I believe he is away from home at the moment. I had no problem with the way you have argued in this thread Kevin, nor anyone else except whoever the person was that went behind the scenes to have the thread moved. I'm not going to continue posting in here though (and that has nothing to do with you), or possibly the rest of the board in the future.
The same Mormons who think it is cool to argue alongside critics who attack the Bible for being full of errors or what not. Years ago I googled Bart Ehrman after he had published his first book, and half of the websites mentioning him were LDS apologetic websites. Kerry Shirts used him profusely.
The reason some Mormons like to mitigate the evidence of biblical manuscripts is that it undermines the popular LDS line of thought that suggests the "original" Bible probably included Mormon doctrines/practices. It is essentially the same exact argument Muslims use when they say the Jesus narrative was originally as it is told in the Quran.
And of course, the reason some Mormons like to argue against the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is so they can say to all other Christians, "You see, you can't prove Jesus even existed! So how do you know Jesus is true if not by the spirit? That's how we know Mormonism is true! We have the proper method for testing truth claims and you don't!"
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Based on Richard's request, as the originator of the thread, I am moving the thread back to the Celestial Forum. I have not edited anything out because there is too much content mixed in with the areas of "Terrestrial tone", and I'm afraid that the overall integrity of the thread would be lost. That was, actually, what I was trying to maintain by moving it in the first place as opposed to splitting it.
Any other moderation that needs to be handled on this thread will have to be maintained by another moderator. I'm washing my hands of it.
The reason some Mormons like to mitigate the evidence of biblical manuscripts is that it undermines the popular LDS line of thought that suggests the "original" Bible probably included Mormon doctrines/practices. It is essentially the same exact argument Muslims use when they say the Jesus narrative was originally as it is told in the Quran.
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean, dart, but I've seen tons of Mormon's argue regarding biblical manuscripts. Are you saying that Mormon's argue against the translational integrity of the Bible because it opens the door for LDS to assert that the original Bible (that we don't have) contained LDS doctrines and practices?
And with that note, I request that we move this to the outer darkness forum.
kidding.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
The same Mormons who think it is cool to argue alongside critics who attack the Bible for being full of errors or what not. Years ago I googled Bart Ehrman after he had published his first book, and half of the websites mentioning him were LDS apologetic websites. Kerry Shirts used him profusely.
The reason some Mormons like to mitigate the evidence of biblical manuscripts is that it undermines the popular LDS line of thought that suggests the "original" Bible probably included Mormon doctrines/practices. It is essentially the same exact argument Muslims use when they say the Jesus narrative was originally as it is told in the Quran.
And of course, the reason some Mormons like to argue against the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is so they can say to all other Christians, "You see, you can't prove Jesus even existed! So how do you know Jesus is true if not by the spirit? That's how we know Mormonism is true! We have the proper method for testing truth claims and you don't!"
I think you are correct that some LDS may argue in such a way. However, foe me as I have examined LDS beliefs with a critical eye it causes me to do the same for Christianity and indeed any religious claims. My view, as I have argued on this thread earlier, is that most EV critics of the LDS Church use one set of standards to beat the LDS Church with and another to look at their own faith. I strongly believe that many Christian critics of the LDS Church would abandon their own belief if the applied the same technique to it that the do when arguing against the Mormon religion.
Ultimatly conclusions about any religious belief is more a matter of faith than anything else.
Reposting this just incase it got lost in the shuffle:
In comments to JAK on another thread, I wrote this:
"I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it. "
When I think of "engaging" scripture, I think that learning about the culture it was written in is imperative to increasing our understanding of what it is that we're receiving and spouting. I claim no expertise in the cultural traditions of ancient Israel, but I am convinced that this is where Christians are seriously lacking. The information regarding attitudes and practices of orality and what oral traditions were deemed important enough to write down, supplied by Nevo, is a case in point. It is my understanding that long before the ancients had the ability to write, their stories were among their most treasured possessions. Could the stories that they carried from generation to generation have been altered by time? I think so yes. However, I do think the gaps between reports of Jesus (whether one was identifying a Messiah or not) are not so significant as to discredit the historicity of Jesus.
Did early Christians corrupt some of the work of historians with interpolations regarding Jesus to forward their Christian perspective? I suppose they could have. It's very difficult for us or genuine scholars to reach back in an attempt to draw a straight line from the time of the events in question to the Gospels and other writings. I have to go with some common sense here, for it's my only tool in this effort.
Paul
We have the Epistles attributed to Paul. Though the authorship of some of the Epistles is questionable, we do have writings that scholars attribute to Paul without much question. The New Testament in it's entirety reports leading up to two major events. The death of Paul in Rome on or around 68 AD and the Temple Destruction in 70 AD.
Neither of those events are mentioned in the New Testament.
The Gospels
In Matthew 24, the words attributed to Jesus give a prophecy of the Temple Destruction. Jesus is standing in front of the Temple and tells of it's destruction. Read it and "look" at the scene you see portrayed. Forget viewing it as a Second Coming prophecy. Look at where the figures are placed in the account. Read what Jesus is saying. In 70 AD no stone was left unturned.
Given the information regarding orality that Nevo supplied, why would anyone bother to write down the testimony of another person (The Gospels) many several years after the fact when the stories were incomplete? Where are the additional writings that tell the story of the death of Paul in Rome or the Temple Destruction?
The writings attributed to Luke, date themselves internally as is demonstrated by the work of Ramsey.
This leaves me to conclude that the Gospels and certainly the Epistles attributed to Paul were written in close proximity of the events they describe. Else, why do they remain unfinished?
Where is the rest of the story?
When I asked earlier in the thread for evidence of challenge of the New Testament stories the answer I got (and always get) is that there are none.
Yes, there are.
The extra Biblical references to Jesus that I typically see on a thread like this are those of Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Origen, Pliny the Younger and such. And the criticism is that they are too far in proximity away from the events in question.
This is why I asked marg for information regarding the Talmud. Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud, the mention was removed and remains in the Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin. Why has this not been mentioned in this thread?
Why, did the Jews see fit to include references to Jesus in the rabbinic literature? Did they believe he was the long awaited Messiah? Of course not. They tell the story of a historical figure, a heretic who was executed.
Why?
Why even mention Jesus in the Talmud if not to challenge his messianic status and forward the superiority of Judaism over this seeming insignificant heretic. One in many perhaps however, his story is told over a period of centuries. A seeming insignificant heretic whose story began early in the first century, was told by Paul (who never met the historical Jesus and yet was transformed) before he died in Rome in 68 AD, whose story was reported in the testimony of people and written down because it was a "tribal treasure" , whose story was reported in the writings of the teachers of the very religion who took exception to his heresy and whose story was told in the writings of Josephus, Seutonius, Tacitus, etc. intertwined with known historical figures such as Herod and Pilate.
If bonafide historians injected a non-historical person in the histories of people such as Herod and Pilate.
Don't you think someone would have called them on it?
dartagnan wrote:OK, anyone else want to give it a shot?
It is hard to imagine that with the internet at our disposal, nobody can provide a list of historians who reject the historicity of Jesus.
Why would an historian categorically claim that Jesus never existed? I suspect many question it based upon the lack of evidence, but why do they need to make a definitive statement? That would seem to be a bit like proving the negative.
Are there many / any historians that accept the divine, resurrected Christ based upon what history has yielded?