Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
rstrats

Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1-2.

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?
Derek

Re: Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1-2.

rstrats wrote:
Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?


My first response would be to ask why you expect two account from two different people to be the same when neither of them were there and relied on what Mary said. Chinese Whispers come to mind.
rstrats

I should have addressed the OP to those who say that there are no contradictions in scripture.
Truster

Re: Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1-2.

rstrats wrote:
Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?


Why should it need to be reconciled? Many men have tried in many ways to ''harmonise'' the evangels/gospels when the is no need for such harmony.
rstrats

Re: Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1-2.

Truster,

re:  "Why should it need to be reconciled?"

Well, if you're someone who insists that there are no contradictions in scripture, I would think that it would behoove you explain why it isn't one.
Truster

Re: Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1-2.

rstrats wrote:
Truster,

re:  "Why should it need to be reconciled?"

Well, if you're someone who insists that there are no contradictions in scripture, I would think that it would behoove you explain why it isn't one.


What do the terms of my Fathers will have to do with you?
Leonard James

I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


Really Lennie?

Despite the fact that the Gospels are quite explicit that the disciples didn't really understand Jesus' teachings about the resurrection until after it happened?

Don't you claim that you were once a Christian?

Did you ever actually read the Bible back then?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Don't you claim that you were once a Christian?

Did you ever actually read the Bible back then?

Plenty don't.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


Really Lennie?

Despite the fact that the Gospels are quite explicit that the disciples didn't really understand Jesus' teachings about the resurrection until after it happened?

Don't you claim that you were once a Christian?

Did you ever actually read the Bible back then?


People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.

Try Matthew 20 17:19

What's to not undertand? Were they fools then?
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Try Matthew 20 17:19


Why don't you try Luke 24 v11 or John 20 v9?

Didn't you read those Gospels back when you were (allegedly) a Christian Lennie?

The Gospels are explicit that, for whatever reason, the disciples did not understand Jesus' teachings regarding the resurrection until the event.
Lexilogio

Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


I can see your point, but, they were scared. And no matter how much they had been told - there must have been that sense that when they saw Jesus die, that was it, it was all over.

In many ways, I think the story of Doubting Thomas was the illustration of all. They didn't fully believe it, until that moment when they saw Jesus.
Derek

Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


I can see your point, but, they were scared. And no matter how much they had been told - there must have been that sense that when they saw Jesus die, that was it, it was all over.

In many ways, I think the story of Doubting Thomas was the illustration of all. They didn't fully believe it, until that moment when they saw Jesus.


I often think of what happened in that tomb, so very long ago, when my Saviour went from mortality to spirit to immortality. There are two conflicting accounts of it. One where Mary went to His tomb, as a good Jewish wife would do, and found it empty, and one where she didn't even get to the tomb before she meet Jesus thinking he was a gardener. In my opinion, and I do not mind being proved wrong, the empty tomb cannot be correct. Why? Because when she meet Him by the garden He said to her, touch me not, as I have not yet ascended to my father, and your father, suggesting we are all children of God and Jesus our brother, ln heaven. He was still in spirit form. He had not been resurrected at that point so his body must have still been in the tomb or anywhere but the tomb, but there were never any reports of that. It wasn't until much later when he asked Thomas to handle him. Feel my hands and see that I am not spirit for does a spirit have flesh and bones. By the time he had reached the disciples he had been transformed. Unless his mortal remains were taken up before his spirit the tomb could not have been empty, could it?

The other thing is that nobody saw his body go. There were centurions outside of the tomb who feel asleep during the night but we're there awake and watchful during the day. They did not report any movement in the tomb. So was he resurrected immediately or on the third day, giving him time to visit those in the spirit prison where he taught them. It again fits with Mary seeing Him in the garden. So, someone did watch in vigil over the tomb and heard and saw nothing. There was no indication that his body ever left the tomb.

Lastly, nobody had ever been resurrected prior to Jesus. Yes he told his disciples that he would rise after three days, but he told Peter that he would deny him three times and Peter said rubbish. I would never deny you. He did. They could have been sceptical about it not being able to comprehend it but when it happened they were astounded and frightened at something that did not fit the norm. Why would they consider standing vigil over a body that was dead and everyone else who had died, up to that point, remained dead.

If it were me I would have had centurians inside the tomb for three days but even then the transformation of his body may have taken place in the twinkling of an eye. There one second and a milli second later, gone, with no indication that it went. At the end of the day God did not intend for us to see it. Even if the entire place was filled with centurians we were not permitted to see it.
Leonard James

Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


I can see your point, but, they were scared. And no matter how much they had been told - there must have been that sense that when they saw Jesus die, that was it, it was all over.

In many ways, I think the story of Doubting Thomas was the illustration of all. They didn't fully believe it, until that moment when they saw Jesus.


Well, as I said, to me it is unbelievable that having seen Jesus raise others from the dead they would doubt his ability to raise himself ... and they would have stayed as near as they safely could to his tomb, waiting for his resurrection. After all, three days vigil is nothing compared with giving up their whole lives to follow him.

I quite understand that ways have to be found to explain their actions, but for me they are obvious attempts to dodge the issue.
Leonard James

Ralph2 wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


I can see your point, but, they were scared. And no matter how much they had been told - there must have been that sense that when they saw Jesus die, that was it, it was all over.

In many ways, I think the story of Doubting Thomas was the illustration of all. They didn't fully believe it, until that moment when they saw Jesus.


I often think of what happened in that tomb, so very long ago, when my Saviour went from mortality to spirit to immortality. There are two conflicting accounts of it. One where Mary went to His tomb, as a good Jewish wife would do, and found it empty, and one where she didn't even get to the tomb before she meet Jesus thinking he was a gardener. In my opinion, and I do not mind being proved wrong, the empty tomb cannot be correct. Why? Because when she meet Him by the garden He said to her, touch me not, as I have not yet ascended to my father, and your father, suggesting we are all children of God and Jesus our brother, ln heaven. He was still in spirit form. He had not been resurrected at that point so his body must have still been in the tomb or anywhere but the tomb, but there were never any reports of that. It wasn't until much later when he asked Thomas to handle him. Feel my hands and see that I am not spirit for does a spirit have flesh and bones. By the time he had reached the disciples he had been transformed. Unless his mortal remains were taken up before his spirit the tomb could not have been empty, could it?

The other thing is that nobody saw his body go. There were centurions outside of the tomb who feel asleep during the night but we're there awake and watchful during the day. They did not report any movement in the tomb. So was he resurrected immediately or on the third day, giving him time to visit those in the spirit prison where he taught them. It again fits with Mary seeing Him in the garden. So, someone did watch in vigil over the tomb and heard and saw nothing. There was no indication that his body ever left the tomb.

Lastly, nobody had ever been resurrected prior to Jesus. Yes he told his disciples that he would rise after three days, but he told Peter that he would deny him three times and Peter said rubbish. I would never deny you. He did. They could have been sceptical about it not being able to comprehend it but when it happened they were astounded and frightened at something that did not fit the norm. Why would they consider standing vigil over a body that was dead and everyone else who had died, up to that point, remained dead.

If it were me I would have had centurians inside the tomb for three days but even then the transformation of his body may have taken place in the twinkling of an eye. There one second and a milli second later, gone, with no indication that it went. At the end of the day God did not intend for us to see it. Even if the entire place was filled with centurians we were not permitted to see it.


Every believer has his own way of explaining away the anomalies Ralph. That applies to all the contradictions the Bible contains, and it is very natural when faith is so important to people.

As an outsider I can see and understand it. No doubt Christians recognise they do the same as me with faiths other than their own.
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


I can see your point, but, they were scared. And no matter how much they had been told - there must have been that sense that when they saw Jesus die, that was it, it was all over.

In many ways, I think the story of Doubting Thomas was the illustration of all. They didn't fully believe it, until that moment when they saw Jesus.


Well, as I said, to me it is unbelievable that having seen Jesus raise others from the dead they would doubt his ability to raise himself ... and they would have stayed as near as they safely could to his tomb, waiting for his resurrection. After all, three days vigil is nothing compared with giving up their whole lives to follow him.

I quite understand that ways have to be found to explain their actions, but for me they are obvious attempts to dodge the issue.


Len, It is true that Jesus raised others from the dead, however, Jesus was not raised from the dead. He was resurrected. He died mortal and was raised immoral. I do not know the physical process involved in that but I am convinced that only God has that power. I do not think that it matters who was there or how close the were to Jesus as the event must have taken place outside of time as it is an eternal state. There would have been nothing to see.
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.


I can see your point, but, they were scared. And no matter how much they had been told - there must have been that sense that when they saw Jesus die, that was it, it was all over.

In many ways, I think the story of Doubting Thomas was the illustration of all. They didn't fully believe it, until that moment when they saw Jesus.


I often think of what happened in that tomb, so very long ago, when my Saviour went from mortality to spirit to immortality. There are two conflicting accounts of it. One where Mary went to His tomb, as a good Jewish wife would do, and found it empty, and one where she didn't even get to the tomb before she meet Jesus thinking he was a gardener. In my opinion, and I do not mind being proved wrong, the empty tomb cannot be correct. Why? Because when she meet Him by the garden He said to her, touch me not, as I have not yet ascended to my father, and your father, suggesting we are all children of God and Jesus our brother, ln heaven. He was still in spirit form. He had not been resurrected at that point so his body must have still been in the tomb or anywhere but the tomb, but there were never any reports of that. It wasn't until much later when he asked Thomas to handle him. Feel my hands and see that I am not spirit for does a spirit have flesh and bones. By the time he had reached the disciples he had been transformed. Unless his mortal remains were taken up before his spirit the tomb could not have been empty, could it?

The other thing is that nobody saw his body go. There were centurions outside of the tomb who feel asleep during the night but we're there awake and watchful during the day. They did not report any movement in the tomb. So was he resurrected immediately or on the third day, giving him time to visit those in the spirit prison where he taught them. It again fits with Mary seeing Him in the garden. So, someone did watch in vigil over the tomb and heard and saw nothing. There was no indication that his body ever left the tomb.

Lastly, nobody had ever been resurrected prior to Jesus. Yes he told his disciples that he would rise after three days, but he told Peter that he would deny him three times and Peter said rubbish. I would never deny you. He did. They could have been sceptical about it not being able to comprehend it but when it happened they were astounded and frightened at something that did not fit the norm. Why would they consider standing vigil over a body that was dead and everyone else who had died, up to that point, remained dead.

If it were me I would have had centurians inside the tomb for three days but even then the transformation of his body may have taken place in the twinkling of an eye. There one second and a milli second later, gone, with no indication that it went. At the end of the day God did not intend for us to see it. Even if the entire place was filled with centurians we were not permitted to see it.


Every believer has his own way of explaining away the anomalies Ralph. That applies to all the contradictions the Bible contains, and it is very natural when faith is so important to people.

As an outsider I can see and understand it. No doubt Christians recognise they do the same as me with faiths other than their own.


Yes, that is true Len, however, when you look at the plan of salvation it is a perfect plan. It is unique and there for all to read. It is written within the Old and New Testament and should be the means by which we should all follow in one faith instead in  read of hundreds. I do not subscribe to any of them.

I know you can understand it Len but you are not like other atheists. You have the gift of empathy which makes you who you are. A darn descent guy.
Leonard James

Ralph2 wrote:

Yes, that is true Len, however, when you look at the plan of salvation it is a perfect plan. It is unique and there for all to read. It is written within the Old and New Testament and should be the means by which we should all follow in one faith instead in  read of hundreds. I do not subscribe to any of them.


Nor they to yours!

Quote:
I know you can understand it Len but you are not like other atheists. You have the gift of empathy which makes you who you are. A darn descent guy.


Thank you man, but I think it is more due to the fact that I once believed as you do, so I know what it's like to be on that side of the fence.
Derek

[quote="Leonard James:98405"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:

Yes, that is true Len, however, when you look at the plan of salvation it is a perfect plan. It is unique and there for all to read. It is written within the Old and New Testament and should be the means by which we should all follow in one faith instead in  read of hundreds. I do not subscribe to any of them.


Nor they to yours!


True, very true.

Quote:
Quote:
I know you can understand it Len but you are not like other atheists. You have the gift of empathy which makes you who you are. A darn descent guy.


Thank you man, but I think it is more due to the fact that I once believed as you do, so I know what it's like to be on that side of the fence.


Didn't you just define empathy
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Well, as I said, to me it is unbelievable that having seen Jesus raise others from the dead they would doubt his ability to raise himself


What a redunkulous statement Leonard. Why would they have any expectation that a corpse would have any power to do anything?

Quote:
I quite understand that ways have to be found to explain their actions, but for me they are obvious attempts to dodge the issue.


Your refusal to accept that the Gospels are quite explicit that the disciples did not understand Jesus' teaching about the resurrection until the event (see Lk24:11 and Jn20:9) is what looks like dodging to me Lennie.

You are simply putting forward an argument from incredulity, i.e. "I can't believe that the disciples weren't expecting Jesus to rise from the dead".  
rstrats

Re: Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1-2.

Truster,

re:  "What do the terms of my Fathers will have to do with you?"

????????????????
rstrats

Ralph2,

re:  ..."when you look at the plan of salvation it is a perfect plan."

Actually, the plan is flawed because it is based on the idea that a person can consciously choose to believe things.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Well, as I said, to me it is unbelievable that having seen Jesus raise others from the dead they would doubt his ability to raise himself


What a redunkulous statement Leonard. Why would they have any expectation that a corpse would have any power to do anything?


Daft as ever, I see. They didn't think he was just a corpse, they thought he was the son of God.

Quote:
Quote:
I quite understand that ways have to be found to explain their actions, but for me they are obvious attempts to dodge the issue.


Your refusal to accept that the Gospels are quite explicit that the disciples did not understand Jesus' teaching about the resurrection until the event (see Lk24:11 and Jn20:9) is what looks like dodging to me Lennie.


Well, it would, wouldn't it. You can't se the wood for the trees.

Quote:
You are simply putting forward an argument from incredulity, i.e. "I can't believe that the disciples weren't expecting Jesus to rise from the dead".  


Only a fool would believe that after the crucifixion they just shrugged their shoulders and called it a day.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Well, as I said, to me it is unbelievable that having seen Jesus raise others from the dead they would doubt his ability to raise himself

What a redunkulous statement Leonard. Why would they have any expectation that a corpse would have any power to do anything?

Daft as ever, I see. They didn't think he was just a corpse, they thought he was the son of God.


Yes they did. And then they saw him taken from them, beaten, tortured and killed in a horrifically sadistic manner.

What makes you think that their faith wouldn't be shaken by that experience Leonard?

Oh, and please can you stick to the discussion rather than resorting to insults. You demean yourself by having to resort to such tactics.  


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I quite understand that ways have to be found to explain their actions, but for me they are obvious attempts to dodge the issue.

Your refusal to accept that the Gospels are quite explicit that the disciples did not understand Jesus' teaching about the resurrection until the event (see Lk24:11 and Jn20:9) is what looks like dodging to me Lennie.

Well, it would, wouldn't it. You can't se the wood for the trees.


Utterly meaningless comment Lennie. Just evasion of the point.

If you can't add anything of substance to this discussion may I suggest that it's probably better for your reputation if you add nothing at all.  


Quote:
Quote:
You are simply putting forward an argument from incredulity, i.e. "I can't believe that the disciples weren't expecting Jesus to rise from the dead".  

Only a fool would believe that after the crucifixion they just shrugged their shoulders and called it a day.


Again the argument from incredulity coupled with the dishonest tactic used by the tailors in the story of the Emperors New Clothes, i.e. "only a fool cannot see ..... ".

Do you actually have anything further of interest to add to this discussion Lennie or is it just going to be more of your dishonest, second-rate, sixth form debating tactics from here on?  
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Well, as I said, to me it is unbelievable that having seen Jesus raise others from the dead they would doubt his ability to raise himself

What a redunkulous statement Leonard. Why would they have any expectation that a corpse would have any power to do anything?

Daft as ever, I see. They didn't think he was just a corpse, they thought he was the son of God.


Yes they did. And then they saw him taken from them, beaten, tortured and killed in a horrifically sadistic manner.

What makes you think that their faith wouldn't be shaken by that experience Leonard?

Oh, and please can you stick to the discussion rather than resorting to insults. You demean yourself by having to resort to such tactics.  


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I quite understand that ways have to be found to explain their actions, but for me they are obvious attempts to dodge the issue.

Your refusal to accept that the Gospels are quite explicit that the disciples did not understand Jesus' teaching about the resurrection until the event (see Lk24:11 and Jn20:9) is what looks like dodging to me Lennie.

Well, it would, wouldn't it. You can't se the wood for the trees.


Utterly meaningless comment Lennie. Just evasion of the point.

If you can't add anything of substance to this discussion may I suggest that it's probably better for your reputation if you add nothing at all.  


Quote:
Quote:
You are simply putting forward an argument from incredulity, i.e. "I can't believe that the disciples weren't expecting Jesus to rise from the dead".  

Only a fool would believe that after the crucifixion they just shrugged their shoulders and called it a day.


Again the argument from incredulity coupled with the dishonest tactic used by the tailors in the story of the Emperors New Clothes, i.e. "only a fool cannot see ..... ".

Do you actually have anything further of interest to add to this discussion Lennie or is it just going to be more of your dishonest, second-rate, sixth form debating tactics from here on?  


I had quite forgotten what a thorn I am in your side.

I know it is difficult for you to see reasoned arguments, so I won't continue to tax you with them.

I'll leave you to kid yourself that you are a superior debating authority.
Shaker

The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
I had quite forgotten what a thorn I am in your side.


Leonard, you're not even an itch.  

Now, do you actually have anything further of interest to add to this discussion Lennie or is it just going to be more of your dishonest, second-rate, sixth form debating tactics from here on?  


Quote:
I'll leave you to kid yourself that you are a superior debating authority.


Brave Sir Lennie runs away again.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Now, do you actually have anything further of interest to add to this discussion Lennie or is it just going to be more of your dishonest, second-rate, sixth form debating tactics from here on?  

Didn't you already post this? Oh yes, so you did.

If nothing a poster contributes is of interest (in your opinion), I would have thought that the usual recourse is to, well, simply ignore it and pass over it to something that does interest you?

That way posters post what they like, and the forum's perpetual malcontents and nit-pickers don't have to read it and therefore don't have a reason to pick nits over something that doesn't int ... oh, wait ...
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Now, do you actually have anything further of interest to add to this discussion Lennie or is it just going to be more of your dishonest, second-rate, sixth form debating tactics from here on?  

Didn't you already post this? Oh yes, so you did.


Yes I did. But as per usual it's part of Leonard's juvenile attempts to deflect attention away from the exposure of his pathetic arguments to ignore direct questions.

So I asked it again. Perhaps he will be brave enough to answer it this time.

I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.  

If you're going to try and do your usual white knight service for poor Lennie and try to drag the discussion even further away from his sad argument from incredulity attempt with personal attacks on me then you're wasting your time. I ain't playing your game today.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
If you're going to try and do your usual white knight service for poor Lennie and try to drag the discussion even further away from his sad argument from incredulity attempt with personal attacks on me then you're wasting your time. I ain't playing your game today.  

Len doesn't need a white knight ... however much he may want one, perhaps    I'm just wondering why you're spending so much time on something which doesn't interest you. Your time is your own to waste, needless to say, and since R & E did the decent thing, unfortunately you choose to waste some of it here: but spending time writing rather a lot on something which is apparently of no concern to you doesn't seem like the most rational thing to be doing.

But hey: some people do all manner of irrational things, don't they?
The Boyg

Whatever. Still waiting for Leonard to defend his fallacious argument from incredulity.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argu...incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Whatever.

There's nothing like the rapier-like wit, irony and intelligence of an Oscar Wilde de nos jours, and unfortunately that was nothing like it.
Quote:
Still waiting for Leonard to defend his fallacious argument from incredulity.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argu...incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

Personally I already knew what the argument from incredulity was, but your mileage may vary. You can use Wikipedia, obviously, which is nice.
cymrudynnion

Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
Well given the Roman point I'm certainly not surprised the Disciples weer not within the vicinity.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Whatever.

There's nothing like the rapier-like wit, irony and intelligence of an Oscar Wilde de nos jours, and unfortunately that was nothing like it.


I forgot, you favour the much more erudite "meh!", don't you?

I must remember that in future.  
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
Well given the Roman point I'm certainly not surprised the Disciples weer not within the vicinity.


Why not? Do you think the Romans were sufficiently worried over the incident that they would have put a platoon of guards round the tomb? It was just a routine execution as far as they were concerned.
cymrudynnion

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
Well given the Roman point I'm certainly not surprised the Disciples weer not within the vicinity.


Why not? Do you think the Romans were sufficiently worried over the incident that they would have put a platoon of guards round the tomb? It was just a routine execution as far as they were concerned.
So you do know what happened then
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
Well given the Roman point I'm certainly not surprised the Disciples weer not within the vicinity.


Why not? Do you think the Romans were sufficiently worried over the incident that they would have put a platoon of guards round the tomb? It was just a routine execution as far as they were concerned.
So you do know what happened then


I know what the story said happened.
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
Well given the Roman point I'm certainly not surprised the Disciples weer not within the vicinity.


Why not? Do you think the Romans were sufficiently worried over the incident that they would have put a platoon of guards round the tomb? It was just a routine execution as far as they were concerned.


Len, it was anything but a routine execution. Pontius Pilot did not want to crucify him. He knew what the martyrdom of a claimed son of God would do to the Christian movement. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. His death was then made the responsibility of the church and not the State. That was not a routine.

When a routine execution took place the victim would be tied to a cross by his hands and feet taking some three days for them to die, normally by drowning from the accumulation of water in the lungs. Jesus Chris had nails driven throw his palms, wrists and feet with thick blunt nails. He died after 6 hours on the cross. The only physical intrusion was a insertion in the side caused by a spear of a centurion. It should not have killed him.

After he died there was a storm that darkened the sky and all the worthy saints came forward from the grave. That was not routine. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. That was not routine.

Before his crucifixion he was in conversation with Pontius Pilate in which he might have been a little flippant to the man who had power over his life. He claimed that his kingdom was not of this world and when he would be raised from the dead, after three days, there would he be. He told Pontius Pilate that he would rise after three days so Pontius Pilot Commanded therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. that he would show him to be a false Christ by putting two centuries outside the tomb. That was not routine.

We see this same situation in every walk of life. There is a team here who are a similarity to the San Hedrine. They persecute people like me and falsely accuse me. I am scourged with the vinegar of being a liar and all sorts of ridicule, like a crown of thorns, is placed on my head for man to scorn and taunt. Look at my history for evidence of anything that my accusers can indict me with and you will not find any. But my consolation is that I know that God lives and loves me and that there are people like this throughout the world doing the same to others as the team here do to me. God never pays his debts with money though. There is nothing routine about that Len. That is a sign of the wicked world we live in where the very elect will be deceived. Look at Ketty.
Leonard James

I accept that you believe all that, Ralph.

However, the fact remains that two soldiers guarding the tomb would hardly have prevented the disciples keeping vigil in the vicinity to see if Jesus's prediction of his resurrection would come true.

As far as all the other dramatic events you mention, if they had actually happened I'm sure that they would have convinced all the Jews, and been mentioned by the historians of the time.

For me, it is all just a fanciful story dreamed up to convince the credulous.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I find it beyond belief that the disciples, who knew that Jesus had prophesied he would resurrect on the third day, didn't wait in vigil in the vicinity to see him emerge from the tomb.
Well given the Roman point I'm certainly not surprised the Disciples weer not within the vicinity.

Why not? Do you think the Romans were sufficiently worried over the incident that they would have put a platoon of guards round the tomb? It was just a routine execution as far as they were concerned.
So you do know what happened then

I know what the story said happened.


And yet you appear to be unfamiliar with with Matthew 27:62-66.

Or is this just another example of you disagreeing with the "story" because of your personal incredulity of the events described therein?

The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
For me, it is all just a fanciful story dreamed up to convince the credulous.


But you do realise that your personal incredulity regarding the "story" does not render it untrue, don't you Lennie dear?

If you need any help in understanding that here are those links again:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argu...incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

Derek

Leonard James wrote:
I accept that you believe all that, Ralph.

However, the fact remains that two soldiers guarding the tomb would hardly have prevented the disciples keeping vigil in the vicinity to see if Jesus's prediction of his resurrection would come true.

As far as all the other dramatic events you mention, if they had actually happened I'm sure that they would have convinced all the Jews, and been mentioned by the historians of the time.

For me, it is all just a fanciful story dreamed up to convince the credulous.


Yep, it is all down to personal belief at the end of the day Len, however, even if taken as a non-fiction story the disciples would not have stood outside of the tomb. Probably to frightened or just did not expect Jesus to be resurrected. Thomas didn't believe it was truly him. Mary was on her way to annointing his dead body, a job that would be reserved for his wife, even though she knew that he said he would rise. If the disciples knew he would be resurrected why we're they hanging out in that room together. Why didn't they camp out down the road from the tomb. Everything, in this story, pans out as it should. Everything in our world is a similitude of his life and struggles, just to a lesser degree. The San Hedriun can be seen on every street corner in inner cities, in pubs, churches, Crickets Clubs, Social Club, Families, organisations, in fact anywhere that you will find a group of people together you will find those who will impose and force their beliefs on others, as the San Hedriun did, and you will find those who shut up and put up, fence sitters, and then you will find those who stand up for the freedom to believe what ever they choose and stick by it regardless of persecution, you and I. It is like a never ending circle stretching throw all times repeating itself over and over.
Jim

Our faith is the only one that had its leader come back to life after a widely attested death. Christianity's authenticity rises or falls with the resurrection. Either it did happen and Christians can also believe that their own resurrection is assured, or that it did not happen and Christianity is a scam.
Scripture clearly states that, in the area where the Gospel events took place, many hundreds witnesses  the events of those three days: (Luke 24:15-24, Act 1:3-4, 2:31-32, 9:3, 17, I Cor 15:4-8, 9:1, II Pet 1:16-21, John 3:2, 15:27, I John 1:1-3, 14).
Extra Biblical sources ( such as Josephus) recorded it as a given fact, without disputing it.

Of course, one might take the sceptic pov and dismiss Scripture as extremely biased...and then Josephus as well.
The trouble there is that one would then dismiss the rest of Josephus; and with him those who relied on him...Tacitus, etc. In dismissing their 'Jesus 'stuff, one would naturally dismiss the rest of their history as equally false...even though archaeology, epigraphy and statuary confirm it. Since there CAN be no archaeology for the resurrection (No body), and little epigraphy or no statuary, why dismiss the 'woo-woo; stuff and accept the rest?
If we were to treat these extra Biblical sources' work concerning Christ's resurrection with the same gravitas as the other parts of their writings, the obvious conclusion is that SOMETHING strange, unique and somewhat disturbing happened in Judea/Palestine.
The Scripture in general, and Gospels in particular, give the account as to what the writers believe it was.
Leonard James

Ralph2 wrote:
... and then you will find those who stand up for the freedom to believe what ever they choose and stick by it regardless of persecution, you and I. It is like a never ending circle stretching throw all times repeating itself over and over.


True, Ralph! It is part of what it means to be a human being, and as long as we do the best we can to live in peace together as neighbours, that is all that matters in my book.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:
Our faith is the only one that had its leader come back to life after a widely attested death. Christianity's authenticity rises or falls with the resurrection. Either it did happen and Christians can also believe that their own resurrection is assured, or that it did not happen and Christianity is a scam.
Scripture clearly states that, in the area where the Gospel events took place, many hundreds witnesses  the events of those three days: (Luke 24:15-24, Act 1:3-4, 2:31-32, 9:3, 17, I Cor 15:4-8, 9:1, II Pet 1:16-21, John 3:2, 15:27, I John 1:1-3, 14).
Extra Biblical sources ( such as Josephus) recorded it as a given fact, without disputing it.

Of course, one might take the sceptic pov and dismiss Scripture as extremely biased...and then Josephus as well.
The trouble there is that one would then dismiss the rest of Josephus; and with him those who relied on him...Tacitus, etc. In dismissing their 'Jesus 'stuff, one would naturally dismiss the rest of their history as equally false...even though archaeology, epigraphy and statuary confirm it. Since there CAN be no archaeology for the resurrection (No body), and little epigraphy or no statuary, why dismiss the 'woo-woo; stuff and accept the rest?
If we were to treat these extra Biblical sources' work concerning Christ's resurrection with the same gravitas as the other parts of their writings, the obvious conclusion is that SOMETHING strange, unique and somewhat disturbing happened in Judea/Palestine.
The Scripture in general, and Gospels in particular, give the account as to what the writers believe it was.


Hi Jim,

I confess to not knowing anything about those times, apart from what I have gleaned on these frums. My conclusions about the God/Jesus story are nothing more than the result of thinking about it ... just as most people's are.

I simply see no reason to believe that we exist in any way whatever after we die, though I would welcome becoming convinced of such a thing.  
Jim

The problem with Christianity, Len, is the resurrection.
As I posted earlier, if one abandons the (admittedly scanty) extra scriptural accounts, one should also abandon the other historical stuff they wrote, confirmed as it was by archaeology.
If one accepts the historical narrative of Josephus, Tacitus, etc, then one would, of necessity have to accept that their was some veracity in their account of the resurrection.
Quite how much veracity is the moot point for debate.
That's where the Christian claim for a supernatural resurrection of Christ bodily from death comes in.
Science simply cannot be brought in here...since the event cannot be replicated or repeated.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
If one accepts the historical narrative of Josephus, Tacitus, etc, then one would, of necessity have to accept that their was some veracity in their account of the resurrection.

Even leaving aside the issue of the widespread acceptance of Josephus's second-hand references to Jesus and early Christians as a later interpolation to some degree (which is one whopping thing to set aside for the moment, but that's another discussion), do these writers actually give accounts of the resurrection, as you say? Or do they, in fact, report - second-hand once again and many decades after the supposed events - that there are some people who believed there was such a thing? Because this makes rather a large difference. All the difference in the world, in fact.

(A) Josephus and Tacitus gave accounts of the resurrection

and

(B) Josephus and Tacitus fleetingly mention, writing long after the date of the alleged events supposedly took place, the existence of people who believed that there was a resurrection

are two entirely different things. (B) exists; (A) doesn't. (B) in no way violates Occam's Razor; (A) does - this is because (B) doesn't ask me to strain my credulity to breaking point by expecting me to overturn all my experience-based knowledge of life and the world and its laws; (A) does. (B) is by far the more parsimonious thesis and the one that the rational, reasonable person will accept. David Hume in action, as 'twere. Speaking of whom, the Wikipedia page on Hume's Of Miracles enumerates the ways in which people are very much less than reliable in such matters:

Quote:
1. People are very prone to accept the unusual and incredible, which excite agreeable passions of surprise and wonder.

2. Those with strong religious beliefs are often prepared to give evidence that they know is false, "with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause".

3. People are often too credulous when faced with such witnesses, whose apparent honesty and eloquence (together with the psychological effects of the marvellous described earlier) may overcome normal scepticism.
   
3. Miracle stories tend to have their origins in "ignorant and barbarous nations" - either elsewhere in the world or in a civilised nation's past. The history of every culture displays a pattern of development from a wealth of supernatural events - "[p]rodigies, omens, oracles, judgements" – which steadily decreases over time, as the culture grows in knowledge and understanding of the world.


Numbers one, three and four seem the most applicable here. There's a well-known old saying known as Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence. (Margaret Thatcher's former Press Secretary Sir Bernard Ingham, a gruff, notoriously blunt Yorkshireman, summarised this attitude as "cock-up before conspiracy"). On the same basis, we can follow Occam and Hume in saying Never ascribe to the miraculous and the supernatural what is better explained by genuine misapprehension, active dishonesty or sheer credulity.

I've just read again the relevant passages and quite frankly, to me they're no more than hearsay upon rumour upon gossip, essentially no different to when we say "Well, some people believe that ... ", such as "There are people who think that the world was supernaturally created as-is, exactly as we see it now, six thousand years ago, and who believe that there's no such thing as evolution and that humans and dinosaurs were coterminous." It doesn't indicate agreement: it's reportage.
Leonard James

Jim wrote:
The problem with Christianity, Len, is the resurrection.
As I posted earlier, if one abandons the (admittedly scanty) extra scriptural accounts, one should also abandon the other historical stuff they wrote, confirmed as it was by archaeology.
If one accepts the historical narrative of Josephus, Tacitus, etc, then one would, of necessity have to accept that their was some veracity in their account of the resurrection.
Quite how much veracity is the moot point for debate.
That's where the Christian claim for a supernatural resurrection of Christ bodily from death comes in.
Science simply cannot be brought in here...since the event cannot be replicated or repeated.


I don't agree with you. Just because historians report accurately some historic events (usually from their own point of view), it doesn't follow that everything they write is first hand. Much of the stuff is garnered from other people's reports of the incidents, so there is a real possibility that some of it was merely sensational anecdotes. If enough people tag on to a rumour, it quickly evolves into a "truth".
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
Jim wrote:
The problem with Christianity, Len, is the resurrection.
As I posted earlier, if one abandons the (admittedly scanty) extra scriptural accounts, one should also abandon the other historical stuff they wrote, confirmed as it was by archaeology.
If one accepts the historical narrative of Josephus, Tacitus, etc, then one would, of necessity have to accept that their was some veracity in their account of the resurrection.
Quite how much veracity is the moot point for debate.
That's where the Christian claim for a supernatural resurrection of Christ bodily from death comes in.
Science simply cannot be brought in here...since the event cannot be replicated or repeated.


I don't agree with you. Just because historians report accurately some historic events (usually from their own point of view), it doesn't follow that everything they write is first hand. Much of the stuff is garnered from other people's reports of the incidents, so there is a real possibility that some of it was merely sensational anecdotes. If enough people tag on to a rumour, it quickly evolves into a "truth".


Unfortunately, you are right Len. It is a bit like Chinese Whispers. That man seen walking down the street with a walking stick will end beating a passer by for saying good morning, if put through enough people. There is two fundamental differences with religion though. In order for us to have a clear and concise account of the principles and precepts by which we may obtain eternal life, God organised a book that contains all we need to achieve that goal. He was able to get man to write it for Him and he then compiled it. He uses the mission of Christ within those pages to demonstrate his Plan of Salvation. Most of His mission is historically correct. That record has been with us, contained in the best selling book of all times, for over 2000 years. It is all very well reading those words contained in the bible, but why should anybody believe them? What makes them true?

There is not much I can say about the second one, especially to the incredulous mind. In order for anybody to know the absolute truth about the Saviour and his mission requires putting yourself into a position where you can draw upon the powers of heaven. The testimony of the Holy Ghost fills the immensity of space. It engulfs and surrounds us. It contains answers and resolves to any question ever asked. It is a guiding influence, that will help each and everyone of us to come to know God and his son, our brother, Jesus Christ. It will help us to realise the meaning of our existence. Not as a race but as individuals. What our personal meaning for being here is. It will testify to your very soul that the words contained within the scriptures is true. That he lived, died, and was resurrected so that we can do the same. All that you require, to tap into that very real influence, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Through that faith the Holy Ghost will manifest himself to the very essence of your being, your soul.

So we have the bible that shows the account of the life of Jesus and we have the testimony of the Holy Ghost that will bear witness that these things are in fact true. Having said that. I know that there is no more incredibly ostentatious character that we have been asked to believe in then Christ, so, those who have never felt of the powers of heaven will never believe such a fanciful story of miracles and morals. I understand that. I also really understand that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, especially if he has had his fill elsewhere.
Jim

OK, Len....
So how do we separate what we think is 'true' history from 'false', in 1st and second century writers?
prejudice?
Credulity?
Archaeology?
None of these, not even the latter, are sufficient grounds aloone.
All have been used in the past to justify the point a would-be historian has made based on their own idea of what the history SHOULD be...only to have metaphorical egg on their face as new evidence or perspective based on existing evidence overturns the theories they have built around them.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
There is not much I can say about the second one, especially to the incredulous mind. In order for anybody to know the absolute truth about the Saviour and his mission requires putting yourself into a position where you can draw upon the powers of heaven. The testimony of the Holy Ghost fills the immensity of space. It engulfs and surrounds us. It contains answers and resolves to any question ever asked. It is a guiding influence, that will help each and everyone of us to come to know God and his son, our brother, Jesus Christ. It will help us to realise the meaning of our existence. Not as a race but as individuals. What our personal meaning for being here is. It will testify to your very soul that the words contained within the scriptures is true. That he lived, died, and was resurrected so that we can do the same. All that you require, to tap into that very real influence, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Through that faith the Holy Ghost will manifest himself to the very essence of your being, your soul.

Which to seems to read as "first believe that X is true in order to believe that X is true." I've encountered this many, many, many times in the past.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
There is not much I can say about the second one, especially to the incredulous mind. In order for anybody to know the absolute truth about the Saviour and his mission requires putting yourself into a position where you can draw upon the powers of heaven. The testimony of the Holy Ghost fills the immensity of space. It engulfs and surrounds us. It contains answers and resolves to any question ever asked. It is a guiding influence, that will help each and everyone of us to come to know God and his son, our brother, Jesus Christ. It will help us to realise the meaning of our existence. Not as a race but as individuals. What our personal meaning for being here is. It will testify to your very soul that the words contained within the scriptures is true. That he lived, died, and was resurrected so that we can do the same. All that you require, to tap into that very real influence, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Through that faith the Holy Ghost will manifest himself to the very essence of your being, your soul.

Which to seems to read as "first believe that X is true in order to believe that X is true." I've encountered this many, many, many times in the past.


You are an anti theist, therefore, this was not written for the likes of you, and your past experiences are based on your incredulity so are irrelevant to the discussion. X confirms that the initial belief in X is justified.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
You are an anti theist

Yes.
Quote:
therefore, this was not written for the likes of you

I had assumed it was written for anybody and everybody to read and respond to, like everything else here.
Quote:
and your past experiences are based on your incredulity so are irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't even pretend to know what this is supposed to mean, unless it refers to the sort of insular circle jerk where only those who share the same set of beliefs are "entitled" to join a discussion and join in a session of semantic mutual masturbation about how wonderfully right and true their unfounded beliefs are. The Web is a big place and eventually you will certainly find such a forum if that's what you're after, but NGLReturns is not that place.
Quote:
X confirms that the initial belief in X is justified.

No. That sort of sloppy non-thinking, non-reasoning goes by many names: confirmation bias, circular reasoning prominent among them. We can certainly go toe-to-toe on this kind of logical fallacy and associated philosophical matters such as the problem of induction and the like if you wish, but I can tell you now that you will come away from the debate looking like an even bigger chump than usual. That's absolutely no problem to me - au contraire - but the usual expectation amongst normal people is that others don't wish to appear so. Your choice.
Leonard James

Hi Ralph and Jim,

Each of us looks at the evidence and reaches the conclusion that seems most feasible to him. We cannot then believe the opposite unless some new evidence arises to change the balance.

I was brought up to believe, and it never occurred to me to question what I was taught. I was young, and naturally felt that my elders were more experienced and knowledgeable than me.

As my awareness of the world and life grew, the contradictions in what I had been taught and reality, started me doubting ... and finally destroyed my faith.

Then I learned about evolution, and everything fell into place, bringing back the peace of mind I had felt before my doubts started.

Accepting that there was no heaven or after-life with God was an enormous loss, but I very soon adapted to it, and that was that!
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You are an anti theist

Yes.
Quote:
therefore, this was not written for the likes of you

I had assumed it was written for anybody and everybody to read and respond to, like everything else here.
Quote:
and your past experiences are based on your incredulity so are irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't even pretend to know what this is supposed to mean, unless it refers to the sort of insular circle jerk where only those who share the same set of beliefs are "entitled" to join a discussion and join in a session of semantic mutual masturbation about how wonderfully right and true their unfounded beliefs are. The Web is a big place and eventually you will certainly find such a forum if that's what you're after, but NGLReturns is not that place.
Quote:
X confirms that the initial belief in X is justified.

No. That sort of sloppy non-thinking, non-reasoning goes by many names: confirmation bias, circular reasoning prominent among them. We can certainly go toe-to-toe on this kind of logical fallacy and associated philosophical matters such as the problem of induction and the like if you wish, but I can tell you now that you will come away from the debate looking like an even bigger chump than usual. That's absolutely no problem to me - au contraire - but the usual expectation amongst normal people is that others don't wish to appear so. Your choice.


I didn't say that the post was not for anybody who frequents this forum. I said it was not for the likes of you. You are incapable of communication with the Holy Ghost so your contribution will always be bias and eroneous. The perceived philosophical analogies becomes irrelevant and lame when we introduce the supernatural entity called the Holy Ghost that makes the whole issue black and white as opposed to the grey area of philosophy.

Only if you include and accept the presence of the Holy Ghost who testifies to the soul that X does in fact exist, in no uncertain terms. It would have been nice for you to have finally made me look like a big old chump. Something you have tried but have miserably failed at.

Why not stop being such a know all for five minutes and listen to what is being said instead of looking for ways to denigrate me, and Christianity.
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Ralph and Jim,

Each of us looks at the evidence and reaches the conclusion that seems most feasible to him. We cannot then believe the opposite unless some new evidence arises to change the balance.

I was brought up to believe, and it never occurred to me to question what I was taught. I was young, and naturally felt that my elders were more experienced and knowledgeable than me.

As my awareness of the world and life grew, the contradictions in what I had been taught and reality, started me doubting ... and finally destroyed my faith.

Then I learned about evolution, and everything fell into place, bringing back the peace of mind I had felt before my doubts started.

Accepting that there was no heaven or after-life with God was an enormous loss, but I very soon adapted to it, and that was that!


All this is perfectly acceptable and understandable apart from one small detail. I believe that evolution is the only available method to explain how everything got to where it is today. I am also a devout Christian. Where is the confrontation between the two? Why would they be incompatible. Why did you drop the religion in favour of evolution when you could have had both. For me they are perfectly compatible. For me God was the initiator of evolution that resulted in US.  I am not forcing the issue but I would be interested to hear why you choose one over the other.
Leonard James

Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi Ralph and Jim,

Each of us looks at the evidence and reaches the conclusion that seems most feasible to him. We cannot then believe the opposite unless some new evidence arises to change the balance.

I was brought up to believe, and it never occurred to me to question what I was taught. I was young, and naturally felt that my elders were more experienced and knowledgeable than me.

As my awareness of the world and life grew, the contradictions in what I had been taught and reality, started me doubting ... and finally destroyed my faith.

Then I learned about evolution, and everything fell into place, bringing back the peace of mind I had felt before my doubts started.

Accepting that there was no heaven or after-life with God was an enormous loss, but I very soon adapted to it, and that was that!


All this is perfectly acceptable and understandable apart from one small detail. I believe that evolution is the only available method to explain how everything got to where it is today. I am also a devout Christian. Where is the confrontation between the two? Why would they be incompatible. Why did you drop the religion in favour of evolution when you could have had both. For me they are perfectly compatible. For me God was the initiator of evolution that resulted in US.  I am not forcing the issue but I would be interested to hear why you choose one over the other.


If you read my post again, Ralph, you will see that I lost my faith before discovering evolution. My main problem was reconciling the cruel prey/predator life system I saw around me as having been created by a loving, merciful and compassionate God. It was a complete contradiction.

Then, when I learned about evolution it all became perfectly clear, and the contradiction disappeared.
Jim

For me. Len, as you know, there is no contradiction between Christianity and evolution. Theistic evolution is a reasonable framework, in my view.

As to the events surrounding the 'three days which changed the world', though, I suspect you and I differ as to what happened.

However, surely we both agree that SOMETHING happened; something disturbing enough to put the wind up the authorities, and leave the then historians able to do nothing save report what they knew.
The nature and consequences of what happened, whether natural or supernatural, were, are and remain controversial.

For the believer, the supernatural option is the natural
choice....!
Leonard James

Jim wrote:
For me. Len, as you know, there is no contradiction between Christianity and evolution. Theistic evolution is a reasonable framework, in my view.

As to the events surrounding the 'three days which changed the world', though, I suspect you and I differ as to what happened.

However, surely we both agree that SOMETHING happened; something disturbing enough to put the wind up the authorities, and leave the then historians able to do nothing save report what they knew.
The nature and consequences of what happened, whether natural or supernatural, were, are and remain controversial.

For the believer, the supernatural option is the natural
choice....!


Hi Jim,

Yes, we certainly differ about the three days ... since I regard them as fiction and you see them as truth.

We must just agree to differ.
rstrats

Leonard James,

re:  "We cannot then believe the opposite..."

You're saying that beliefs are not conscious choices?
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I didn't say that the post was not for anybody who frequents this forum.

Yes you did say exactly that. You wrote:
Quote:
this was not written for the likes of you

and I frequent this forum.
Quote:
I said it was not for the likes of you.

Yet I frequent the forum, as you put it. Work it out. You can have extra paper if you need it.
Quote:
You are incapable of communication with the Holy Ghost

Indeed.
Quote:
so your contribution will always be bias and eroneous.

And yours isn't?
Quote:
The perceived philosophical analogies becomes irrelevant and lame when we introduce the supernatural entity called the Holy Ghost that makes the whole issue black and white as opposed to the grey area of philosophy.

That's the whole issue, isn't it? Things becoming black and white on absolutely no justifiable grounds whatsoever. Those "irrelevant" and "lame" (to you) philosophical arguments are the ones which rebut your beliefs.
Quote:
Only if you include and accept the presence of the Holy Ghost who testifies to the soul that X does in fact exist, in no uncertain terms.

Like I said - circular belief: believing that X is the case in order to believe that X is the case. Been done to death here a squillion times and I dare say on any religious forum at some point or other, since it's always going to crop up sooner or later and will always be refuted shortly thereafter.
Quote:
It would have been nice for you to have finally made me look like a big old chump. Something you have tried but have miserably failed at.

Given your own daily efforts in that area I took it as read that outside help would be superfluous.

Quote:
Why not stop being such a know all for five minutes and listen to what is being said instead of looking for ways to denigrate me, and Christianity.

Who says I have to look?

I've read what's been said and have offered pertinent rebuttals.
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi Ralph and Jim,

Each of us looks at the evidence and reaches the conclusion that seems most feasible to him. We cannot then believe the opposite unless some new evidence arises to change the balance.

I was brought up to believe, and it never occurred to me to question what I was taught. I was young, and naturally felt that my elders were more experienced and knowledgeable than me.

As my awareness of the world and life grew, the contradictions in what I had been taught and reality, started me doubting ... and finally destroyed my faith.

Then I learned about evolution, and everything fell into place, bringing back the peace of mind I had felt before my doubts started.

Accepting that there was no heaven or after-life with God was an enormous loss, but I very soon adapted to it, and that was that!


All this is perfectly acceptable and understandable apart from one small detail. I believe that evolution is the only available method to explain how everything got to where it is today. I am also a devout Christian. Where is the confrontation between the two? Why would they be incompatible. Why did you drop the religion in favour of evolution when you could have had both. For me they are perfectly compatible. For me God was the initiator of evolution that resulted in US.  I am not forcing the issue but I would be interested to hear why you choose one over the other.


If you read my post again, Ralph, you will see that I lost my faith before discovering evolution. My main problem was reconciling the cruel prey/predator life system I saw around me as having been created by a loving, merciful and compassionate God. It was a complete contradiction.

Then, when I learned about evolution it all became perfectly clear, and the contradiction disappeared.


Ah, right. Yes, I can see that, I can. Do you include human prey/predator life as well, or is that what you are saying. One of the best rebuttals I have read for a long, long time. I need to give it some serious thought because right now I have no answer to it. You have no idea what you have done
trentvoyager

Moderators Note:

I have moved the latter part of this thread to the Bear Pit as it had digressed so much from Rstrats original post as to become unrelated to it.

The split part of the thread in the Bear Pit is now called: "Digression from Matthew 28...."

If possible try to restrict your comments on this thread to Rstrats original questions.

Thank you
gone

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?


The Bible is full of stuff which is frankly much less than credible. The gospel writers obviously hadn't got their act together where that tale is concerned!
Derek

When have you ever heard the identical account of the same event. John's account is just far more detailed then Matthew's account. The lack in detail in Matthew is made up in John. It must be remembered that God inspired the words of the bible. It contains exactly what he wants it to. All accounts differ in detail but put together they give us the full and complete account. They were all individuals. They all remembered it differently but the full account is there, as with every event of the life of Jesus, that we know of, we have several accounts that together give the full picture. Why else do we have the same accounts repeated. It is not a lack of credibility, it is the vast intelligence of God manifested for us all to witness. The art of reading the bible is to do it in faith believing in the name of Jesus Christ and having hope, not to read with scepticism for then you will read to your detriment.
rstrats

Ralph2,

re:   "John's account is just far more detailed then Matthew's account."

Mary M. running away in Matthew with "great joy" because she had just been told that the Messiah was alive and that he would be seen in Galilee versus her running away in John to tell the disciples that He had been removed from the tomb and that she didn't know where He was is not a detail.
Derek

rstrats wrote:
Ralph2,

re:   "John's account is just far more detailed then Matthew's account."

Mary M. running away in Matthew with "great joy" because she had just been told that the Messiah was alive and that he would be seen in Galilee versus her running away in John to tell the disciples that He had been removed from the tomb and that she didn't know where He was is not a detail.


Not quite is it. Mary ran away and bumped into Jesus who told her "Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Prior to that, still in Matthew, and Angel was at the tomb and said "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. The angel showed her That he was not there, however she had already seen he was not there prior to that and must of thought "he has gone, where the hell has he gone" at which point the angel appeared, John 20:12 and Matthew 28:5, and told her. Mary then saw Jesus and in both accounts "She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master." Or husband. And "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them" The account in John begins early in the morning, day break. The account in Matthew begins after the disciples had been there, saw the empty tomb and left.

It is true that there is a discrepancy in stories but no more so then you would expect from two people telling the same story many years after the event. I Think that John's account is more accurate then Matthew's account.

There is more of a discrepancy there then you have mentioned though. It is a major discrepancy that is potentially faith altering. It is funny that you mention a plausible discrepancy yet you do not mention the major one. Are you reading something on the internet like "debunking the bible" by any chance?

What you must realise is that God could not write this himself. He maybe omnipotent but that only means that he can do anything that can be done. He is not a magitian. There are universal laws for all of us to obey. As a perfected being he could not pick up a pen and paper as they would disintegrate. So, he had to rely on the hand of man. He did not write it, he compiled it containing all that he needed to get the principles and precepts across. IMO

It is also well to note that the bible is not a historical record of those times. The New Testament is not even chronologically correct. It is not a story book for that reason either. It is a book of commandments, principles and precepts told in many different forms. Symbolism, parables, fact and allegories. It is intended to guide and direct the reader to living a life as the Saviour did. A Christ centred life.  By doing so we can obtain entry into the Kingdom of God. That it contains contradictions is just something that we will have to put up with rather then dissect. It is in the form of a book to allow anybody to either pick it up and read its pages or set it aside and ignore it. The choice is yours. Don't try to take away other people's choice. That is what Satan wanted.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:

Not quite is it. Mary ran away and bumped into Jesus who told her "Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Prior to that, still in Matthew, and Angel was at the tomb and said "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. The angel showed her That he was not there, however she had already seen he was not there prior to that and must of thought "he has gone, where the hell has he gone" at which point the angel appeared, John 20:12 and Matthew 28:5, and told her. Mary then saw Jesus and in both accounts "She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master." Or husband. And "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them" The account in John begins early in the morning, day break. The account in Matthew begins after the disciples had been there, saw the empty tomb and left.

It is true that there is a discrepancy in stories but no more so then you would expect from two people telling the same story many years after the event. I Think that John's account is more accurate then Matthew's account.

There is more of a discrepancy there then you have mentioned though. It is a major discrepancy that is potentially faith altering. It is funny that you mention a plausible discrepancy yet you do not mention the major one. Are you reading something on the internet like "debunking the bible" by any chance?

What you must realise is that God could not write this himself. He maybe omnipotent but that only means that he can do anything that can be done. He is not a magitian. There are universal laws for all of us to obey. As a perfected being he could not pick up a pen and paper as they would disintegrate. So, he had to rely on the hand of man. He did not write it, he compiled it containing all that he needed to get the principles and precepts across. IMO

It is also well to note that the bible is not a historical record of those times. The New Testament is not even chronologically correct. It is not a story book for that reason either. It is a book of commandments, principles and precepts told in many different forms. Symbolism, parables, fact and allegories. It is intended to guide and direct the reader to living a life as the Saviour did. A Christ centred life.  By doing so we can obtain entry into the Kingdom of God. That it contains contradictions is just something that we will have to put up with rather then dissect. It is in the form of a book to allow anybody to either pick it up and read its pages or set it aside and ignore it. The choice is yours. Don't try to take away other people's choice. That is what Satan wanted.


So says the LDS.  Incorrect of course: the Father of Lies loves the fact that people have choice and he exploits it at every twisty turny step of the way.

"Ralph" is is an LDS thing to say Rabboni, the most honourable of titles means 'husband'?   http://carm.org/mormonism
Jim

Yep
While "Rabboni" has no precise translation into modern English, reputable translations have "Master" or "Teacher" as the modern equivalent.
"Husband" is never used by serious CHRISTIAN scholars.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Yep
While "Rabboni" has no precise translation into modern English, reputable translations have "Master" or "Teacher" as the modern equivalent.
"Husband" is never used by serious CHRISTIAN scholars.


That is not lds doctrine. I did not say that it was. If you read without bias instead of looking for every opportunity to bring out the lds cards because you are NOT prepared to love everyone. As he loved us to love one another. You and Ketty are of the same religion. They are selective as to who they love. Check what the lds site say. They say that Rabboni is teacher, master.http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=Rabboni. They do not say that it means husband, I do as a result of reading a completely different source. Sadly, I did not plan for this one but I wish I had. Two Christian, supposed, indict a whole religion because of their hatred for the children of men. Wow, you have both really let your team down if you stand as ambassadors for your faith. I know that Ketty is annoyed with me for exposing her as a liar but you had no reason to jump the gun and blame the lds for my personal belief.
Jim

Er......where did I say that it WAS lds doctrine?*



*as opposed to Christian doctrine, since lds are not Christian.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Er......where did I say that it WAS lds doctrine?*



*as opposed to Christian doctrine, since lds are not Christian.



MAY 1998 ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?

BY STEPHEN E. ROBINSON

Of course we are Christians. Why would anyone say otherwise? Here are the facts.

If you live in Utah, you may be surprised. If you live where Latter-day Saints are a minority, you’ve probably heard it before—perhaps many times. But there are sincere people out there who believe the Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians. In fact, the accusation that we are not Christians is probably the most commonly heard criticism of the LDS Church and its doctrines today.

Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?

There are a number of arguments used supposedly to “prove” that we are not Christian. It is important to recognize that none of them have anything to do with whether or not Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ. Rather, what they basically boil down to is this: Latter-day Saints are different from the other Christian churches. (We understand that these differences exist because traditional Christianity has wandered from the truth over the centuries, but other denominations see things otherwise.) Their arguments against the Latter-day Saints being Christian generally fall into six basic categories:

Exclusion by special definition

1 What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of those passages. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes … to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him … one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief.”

Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians. However, if a special definition is created under which Christian means “only those who believe as I do,” then others might claim Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians—but all this would really mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don’t believe exactly as they do. Excluding us in this way by inventing a special definition for the word Christian is like defining a duck as an aquatic bird with a broad, flat bill, webbed feet, and white feathers, and then concluding that mallards aren’t ducks because their feathers are the wrong color.

If the term Christian is used, as it is in standard English, to mean someone who accepts Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, then the charge that we aren’t Christians is false. However, if the word Christian is given an overly narrow definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians differ in some degree from other Christians. No one “owns” the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God.

Exclusion by misrepresentation

2 Some people insist on condemning Latter-day Saints for doctrines the Saints don’t even believe. They say, in effect, “This is what you Mormons believe.” Then they recite something that is certainly not taught by the Latter-day Saints. It’s easy to make LDS beliefs seem absurd if critics can make up whatever they want and pass it off as LDS doctrine.

A good example of this kind of misrepresentation took place when the subject of the Latter-day Saint pioneers came up in my daughter Sarah’s school classroom a few years ago. One of her classmates said, “My daddy says Mormons are people who live in Utah and worship idols.” Sarah quickly answered back, “Well, I’m a Mormon, and we don’t worship idols.” But many of her classmates never did believe her, largely because they had already accepted the misrepresentation.

Another form of misrepresentation is to claim something is official LDS doctrine when it may merely be an individual opinion or even speculation. The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and procedures are official whenever those who hold the keys and have been sustained by the Church to make them declare them so. Other churches claim the right to define and interpret their own doctrines and policies and to distinguish between official church teachings and the opinions of individual members. Surely the Latter-day Saints must be allowed the same privilege.

Name calling

3 Name calling has often been used in religious controversies. At one time, Catholics called Protestants “heretics,” and Protestants called Catholics “papists.” But this sort of tactic amounts to nothing more than saying, “Boo for your religion, and hurrah for mine.”

The negative term most frequently flung at the LDS is “cult,” a term which can suggest images of pagan priests and rituals. But the truth is there is no objective distinction by which a cult may be distinguished from a religion. Use of the term cult does not tell us what a religion is, only how it is regarded by the person using the term. It simply means “a religion I don’t like.”

Though non-LDS scholars have made many attempts to define a “cult” in a way that would distinguish it from a “religion,” to date every such attempt has failed. So far the major difficulty has been that any definition of “cult” that fits the LDS Church also fits New Testament Christianity! But that’s not bad company to be in.

Exclusion by tradition

4 It is sometimes argued that to be truly Christian, modern churches must accept both biblical Christianity and the traditional Christianity of later history. In other words, one must accept not just biblical doctrines, but also the centuries of historical development—the councils, creeds, customs, theologians, and philosophers—that came along after New Testament times. Since the Latter-day Saints do not accept doctrines originating in the early Church after the death of the apostles and prophets, we are accused of not being “historical” or “traditional” Christians.

In fact, we believe that revelation to the early Church stopped because of the death of the Apostles and the growing apostasy, or falling away, from the truth. In the absence of Apostles, the church eventually turned to councils of philosophers and theologians, for guidance. These councils, after lengthy debates, in turn interpreted the gospel according to their best understanding. Often they drew upon the philosophies of respected men (like Plato), concluding, for example, that God has no body or physical nature; or that the three separate persons of the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are only one being. The declarations of these councils are still generally accepted today by traditional Christian churches as official doctrines. Yet these creeds were formulated centuries after the deaths of the Apostles and the close of the New Testament.

Were the Twelve Apostles Christians? Of course. But if it were true that one must accept the whole package of historical Christianity in order to be a Christian, then it would be impossible for early Christians, including Jesus and his disciples, to qualify—since they lived centuries before these traditions came to be. On the other hand, if the New Testament Saints can be considered Christians without accepting all the traditions of men that came later, then so can the Latter-day Saints, and the historical exclusion is invalid.

The canonical or biblical exclusion

5 The term “canon of scripture” refers to the collection of books accepted by any group as the authoritative word of God. For most Christians the canon of scripture is limited to the Bible. But Latter-day Saints have a larger canon of scripture that includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The canonical exclusion, in its simplest form, says that since Latter-day Saints have books of scripture in addition to the “traditional” Christian Bible, they cannot be Christians.

One of the problems with this canonical exclusion lies in the assumption that there is only one “traditional” Christian Bible. Over the centuries, there have been a number of different versions of the Bible, and many Christian churches and individuals have disagreed about which books should be included. Even today, the Bible used by Catholics contains a number of different books than the Bible used by Protestants. Yet Catholics and Protestants continue to call each other Christians—even though they have different canons of scripture.

When revelation stopped after the death of the early Apostles, people were forced to draw one of two conclusions: (1) either revelation had stopped because God had already said everything they would ever need, or (2) revelation had stopped because the church lacked apostles and prophets to speak for him. Traditional Christians accept the first explanation; Latter-day Saints accept the second.

Sometimes critics cite Revelation 22:18–19 [Rev. 22:18–19] as evidence that the Bible forbids adding to or taking away from the canon of scripture. In these verses, John curses those who would add to or take away from “this book.” But when John wrote Revelation, the Bible in its present form did not yet exist. He was simply referring to his own book, the Book of Revelation, rather than to the whole Bible.

The truth is that prophets have usually added to the scriptures—almost all the biblical apostles and prophets did this. There is, in fact, no biblical statement whatever closing the canon of scripture or prohibiting additional revelation or additional scripture after the New Testament.

Some non-LDS Christians believe that the Bible contains all religious truth. However, the Bible itself says nothing of the sort. The word Bible never appears in the Bible—for the Bible never refers to itself. Thus all these claims about the Bible are unbiblical. The Bible itself never claims to be perfect, never claims to be sufficient for salvation, and never claims to grant its readers authority to speak or act for God. Rather, such claims are made by those who have lost priesthood authority and have lost direct revelation and, instead of trying to find them again, are trying desperately to maintain that their loss doesn’t matter.

The doctrinal exclusion

6 This type of argument claims that since the Latter-day Saints do not always interpret the Bible as other Christians do, we must not be Christians. But, in fact, other denominations also differ among themselves doctrinally, and it is unreasonable to demand that Latter-day Saints conform to a single standard of “Christian” doctrine when no such single standard exists.

For example, the Latter-day Saints are accused of worshiping a “different god” because we do not believe in the traditional Trinity. “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:1) as taught in the New Testament. What Latter-day Saints do not believe is the non-Biblical doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) centuries after the time of Jesus—the doctrine that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence. We do not believe it because it is not scriptural. As Harper’s Bible Dictionary states: “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

Jesus didn’t teach the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament writers didn’t have any idea of it. The doctrine itself wasn’t invented until centuries later. So one can’t say the Latter-day Saints are not true Christians for not accepting it, unless one also excludes Jesus, his disciples, and the New Testament Church, who similarly did not know or teach it.

Latter-day Saints do believe that God the Father has a physical body. This view is attacked as “non-Christian” by critics who often cite John 4:24, which states in the King James version that “God is a spirit.” However, since there is no indefinite article (a, or an) in the Greek language from which this verse is translated, the consensus among biblical scholars is that there should not be an indefinite article at John 4:24. It should simply read “God is spirit.” In other words, this scripture does not limit God to being only a spirit, but merely includes spirit as one of his attributes. After all, we also read that “God is light” (1 Jn. 1:5) and “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8), and yet no one interprets these verses to mean that God is only light, or God is only love. Certainly, the member of the Godhead called the Holy Ghost is spirit, but that fact tells us nothing about whether or not God the Father has a physical body.

Finally, quite often we hear that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because true Christians believe in salvation by grace, while the Latter-day Saints believe in salvation through our own good works. But this is a misunderstanding. Yes, Latter-day Saints do believe we must serve God with all our “heart, might, mind, and strength” (D&C 4:2). But the Book of Mormon makes perfectly clear that it is impossible for us to completely earn or deserve our blessings from God (Mosiah 2:21, 24); that redemption can never come through individual effort alone, but only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 2:3, 5–8); and that—after all we can do (Alma 24:11)—we are saved by grace (2 Ne. 10:24; 2 Ne. 25:23).

Conclusion

We have discussed arguments some people use for claiming that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. Notice that not one of these addresses the question of whether we accept Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior. Our critics don’t address this—the only issue that really matters—for the LDS position here is an unassailable matter of record. Our first article of faith [A of F 1:1] declares our belief in Jesus Christ. We meet every Sunday and partake of the sacrament to renew our faith in and our commitment to Him as the Son of God and the Savior of the world.

I have frequently asked non-LDS critics exactly which Book of Mormon teachings about Jesus Christ they disagree with. Invariably the response has been that it isn’t what the Book of Mormon says that is offensive to them—it is the Book of Mormon itself. Most anti-Mormons reject the LDS scriptures without knowing or caring what those scriptures actually teach about Christ. You see, it isn’t really the LDS doctrine of Christ that is objectionable; rather, it is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is God’s word, and that the gospel has been restored to the earth in the latter days.

Both the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as a prophet bear witness to Jesus Christ as Savior. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price bear that same great witness, as do all of the modern prophets and apostles. Though all the world may say that Latter-day Saints do not know or love or worship Jesus Christ, the truth is that we do. If this is not enough to be counted as Christian, then that word has lost its meaning.
Jim

"Of Course we are Christians"
I stopped reading at that point.
They might call themselves Christians...but they do not accept Christ Jesus, God Incarnate as the only, Sovriegn God.
THe Shema applies to Christians...but not to the Snitites.

THey cam call themselves Starship Enterprise engineers...that does not mean that they ARE employees at Utopia Planetia.
Jim

C'mon, Ralph.
Surely you are not going to claim that THIS obscenity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j-ir5rHmQg

Is in ANY way Christian?
gone

If the Mormon Cult is so wonderful you wonder why Ralphie isn't still one of their number, if that is true of course?
Derek

Jim wrote:
"Of Course we are Christians"
I stopped reading at that point.
They might call themselves Christians...but they do not accept Christ Jesus, God Incarnate as the only, Sovriegn God.
THe Shema applies to Christians...but not to the Snitites.

THey cam call themselves Starship Enterprise engineers...that does not mean that they ARE employees at Utopia Planetia.


"I stopped reading at that point"

Sorry, I stopped reading at this point
Ketty

Jim wrote:
"Of Course we are Christians"
I stopped reading at that point.
They might call themselves Christians...but they do not accept Christ Jesus, God Incarnate as the only, Sovriegn God.
THe Shema applies to Christians...but not to the Snitites.

THey cam call themselves Starship Enterprise engineers...that does not mean that they ARE employees at Utopia Planetia.


Ketty

Jim wrote:
Yep
While "Rabboni" has no precise translation into modern English, reputable translations have "Master" or "Teacher" as the modern equivalent.
"Husband" is never used by serious CHRISTIAN scholars.


LDS probably use it in that way because of their claims there's a mr and mrs god?  
rstrats

Someone new looking in may have a scriptural explanation for the seeming discrepancy.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum