subgenius wrote:The implication you are clumsily trying to make here is not conclusive...just because something was written by someone who was not there - etc...does not make what was written "true" or "false".
Nope, but the likelihood that it is accurate goes down.
Now, unless you have a reasonable argument that concludes with "false" then the only reasonable conclusion is "true"......unless you are naturally cynical.
Not one of the more intelligent comments. Funny that you only apply this illogical reasoning to the claims you want to believe.
Which is easier, believing that Jonah managed to survive in the belly of a whale for 3 days or that there is actually a king's name written in the Egyptian writing of Facsimile No. 3 as Joseph Smith said there was.
Check the one that is easier to believe
[ ] Jonah survived in the belly of a whale [ ] There is a king's name in Facsimile No. 3
It does seem strange that a man could survive three days in a fish. But what of another story that was written over two thousand years ago. A story that predicted the regathering of the Jews in Israel before the end times. How strange indeed that the story actually described what happened. And stranger still is another fact. In the first regathering the city of Jerusalem was not able to happen for twenty years because of robbers and such. And in 1947 the regathering did not include Jerusalem but a war in 1967 gave them Jerusalem. And stranger still is the fact that the Jews will not go on the Temple mound. This also is part of a prophecy. So is it true that these things are prophecy or man made them happen on purpose? Either way the writers in the 1800's knowing prophecy could not imagine a restoration of Israel. But it did happen. So what is stranger a fish and a man or a restoration of a nation after 2000 years after the people were scattered in the nations.
Just me; "someone who was not there"? Where did yo0u get that story from? The accounts in the four gospels were written by Jesus disciples who were witnesses of His ministry!
gdemetz wrote:Just me; "someone who was not there"? Where did yo0u get that story from? The accounts in the four gospels were written by Jesus disciples who were witnesses of His ministry!
Was Luke a disciple of Jesus? I thought he was a Syrian physician who wrote his gospel 50+ years after Jesus died.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Bond James Bond wrote:Was Luke a disciple of Jesus? I thought he was a Syrian physician who wrote his gospel 50+ years after Jesus died.
The purpose of the four gospels was to extoll the dead Jesus as the Messiah and turn him into a god. The whole thing is a crock. Further, just look at the writings of the mad man, St. John, the same who wrote the Book of Revelation. The whole book is nothing but insanity derived from a bad acid trip. Those guys sought nothing more than to raise themselves up as prophets and to do so under the grand banner of their dead Messiah. It was quite the conspiracy. The Romans dealt with it the best they could. The Jewish Christians were a very confused people. Much like Mormons today who follow the prophecies of a man who says there is a king's name in Facsimile No. 3. Madness!
You are right Bond, It is believed that in the case of the Gospel of Luke (who probably wrote the Book of Acts also), that it was written sometime around 60+AD. It is believed that he recorded the first hand accounts of some of the apostles regarding Christ's ministry.
gdemetz wrote:You are right Bond, It is believed that in the case of the Gospel of Luke (who probably wrote the Book of Acts also), that it was written sometime around 60+AD. It is believed that he recorded the first hand accounts of some of the apostles regarding Christ's ministry.
In other words he wrote about events he wasn't present for just like Just Me said.
(Please start using the quote feature. It's at the bottom of every post, just click it to respond to a post.)
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
I wonder why it is that death and time seem so important to people. What is important is truth. Truth does not change and can be written by anyone who knows what actually happened whether they were there or not. The only issue is did the revelation come from someone who has access to the truth. Here faith comes into play and the witness of the Holy Spirit. Not only does God declare truth to His servants but He gives the elect the ability to determine independently the truth of scripture. Almost like it was planned from the beginning.
Franktalk wrote: Truth does not change and can be written by anyone who knows what actually happened whether they were there or not.
If you understood some truth you would realize that no one is challenging that, only that the likelihood goes down.
The only issue is did the revelation come from someone who has access to the truth. Here faith comes into play and the witness of the Holy Spirit. Not only does God declare truth to His servants but He gives the elect the ability to determine independently the truth of scripture. Almost like it was planned from the beginning.
Yet all these groups think they have the holy spirit and are the elect and can't agree with each other.