Calculus Crusader wrote:If you are claiming that there are more surviving written accounts of Muhammad dating to within a reasonable window then that is possible. However, that does not necessarily equate to more evidence of his "prophethood." He lived several centuries after Jesus and was quite a successful warlord. So, it would not surprise me if more documents concerning him have survived. I think I am safe in saying that there is even more documentation for Joseph Smith (due to the era in which he lived) but it certainly does not help his case!
So we have more evidence about their claims then the ones made in the Bible. You don't believe the other ones but just the Bible. This is my point. We don't have good evidence of the events happening in the Bible. Especially the supernatural ones. This is why I am asking why should anyone believe Jesus is the son of God was was resurrected. We don't have any good evidence this really happened. I can read about stories of Norse Gods, but Neither of us is going to believe these Gods really existed. So why believe the stories we read in the Bible? I don't see this as good enough reason to believe in them and that a just God would want us to believe this on stories we cannot even come close to confirming happened. Most believe because they were taught to believe. Why should a Hindu reject their stories as not true and accept the stories in the Bible?
Calculus Crusader wrote:If you are claiming that there are more surviving written accounts of Muhammad dating to within a reasonable window then that is possible. However, that does not necessarily equate to more evidence of his "prophethood." He lived several centuries after Jesus and was quite a successful warlord. So, it would not surprise me if more documents concerning him have survived. I think I am safe in saying that there is even more documentation for Joseph Smith (due to the era in which he lived) but it certainly does not help his case!
So we have more evidence about their claims then the ones made in the Bible. You don't believe the other ones but just the Bible. This is my point. We don't have good evidence of the events happening in the Bible. Especially the supernatural ones. This is why I am asking why should anyone believe Jesus is the son of God was was resurrected. We don't have any good evidence this really happened. I can read about stories of Norse Gods, but Neither of us is going to believe these Gods really existed. So why believe the stories we read in the Bible? I don't see this as good enough reason to believe in them and that a just God would want us to believe this on stories we cannot even come close to confirming happened. Most believe because they were taught to believe. Why should a Hindu reject their stories as not true and accept the stories in the Bible?
I find it interesting that every time I ask about knowing to LDS and Christians they always end of avoiding the subject.
Themis wrote: So we have more evidence about their claims then the ones made in the Bible. You don't believe the other ones but just the Bible. This is my point. We don't have good evidence of the events happening in the Bible. Especially the supernatural ones. This is why I am asking why should anyone believe Jesus is the son of God was was resurrected. We don't have any good evidence this really happened. I can read about stories of Norse Gods, but Neither of us is going to believe these Gods really existed. So why believe the stories we read in the Bible? I don't see this as good enough reason to believe in them and that a just God would want us to believe this on stories we cannot even come close to confirming happened. Most believe because they were taught to believe. Why should a Hindu reject their stories as not true and accept the stories in the Bible?
I find it interesting that every time I ask about knowing to LDS and Christians they always end of avoiding the subject.
Do not flatter yourself. Again, I dispute your claim that more extant documentation necessarily equates to better evidence as source content and credibility is quite important. Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, joined whatever new religion was fashionable at the moment, stated that he saw the plates with spiritual eyes, and according to Phineas Young had, at one time, a testimony of Shakerism greater than he ever had of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, I have reason to believe that there is at most one godlike being. I also have reason to believe there is at least one godlike being. Finally, the stories of the Norse and Hindu gods cannot be situated in a historical context and make for a poor comparison to the accounts of Jesus Christ.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
Calculus Crusader wrote: I also have reason to believe there is at least one godlike being.
Ok. I'll bite. What's your motivation to believe?
- Doc
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Calculus Crusader wrote:Do not flatter yourself. Again, I dispute your claim that more extant documentation necessarily equates to better evidence as source content and credibility is quite important. Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, joined whatever new religion was fashionable at the moment, stated that he saw the plates with spiritual eyes, and according to Phineas Young had, at one time, a testimony of Shakerism greater than he ever had of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, I have reason to believe that there is at most one godlike being. I also have reason to believe there is at least one godlike being. Finally, the stories of the Norse and Hindu gods cannot be situated in a historical context and make for a poor comparison to the accounts of Jesus Christ.
You are missing the point. You do not have good evidence from historical sources that Jesus is God or was resurrected. None of the stories are from eye witnesses and even if they were, you cannot know they are telling the truth or that they were deluded. I am not saying here Jesus is not God or was not resurrected. Only that we don't have good physical evidence for such. So other then this poor evidence, do you any other ways to know it is true, or is it just belief based on stories you like? I am sure Hindu's like and accept their stories as true, but do you know any better then they?
Calculus Crusader wrote:Do not flatter yourself. Again, I dispute your claim that more extant documentation necessarily equates to better evidence as source content and credibility is quite important. Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, joined whatever new religion was fashionable at the moment, stated that he saw the plates with spiritual eyes, and according to Phineas Young had, at one time, a testimony of Shakerism greater than he ever had of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, I have reason to believe that there is at most one godlike being. I also have reason to believe there is at least one godlike being. Finally, the stories of the Norse and Hindu gods cannot be situated in a historical context and make for a poor comparison to the accounts of Jesus Christ.
You are missing the point. You do not have good evidence from historical sources that Jesus is God or was resurrected. None of the stories are from eye witnesses and even if they were, you cannot know they are telling the truth or that they were deluded. I am not saying here Jesus is not God or was not resurrected. Only that we don't have good physical evidence for such. So other then this poor evidence, do you any other ways to know it is true, or is it just belief based on stories you like? I am sure Hindu's like and accept their stories as true, but do you know any better then they?
No, I understand your point. You think that the resurrection accounts are insufficient to establish that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected and therefore, you conclude that he was not. (I further agree with you that at least two of the gospels are not eye witness accounts, although that does not mean that they are not based on eye witness accounts.) And that is fine. I agree with what Jeffery Jay Lowderwrote in 1995:
On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I've seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.
Again, I return to what I wrote previously: you either find the accounts credible or you do not. As for the Hindu stories, I have given you an inkling of why I do not accept their stories as (literally) true.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
Calculus Crusader wrote:No, I understand your point. You think that the resurrection accounts are insufficient to establish that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected and therefore, you conclude that he was not. (I further agree with you that at least two of the gospels are not eye witness accounts, although that does not mean that they are not based on eye witness accounts.) And that is fine. I agree with what Jeffery Jay Lowderwrote in 1995:
On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I've seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.
Again, I return to what I wrote previously: you either find the accounts credible or you do not. As for the Hindu stories, I have given you an inkling of why I do not accept their stories as (literally) true.
OK, I think I get from you that you don't know these beliefs are true, but that you believe them. That is fine. I was just interested in why people believe certain things. I suspect servant is in the same boat since she only referenced the Bible as well for her beliefs. I'm used to LDS spouting how they know the church is true, and some Christian I have seen do the same. Certitude but no knowledge. I respect those who say they don't know while still having a belief or hope.
