same thing. Neither Paul nor Smith could substantiate their claims with any evidence. They both claimed to be teaching the truth that they received directly from the God who had inspired the Scriptures of their respective religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity). The similarities are very strong. The only reason you have trouble seeing this is because you have a bias towards Christianity.

What evidence could Paul produce? What he did present to them was a reversal of his former motives toward the teaching of Jesus. Now he was the one rounded up and presented before the courts on charges that he formerly bought against other Christians....intriguing huh.

My point exactly (red). There was no more evidence for Paul's assertions than for Joe's or Muhammad's.

Paul, by his own words states nothing but what OT scriptures said . Sure he wrote letters to Gentile people, but he always was sure to point people to an already established cannon....(Gods unique way of revealing himself through a particular people.)
He pointed to Jesus ministry as the foundation of the new cov , and used the OT to make his case.....just as Peter did on the day the church was born on pentecost..acts 2.

You need to use your empathetic imagination just long enough to see and understand that Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Think of how a Jew views Christianity and you will understand.

I understand that all too well. The disciples themselves were Jews and struggled with what Jesus was saying to them...religion lost and the truth prevailed with those Jews. Converting a religious Jew was no easy task.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about how hard it is to convince someone their religion is wrong. That should be pretty obvious to anyone who has ever tried. My point was that the Jews see Christianity the way Christians see Judaism. Jews see Paul the way Christians see Joseph Smith. I was answering your point about how Paul "states nothing but what OT scriptures said." That's not true at all. Paul wrote a lot of new Scriptures, just like Joseph Smith. The fact that he built his religion on the OT is no more significant than the fact that Smith built his religion on the Bible.

Your comment is confused. Paul added "another witness" - his own writings - just like Joe.

You constantly assume the truth of what you are trying to prove. That is one of the most elementary of all logical fallacies. It is what keeps people trapped in falsehood. Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all assume the truth of their doctrines and then think that they have thereby proven their doctrines. You know this is an error. Why do you do it?

The truth is out ther dude. Paul added to the witness already established by the eyewitnesses. Cant proove anything, but i can share what i have decided to have faith in.
Why i have to decided to take this leap is difficult to explain, but it has nothing to do with how i was bought up, or my culture...or the church that i attend, as i dont attend any church... its a bloody mystery mate.

OK - I understand you believe by faith. It's good for you understand this. And that doesn't mean there aren't facts supporting your belief, but it does mean that the facts are insufficient to prove your belief is correct.

You sound a lot like me. My conversion was quite mysterious too. I felt like a pot of dirt out of which a plant (faith) sprung up. It felt more like a discovery who I was than a choice I made. Indeed, I didn't really "choose" at all. I just felt the sun rise in my heart and I believed.

No bibles in the parents house, no church on sunday, no reference to God of any kind in my upbringing, yet as a 6 year old walking to school one day,around the time after of the moon landing, the concept of God filled my thoughts

"He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying" ..is the best way i can explain what has happened to a sinning bastard like me......

I'd love to hear more of that story! Six years old? We do have a lot in common. I was very interested in the "things of God" from an early age too.

Great chatting my friend! I really appreciate your comments.

Richard