Topic: Spl.Topic: Christian v. Mormon History (Read 1640 times)

valerie · « **on:** October 24, 2005, 08:04:49 AM »

Gosh, I can't help myself...I find it trully ironic that the arguments that the Christians are posting in defense of the authenticity of the Bible could also be applied to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Atheists say "Bible not true, no Jesus Christ"
Christians say "Bible is true, Jesus Christ does exist".

Christians say "Book of Mormon not true, Joseph Smith not a Prophet."
Mormons say " Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith a true Prophet."

The example of logic I find most intriguing was from 8d82the bone:

Quote

So on that note, why would any famous contemporary historian, such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and a former general-turned-historian, Flavius Josephus, all waste their time and damage their reputations by recording a fictitious man named Jesus...who never even existed?

Modified for Book of Mormon authenticity: If the Book of Mormon isn't true why would Joseph Smith "damage his reputation by recording a fictitious" account of Jews on the American Continent who never existed? Not to mention all of the other believers. Why risk their property and reputations? There was nothing to gain by standing by the Book of Mormon, in fact much to lose at the time.

Quote

...Remember that for the first few centuries, the early church was perpetually on the defensive, and was actually hated in many places.
Also, and I believe most d--ning , are the questions " would the Jewish and Roman authorities put real people to death for believing in someone who never existed,...and secondly, who would actually go to their death for someone they personally knew never existed? The apostles, who previously had hidden from the authorities in fear, all went to their deaths (with the exception of John who was exiled) for their bold proclamations of the gospel of Jesus, and not a single one backed down.(Paul, aka Saul, was an influential Jew and former Pharisee who spent his time seeing to it that Christ's followers met an early demise, converted after a face to face meeting with the risen Jesus and actually ended up dying for the gospel himself. Read 'Acts') Is this what people do for a fictitious person?

I think that is my favorite part!

Modified for Book of Mormon authenticity: The early Mormons were hunted and driven from several states until they finally left what was then the United States. Many were murdered for their beliefs, including Joseph and Hiram Smith who NEVER backed down "for their bold proclamations". Why would these people sacrifice their lives and everything they had for a false book and prophet? Would the citizens of the United states "put real people to death" for believing in a false book? Apparently yes, there is documentation to this fact.

I know this thead is not about Mormons but I found the similarities quite amazing. Besides, 8d8 has been giving me grief in the Mormon forum.

Ragnar · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2005, 11:20:13 AM »

Heh, that was great. Since everyone but Mormons know the BoM is false, that whole post actually lends credence to the position that Christianity itself is false.

For all you Christians, whenever you figure out why the founders of Mormonism promoted this false belief at risk to themselves, apply that same thinking to the founders of Christianity. Because it's the exact same thing.

valerie · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2005, 11:43:40 AM »

We always seem to be at some misunderstanding 8d8.

First...

Quote

Your attempts to link Mormon history to any kind of validity by drawing sweeping parallels to early Church history are quite painful to say the least.

I was not trying to "link any kind of validity". As I stated at the begining of my last post, that the logic of your argument in favor of the Bible and Jesus Christ could also be applied to The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The logic you used has and is often used in favor of the BOM and JS. I was merely pointing out what I thought to be ironic.

Second...
So, if I am understanding you, because Jesus came in "context" of fulfilling the Mosaic law he therefore exists? That seems like a strange argument. Anyway, you forget that the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They felt that indeed he was claiming their beliefs were corrupt and wrong. Ask any Jew.
Luke 4:21-24
21. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
22. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph

8d82thebone · « **Reply #3 on:** October 25, 2005, 10:35:09 AM »

Quote from: valerie

We always seem to be at some misunderstanding 8d8.

Quote

I was not trying to "link any kind of validity". As I stated at the begining of my last post, that the logic of your argument in favor of the Bible and Jesus Christ could also be applied to The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The logic you used has and is often used in favor of the BOM and JS. I was merely pointing out what I thought to be ironic.

Second...
So, if I am understanding you, because Jesus came in "context" of fulfilling the Mosaic law he therefore exists? That seems like a strange argument. Anyway, you forget that the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They felt that indeed he was claiming their beliefs were corrupt and wrong. Ask any Jew.

I apologize for not making my point very clearly... I was sort of in a rush at the time I made the post.
The point I was trying to make was that there are no similarities between Jesus life, or the early Christian church, and Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. The work of Jesus was to fulfill the Mosaic Law, not to negate it. There was a continuation of purpose which was prophesied in the OT, and being fulfilled in the New. There was no implication that this was intended to prove His existence, at least not intended.
The existence of Joseph Smith or the purpose of his writings was in no way similar. The life he lived was in no way similar. There were no prophecies fulfilled,( for there were none of him or the BoM to fulfill.) And again, you slightly twisted my words when you made the statement about JS & the Mormons risking his/their reputation to support his claims. My statement concerned contemporary secular historians risking their reputations in writing about the existence of Jesus.
So to correctly apply that to Mormonism, you would need to ask "would a contemporary historian risk his/her reputation by reporting that he actually saw any of the things the BoM claims," ie.- the supposed 'Gold Plates' with the 'revised Egyptian' language that the BoM was supposedly written in, or the 'Urim and Thummin' which JS supposedly used to translate them. By the way, has any credible historian done such? Maybe I should go to the other thread to ask, or do you know?
Next, lots of Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah! Where in the world do you think the early Church started? Right in Jerusalem, Val ... If you begin reading Luke 4 at v.14 you will see that Jesus was actually coming into Nazareth, where he grew up, which is why the men in the synagogue asked the particular question they did. Also, my particular translation has the word 'hometown', not 'country', which in the OE of the King James could possibly mean the same thing...

Zagzagel · « **Reply #4 on:** October 25, 2005, 06:22:21 PM »

Valerie. Glad that you are discovering many of the conversations on this site. Now, just because you raised something interesting with your comparative illustration...

This leads me to ask you a question. (We can then continue this on the Mormon thread if you like, since this is going off topic? Or the thread that goes into the LUCIFER idea).

Did the author of your religion (namely, Joe.Smith as recognized by "christians" and the LDS) teach something about LUCIFER? Does the BoM recognize this name, an evil spiritual entity, called - Lucifer? IF so, what does it say about this Lucifer?

valerie · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2005, 05:46:39 AM »

I think these questions are off topic here...look for replies on the, oh so relevant, Mormon forum.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2005, 09:54:06 AM »

Valerie, I think that you make a very good point. The non-Mormons here do fall back on the same argument forms that atheists use. There is one big difference, though. Atheists like to point out that there is almost no evidence for he existence or life events of Jesus Christ outside of the gospel accounts. We have a great deal of evidence about the existence and life of Joseph Smith and other historical Mormons. (Mormoni--not so much. :))

Apollos · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2005, 09:30:45 PM »

Quote from: valerie

Gosh, I can't help myself...I find it trully ironic that the arguments that the Christians are posting in defense of the authenticity of the Bible could also be applied to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

How about this one: Much of the Bible, particularly the NT, takes place in verifiable countries and cities by verifiable races of people.

The same cannot be said of the BoM. In fact there is no historical, archaeological or geographical evdience for any of the people or places in the BoM. There are supposed wars where hundreds of thousands are killed, but there is no evidence.

This speaks volumes.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2005, 11:01:05 PM »

Quote

Gosh, I can't help myself

I'm thinking that this takes practice. In time, perhaps, you may indeed be able to help yourself? I will get into this meaning later on into depth...hopefully?

(at this point, everyone jumps in to control her mind...lol)

Quote

I find it trully ironic that the arguments that the Christians are posting in defense of the authenticity of the Bible could also be applied to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Ummm...don't be too quick on the gun. We have yet not finished our conversation in the other thread. My argument, which may actually show what you have just said here, to be nothing but a faulty assumption (I rather not call it a LIE).

Having noted what I commented on so far, let us continue on with the rest of your comments, Valerie. Is there a logic to what you call a logic?

Quote

Atheists say "Bible not true, no Jesus Christ"
Christians say "Bible is true, Jesus Christ does exist".

Christians say "Book of Mormon not true, Joseph Smith not a Prophet."
Mormons say " Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith a true Prophet."

Oh my goodness. Is that YOUR logic, Val??? Let me ask you...just to keep it simple as possible. Heck, maybe I am the one who is at fault here? I wouldn't mind you showing me, then. But here is my question..

Is your argument then that because "christians' say one thing and the "athiest" contend that "christian" argument, this automatically makes you religion valid?

"Christians" make an apology for a REASON. And the "Christians" try to support that REASON. What is your or the Mormon rebuttal to THAT/THOSE specific REASONS?

Quote

Modified for Book of Mormon authenticity: If the Book of Mormon isn't true why would Joseph Smith "damage his reputation by recording a fictitious" account of Jews on the American Continent who never existed? Not to mention all of the other believers. Why risk their property and reputations? There was nothing to gain by standing by the Book of Mormon, in fact much to lose at the time.

Then show it. Give me something to work with. What is it that JS said concerning this very thing that you contend here? The era seperates the issue at hand.

Quote

Modified for Book of Mormon authenticity: The early Mormons were hunted and driven from several states until they finally left what was then the United States. Many were murdered for their beliefs, including Joseph and Hiram Smith who NEVER backed down "for their bold proclamations". Why would these people sacrifice their lives and everything they had for a false book and prophet? Would the citizens of the United states "put real people to death" for believing in a false book? Apparently yes, there is documentation to this fact.

Yes. That is a very good question. So we indeed must deeply look into the why? So..Why? There have been many who have believed a certian thing, and died for it, yet may have not been true. Think of the cult practices. Just because these "cult" practice believe what they did strongly, did this make their belief TRUE? I am sure even the Mormon church spoke against this? What cult practices did the Mormons speak against, even those who were willing to die for it? Would your argument work then?

Quote

I knw this thead is not about Mormons but I found the similarities quite amazing. Besides, 8d8 has been giving me grief in the Mormon forum.

Similarities, yes. But that is what your argument is based on, isn't it? Since "a" says this, and "b" says this, thus then "c" must be true? Your "c" determination is what I actually question...which resides on the side of non-logic...thus the answer "c" is worth questioning.[/quote]

valerie · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2005, 07:15:01 AM »

Read the previous posts guys. I was only pointing out similarities in arguments NOT drawing conclusions based on the validity of one argument to support the next argument. My only point was the argument stated by 8d8 to support the validity of the Bible and Jesus Christs existencence is similar to an argument used to support the BoM and Joseph Smith. Nothing more nothing less.

Author Topic: Spl.Topic: Christian v. Mormon History (Read 1640 times)