Christians Only: The Book of Mormon

[John1.12]

Thoroughly.

Now, why do you believe that this is the word of God and not the Quran? Why do you believe something because Paul claims it but not Mohammad?

Because the claims of Muhammad do not do anything . They don't offer anything. Its one witness in a cave receiving instruction from a angel ( allegedly) . Plus its the same works righteousness nonsense I've heard a million times in every other religion I've looked into .

 

[John1.12]

Circular reasoning. Outside scholarship shows it to be written too late to have been written by an eyewitness. “Because the Bible says so” is not compelling in this case

Well if you want to play the ' my scholars are better than your scholars game ' . I usually only hear this said from fringe radicals on the Internet. No one serious actually comes to that conclusion your making. Its up there with ' Jesus never even existed ' ' Flat earth ' and the moon landing was fake ' . There is nothing wrong with circular reasoning. Most claim s ultimately are circular. I start with the axiom that the bible is true ,it comes from God and God cannot lie . Its also ' self evident ' . I've never been a radical skeptic . I listen to those who come up with the silliest criteria for proof and what they believe they don't use the same standard its funny .

 

[John1.12]

Paul was not an eyewitness either. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after Jesus's death. Scholars are very sure that some of the Pauline epistles were written by Paul, some they are unsure of, and some they are very sure were not written by him. II Peter was almost certainly not written by Peter and today there are doubts that he wrote I Peter.

There may be an eyewitness book in the New Testament, but I cannot think of any.

I call this ' pick a scholar that offers the latest date possible, to fit my paradigm ' game.

 

[John1.12]

@Barry Johnson ,

For me, I am a Christian. Christ is the most important, ultimate test of Truth, and my Lord.

I cannot ethically just believe what any man/woman says because they said it. Or wrote a text about it. For me, that would make me a disciple of that human, not God. And me in dire need of mega repentance. The ultimate source of truth is not “____ said it so it must be true.” That goes for Joseph Smith, Mohammad, Paul, and everyone else.

I believe what the bible says ,absolutely.

 

[John1.12]

Evidence?

Its self evident . I've heard all the nonsense from Richard carrier , Bart Erhman, I spent 7 months trying to disprove christianity to myself prior to believing. What I found was abdolute nonsense from certain scholars. Just reading it proves the majority of the radical ,fringe scholars. The late dating , the swoon theories , the ' what about the gnostic gospels ' the ' what about all the contradictions ' , the corruption theories , we don't know who wrote blah blah blah...Just reading the text for yourself actually disproves all the garbage .

 

[John1.12]

Circular reasoning. Outside scholarship shows it to be written too late to have been written by an eyewitness. “Because the Bible says so” is not compelling in this case

' out side ' scholarship lol You mean people who don't believe the bible. What a surprise lol .Are you young? This sounds like a thing a young person might fall for . When you've been around long enough you should see what men do and say to get credit , notoriety, sell books and make money .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the claims of Muhammad do not do anything . They don't offer anything. Its one witness in a cave receiving instruction from a angel ( allegedly) . Plus its the same works righteousness nonsense I've heard a million times in every other religion I've looked into .

Just like Christianity! I agree.

 

[John1.12]

Just like Christianity! I agree.

No . They don't compare.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I call this ' pick a scholar that offers the latest date possible, to fit my paradigm ' game.

No, it is called "pick a scholar that can support his claims".

Modern scholars realize that a lot of Christianity is based upon church tradition and not upon what happened. You appear to be guilty of what you are accusing others of. You are assuming that the Christianity that you were taught is true instead of looking into why those that studied it the most closely disagree with you.

I have found that those claiming "assumption" and then cannot back up the claim usually are assuming that their beliefs are true.

I like to ask people if they can think of a proper test for their beliefs. Most can't. They tend to rely on confirmation bias instead of proper tests that have a clear and reasonable way that their idea could be shown to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No . They don't compare.

I doubt if you can find any significant difference between the two.

 

[John1.12]

No, it is called "pick a scholar that can support his claims".

Modern scholars realize that a lot of Christianity is based upon church tradition and not upon what happened. You appear to be guilty of what you are accusing others of. You are assuming that the Christianity that you were taught is true instead of looking into why those that studied it the most closely disagree with you.

I have found that those claiming "assumption" and then cannot back up the claim usually are assuming that their beliefs are true.

I like to ask people if they can think of a proper test for their beliefs. Most can't. They tend to rely on confirmation bias instead of proper tests that have a clear and reasonable way that their idea could be shown to be wrong.

When you read the news paper do you ring up a scholar and ask him to read it for you first and explain its validity to you and if its legitimate?

 

[John1.12]

I doubt if you can find any significant difference between the two.

I just gave one . ' Works righteousness ' . The idea thats foundational in all false religion. Adhere to the system , organisation/ group ect . Follow its practices , in order to attain through these efforts, rules , law keeping , observances, commitment, dedication , to merit eternal life ect .

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you read the news paper do you ring up a scholar and ask him to read it for you first and explain its validity to you and if its legitimate?

Oh my. I was right.

Like many Christians you appear to be making the error of assuming that the Bible is evidence. It isn't. The Bible is the claim until it is shown to be valid. I asked you for evidence of your claims and your only response was a weak attempt at a personal attack.

Once again can you support your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just gave one . ' Works righteousness ' . The idea thats foundational in all false religion. Adhere to the system , organisation/ group ect . Follow its practices , in order to attain through these efforts, rules , law keeping , observances, commitment, dedication , to merit eternal life ect .

No, that fails. It is confirmation bias at best. That is something that most religions share. It is in Christianity as well. Christianity only has one added bogus twist.

 

[John1.12]

Oh my. I was right.

Like many Christians you appear to be making the error of assuming that the Bible is evidence. It isn't. The Bible is the claim until it is shown to be valid. I asked you for evidence of your claims and your only response was a weak attempt at a personal attack.

Once again can you support your claims?

Lol that old chestnut . Your talking to someone who actually believes the bible .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol that old chestnut . Your talking to someone who actually believes the bible .

I can tell. And you do not appear to understand what an "old chestnut" is. I am still waiting for you to justify your claims, but I do not think that you will be able to.

 

[John1.12]

I can tell. And you do not appear to understand what an "old chestnut" is. I am still waiting for you to justify your claims, but I do not think that you will be able to.

I read the bible and I believed it. Thats my claim . Take from that what you will . Odds on that I also don't believe what you believe about the bible.

 

[John1.12]

I can tell. And you do not appear to understand what an "old chestnut" is. I am still waiting for you to justify your claims, but I do not think that you will be able to.

I read the bible and I believed it. Thats my claim . Take from that what you will . Odds on that I also don't believe what you believe about the bible. Mostly I speak to non Christians and they share the same pat answers from the internet . Rarely have they sincerely searched out the validity of the bible. Instead they are satisfied by clever websites run by atheists who think they are disproving the bible . I know because I used to do this before I was a believer.

 

[John1.12]

Oh my. I was right.

Like many Christians you appear to be making the error of assuming that the Bible is evidence. It isn't. The Bible is the claim until it is shown to be valid. I asked you for evidence of your claims and your only response was a weak attempt at a personal attack.

Once again can you support your claims?

Yes the bible is the evidence. I completely trust its claims and its circular reasoning. Just like in science. Circular reasoning abounds ,and its ok . It all has to start with an axiom . Mine is ,the Bible comes from God, the bible is true and God cannot lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the bible and I believed it. Thats my claim . Take from that what you will . Odds on that I also don't believe what you believe about the bible.

And that may be part of your problem.

How do you properly test your beliefs?