Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is a fact Joseph Smith existed. It is a fact his followers claimed to have individual and *group visions*, witness miracles such as healings and so forth- on more than one occasion! It is a fact they went on to establish a new religion. Now you want to dismiss it because you don't agree with their conclusions. This is really becoming special pleading.

For the fourth time, if the concept of God is logically flawed, then there is no need to dig in to specifics about what the religion or the god teaches, because if the god is logically flawed, then no such god exists.

Before we can get in to specifics about who seen what and where and how...we FIRST need to figure out what was seen, and based on the Mormon's concept of God, the concept is flat out absurd. I don't know what part of that you are NOT understanding, but you need to find a way to wrap your mind around it.

You seem to want to just bypass that and mark it off as unimportant, when it is very important.

Besides that, I think you'd be hard pressed to firmly establish all of your points. Why should I believe the tomb that Jesus was actually put in was empty?

Because it would have been foolish for the disciples to go around claiming that Jesus rose physically from the dead if his body still lay in the tomb. See what I mean? Reasons to believe?

Here's the problem. The mormon claims are not actually logically impossible. You can argue the fail to fulfill the typical natural theological arguments for the existence of God, but so what? Now you are implicitly saying that before we can proceed we have to accept those first?

The universe began to exist. All space, time, matter, and energy began to exist. This we know. So a material god that dwells in a physical body kinda contradicts what we already know. See how that works? Then you have an infinity problem with all of these gods being exalted by previous gods...all the way back to past infinity. But we know that you can't cross infinity. Another problem.

Your argument becomes: accept miraculous claims when reported unless it disagrees with my theological viewpoint. Hopefully you can see why I'm less than impressed by this line of reasoning.

You have to do a lot better than Mormonism there, buddy.

 

[brokensymmetry]

For the fourth time, if the concept of God is logically flawed, then there is no need to dig in to specifics about what the religion or the god teaches, because if the god is logically flawed, then no such god exists.

Their conception fo God is *logically possible*. How is it impossible? Bringing in scientific concepts makes it, at best, nomologically impossible, not logically impossible. By the way, there are cosmological models of the big bang which would allow for Mormon claims just fine.

If it were impossible it would still count as a counter example to your claims. You need another piece to the puzzle as far as building an abductive historical cause such as prior plausibility. Just how plausible are these claims based on our background information? You seem to assume that the Jesus case is perfectly reasonable. An atheist would say it's not because God doesn't likely exist to do miracles or resurrect anyone. You couldn't use this argument easily to prove in one fell swoop that God exists AND did this stuff. You need to do a lot more groundwork first, as the Mormon counterexample clearly demonstrates.

Because it would have been foolish for the disciples to go around claiming that Jesus rose physically from the dead if his body still lay in the tomb. See what I mean? Reasons to believe?

The body was lost, no one knew where it was buried in the first place, it was stolen, the myth about the empty tomb developed late, and took off, developed early sure, but was meant as metaphorical, regardless of the historical facts- all possible.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Their conception fo God is *logically possible*. How is it impossible?

As if I didn't explain..

Bringing in scientific concepts makes it, at best, nomologically impossible, not logically impossible.

The argument against an infinite past...

By the way, there are cosmological models of the big bang which would allow for Mormon claims just fine.

Name me one cosmological model that would make it ok for infinity to be traversed? See, the argument against infinity is a philosophical argument, and its impossibility is independent of cosmology and even science in general.

If it were impossible it would still count as a counter example to your claims. You need another piece to the puzzle as far as building an abductive historical cause such as prior plausibility. Just how plausible are these claims based on our background information? You seem to assume that the Jesus case is perfectly reasonable. An atheist would say it's not because God doesn't likely exist to do miracles or resurrect anyone. You couldn't use this argument easily to prove in one fell swoop that God exists AND did this stuff. You need to do a lot more groundwork first, as the Mormon counterexample clearly demonstrates.

Lets focus on one thing at a time. Your counter-example with Mormonism is based on a logically flawed concept of God. God cannot be a material man, nor can the list of "exalted gods" be linked on a past-eternal chain of events. This is something that you can just bypass as nothing special, this is a logically screwed up view, actually.

The body was lost, no one knew where it was buried in the first place

According to who? You? According to the Gospels, the tomb location was known to both the Jewish authorities and Jesus' followers.

it was stolen

So the disciples stole the body and went around claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them? That doesn't explain the origin of Paul and James' belief. Paul and James were not followers of Jesus so why would they claim that Jesus had risen and appeared to them also?

the myth about the empty tomb developed late, and took off, developed early sure, but was meant as metaphorical, regardless of the historical facts- all possible.

That is completley false. The events that Paul speaks of in 1Corinthians 15:3-7 has been dated back to within 5 years of the cross. So this was not a later myth story. Try again.

 

[Katzpur]

So please explain to me what you believe...as far as the nature of God is concerned?

God was God "in the beginning." He didn't progress to become God somewhere along the way. Jesus Christ was also God "in the beginning." He was with His Father from before creation.

We should appeal to the best explanation, and Christianity serves as the best explanation based on background evidence.

I couldn't agree more. But you make it sound as if all Christians believe exactly the same way, which we know is not the case. You and I, for example, are both Christians and we disagree (respectfully, I am pleased to say) on a number of points of Chrisian doctrine.

 

[brokensymmetry]

As if I didn't explain..



The argument against an infinite past...



Name me one cosmological model that would make it ok for infinity to be traversed? See, the argument against infinity is a philosophical argument, and its impossibility is independent of cosmology and even science in general.



Lets focus on one thing at a time. Your counter-example with Mormonism is based on a logically flawed concept of God. God cannot be a material man, nor can the list of "exalted gods" be linked on a past-eternal chain of events. This is something that you can just bypass as nothing special, this is a logically screwed up view, actually.



According to who? You? According to the Gospels, the tomb location was known to both the Jewish authorities and Jesus' followers.



So the disciples stole the body and went around claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to them? That doesn't explain the origin of Paul and James' belief. Paul and James were not followers of Jesus so why would they claim that Jesus had risen and appeared to them also?



That is completley false. The events that Paul speaks of in 1Corinthians 15:3-7 has been dated back to within 5 years of the cross. So this was not a later myth story. Try again.

The argument against infinite past time doesn't work. 1. I'm an eternalist about time. 2. Even if I were a presentist, you can argue via symmetry with an infinite past that the argument doesn't work.

The fact that you have to even import this to deny the historicity of Mormon miraculous happenings severely harms your presentation. You are outright admitting that you have to accept a lot of baggage beforehand to accept your historical reasoning. The fact also that you don't see that is curious. Are you getting your argument from William Lane Craig? I believe he talks bout prior probabilities and background knowledge. Any good presentation of this should and would.

For an atheist, your presentation of the argument is no more persuasive than my presentation of Mormon claims is for you. Why? In atheism, God doesn't exist to do miracles. For you Mormonism is not true. Why? That *kind* of God doesn't exist.

As far as the other things, I could argue the language about resurrection was quickly metaphorical and understood in a mythological type sense. I don't know how likely that is and it doesn't matter, but I could see how it might be plausible at least, and that is all I need for your challenge. It might not have been the disciples who stole it, someone else. Maybe no one really knew where he was buried and got confused. Any number of things could have reasonably happened. Since the details of these accounts was written a lot later than the 1 cor 15 snippet I would expect there to have been built up stories by the time, say, Matthew, or particularly John was penned.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

God was God "in the beginning." He didn't progress to become God somewhere along the way. Jesus Christ was also God "in the beginning." He was with His Father from before creation.

Is God a material being? Yes, or no?

I couldn't agree more. But you make it sound as if all Christians believe exactly the same way, which we know is not the case. You and I, for example, are both Christians and we disagree (respectfully, I am pleased to say) on a number of points of Chrisian doctrine.

You are a Christian, Katz? Do you believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior and died on the cross for your sins and the sins of mankind?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The argument against infinite past time doesn't work. 1. I'm an eternalist about time. 2. Even if I were a presentist, you can argue via symmetry with an infinite past that the argument doesn't work.

Well thankfully the argument I present is not based on ones view of time. My argument has to do with time, but specifically events in time. Just take any event in time (event X). For every event X, there had to be an infinite number of events prior to event X. So in order for event X to come to past, there had to be an infinite number of prior event X's to come to past.

Since infinity cannot be traversed, any event x would not come to past if the past is eternal. Now, you can take any view on time you like...you can slow time down, or speed time up...doesn't matter at all. The argument will stand.

The fact that you have to even import this to deny the historicity of Mormon miraculous happenings severely harms your presentation. You are outright admitting that you have to accept a lot of baggage beforehand to accept your historical reasoning.

Please address my points regarding the flawed concept of the Mormon God. We cannot talk about any alleged miraculous ocurrences if we can't first get over this hump.

The fact also that you don't see that is curious. Are you getting your argument from William Lane Craig? I believe he talks bout prior probabilities and background knowledge. Any good presentation of this should and would.

William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, to name a few.

For an atheist, your presentation of the argument is no more persuasive than my presentation of Mormon claims is for you. Why? In atheism, God doesn't exist to do miracles. For you Mormonism is not true. Why? That *kind* of God doesn't exist.

It isn't just the fact of me stating that that "kind" of God doesn't exist. I gave you reasons why I am stating this, and I would hope for once you would directly explain to me how a material god can be the ruler of a material world that began to exist, and how infinity can be traversed.

As far as the other things, I could argue the language about resurrection was quickly metaphorical and understood in a mythological type sense. I don't know how likely that is and it doesn't matter, but I could see how it might be plausible at least, and that is all I need for your challenge.

You would have to explain the origin of Paul and James' belief based on what they claim that they saw.

It might not have been the disciples who stole it, someone else.

That would explain the empty tomb, but that wouldn't explain the claims of post-mortem appearances.

Maybe no one really knew where he was buried and got confused. Any number of things could have reasonably happened.

Let me let you in on a little secret; Typically, when someone's best friend dies, you normally would know where the grave/tomb is. That isn't something that you can get confused with.

Since the details of these accounts was written a lot later than the 1 cor 15 snippet I would expect there to have been built up stories by the time, say, Matthew, or particularly John was penned.

But 1Corinthians was written before Matthew and certainly before John. And scholars agree that Paul wrote 1Corinthians and if he wrote it, then he is basing his writings off of personal experience and eyewitness testimony, because it was written during the lifetime of the disciples.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are a Christian, Katz? Do you believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior and died on the cross for your sins and the sins of mankind?

I suspect that Katzpur does believe that, but it's not a belief which is necessary in order to be a Christian.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't know much about Mormonism, but if God wanted to create a material body for Himself, I'm sure He could.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I suspect that Katzpur does believe that, but it's not a belief which is necessary in order to be a Christian.

I don't know....the infamous John 3:16 scripture seems pretty clear to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't know....the infamous John 3:16 scripture seems pretty clear to me.

OK, but one doesn't have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible in order to be a Christian.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't know much about Mormonism, but if God wanted to create a material body for Himself, I'm sure He could.

Prime example of someone just misinterpreting the whole dang point lol.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

OK, but one doesn't have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible in order to be a Christian.

I agree, some parts of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, but are we gonna conclude that John 3:16 wasn't meant to be taken literally?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well thankfully the argument I present is not based on ones view of time. My argument has to do with time, but specifically events in time. Just take any event in time (event X). For every event X, there had to be an infinite number of events prior to event X. So in order for event X to come to past, there had to be an infinite number of prior event X's to come to past.

Since infinity cannot be traversed, any event x would not come to past if the past is eternal. Now, you can take any view on time you like...you can slow time down, or speed time up...doesn't matter at all. The argument will stand.



Please address my points regarding the flawed concept of the Mormon God. We cannot talk about any alleged miraculous ocurrences if we can't first get over this hump.



William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, to name a few.



It isn't just the fact of me stating that that "kind" of God doesn't exist. I gave you reasons why I am stating this, and I would hope for once you would directly explain to me how a material god can be the ruler of a material world that began to exist, and how infinity can be traversed.



You would have to explain the origin of Paul and James' belief based on what they claim that they saw.



That would explain the empty tomb, but that wouldn't explain the claims of post-mortem appearances.



Let me let you in on a little secret; Typically, when someone's best friend dies, you normally would know where the grave/tomb is. That isn't something that you can get confused with.



But 1Corinthians was written before Matthew and certainly before John. And scholars agree that Paul wrote 1Corinthians and if he wrote it, then he is basing his writings off of personal experience and eyewitness testimony, because it was written during the lifetime of the disciples.

There is no 'transversing' events on eternalism of time. Therefore there's no argument you can make by way of arguing that you can't have an infinite past. There is no one event, then another, then another. They all coexist simultaneously.

Do you think that there can be an infinite number of future events?

There is no *logical incoherence* with the Mormon concept of God. You haven't presented a *deductive* argument against a material God.

Besides that I don't think you are addressing my primary challenge. Why would an atheist find your account any more interesting or plausible than you find the Mormon accounts of miraculous events?

Paul may have been talking about Jesus as resurrected in glory nonphysically. I am not convinced this isn't possible.It could be true for James also, though once we get beyond Paul we are going to get more and more hypothetical because we are moving away from our best primary source on this stuff.

His 'best friends' may have scattered after he was killed, been told Jesus was somewhere and couldn't' find him. Who knows.

I realize the 1 cor 15 snippet is regarded as the oldest textual witness of this stuff in the NT. That was my point. I am unconvinced the language there had to refer to Jesus' body, the same one he had while walking about the earth, being resurrected and not some glorified form of him being 'resurrected'. If it is the latter, this argument is severely deflated.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree, some parts of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, but are we gonna conclude that John 3:16 wasn't meant to be taken literally?

Any verse in the Bible can be read as seems most right to us.

I personally don't think John should have been included in the canon.

 

[Katzpur]

Is God a material being? Yes, or no?

He is a spirit (i.e. a spirit being the source of life itself) which resides within a material but perfect and immortal body.

You are a Christian, Katz? Do you believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior and died on the cross for your sins and the sins of mankind?

Absolutely. Please tell me it doesn't surprise you to hear that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is no 'transversing' events on eternalism of time.

There is a traversing of events. For you to be born, there were things that led to your birth, right?

Therefore there's no argument you can make by way of arguing that you can't have an infinite past. There is no one event, then another, then another. They all coexist simultaneously.

I am saying that for every event X, there were an infinite number of events which lead to event X. Plain and simple. I don't know what you are talking about "there is no one event". Makes absolutely no sense, and I am waiting on an explanation. Did you make a post on this forum any time today? Yeah? Was that an event, or wasn't it? What are you talking about?

Do you think that there can be an infinite number of future events?

Yes, the future is potentially infinite, but the fact of the matter is there was a starting point.

There is no *logical incoherence* with the Mormon concept of God. You haven't presented a *deductive* argument against a material God.

1. Any material entity occupies space and is in time
2. God is material and occupies space and is in time


Now, if God was "in time" for eternity, then the problem with infinity will also apply to God him. That is why a entity that transcends space and time is necessary, so absurd results like that will be negated. On the Christian view, that is exactly what we have, a being that transcends all space and time. There is no way out of it.

Second...

"I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions...Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman" (Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2).

So God was born of a woman now?

Besides that I don't think you are addressing my primary challenge. Why would an atheist find your account any more interesting or plausible than you find the Mormon accounts of miraculous events?

If the atheist is sound in his reasoning then he/she would accept the plausibility of Christianity more so than Mormonism.

Paul may have been talking about Jesus as resurrected in glory nonphysically.

Ok, but even if he saw Jesus in his spiritual form, the point is he saw Jesus. That is the point. He was a former skeptic and persecutor of the early Christian church, and he abandoned that way and stepped into the light after he claimed he saw Jesus.

I am not convinced this isn't possible.It could be true for James also, though once we get beyond Paul we are going to get more and more hypothetical because we are moving away from our best primary source on this stuff.

We don't need to get beyond Paul, even though the Gospels corroborate his story, as does the book of Acts.

His 'best friends' may have scattered after he was killed, been told Jesus was somewhere and couldn't' find him. Who knows.

You can assume all you want, I will go by what the narratives say. Luke stated that upon hearing of the empty tomb, Peter ran to the tomb and discovered it empty. If he ran to the tomb and discovered it empty, then he knew where it was.

I realize the 1 cor 15 snippet is regarded as the oldest textual witness of this stuff in the NT. That was my point. I am unconvinced the language there had to refer to Jesus' body, the same one he had while walking about the earth, being resurrected and not some glorified form of him being 'resurrected'. If it is the latter, this argument is severely deflated.

Lets just ignore the fact that both Peter and Paul, throughout the book of Acts, on numerous occasions mentioned the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. It was a bodily Resurrection...and the interesting part about it is the fact that the Gospels and the book of Acts were all written after 1 Cor 15, so for these books to corroborate what Paul claimed in 1 Cor 15 is a marvel.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

He is a spirit (i.e. a spirit being the source of life itself) which resides within a material but perfect and immortal body.

And he was born of a woman, right?

Absolutely. Please tell me it doesn't surprise you to hear that.

I am very surprised.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Any verse in the Bible can be read as seems most right to us.

That is true. But lets sprinkle a little common sense in to the mix.

I personally don't think John should have been included in the canon.

Why

 

[brokensymmetry]

So answer this very simple question; for you to be born, something had to occur/happen, right? Yes or no.



Yes, the future is potentially infinite, but the fact of the matter is there was a starting point.





1. Any material entity occupies space and is in time
2. God is material and occupies space and is in time


Now, if God was "in time" for eternity, then the problem with infinity will also apply to God him. That is why a entity that transcends space and time is necessary, so absurd results like that will be negated. On the Christian view, that is exactly what we have, a being that transcends all space and time. There is no way out of it.

Second...

"I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions...Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman" (Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2).

So God was born of a woman now?




If the atheist is sound in his reasoning then he/she would accept the plausibility of Christianity more so than Mormonism.



Ok, but even if he saw Jesus in his spiritual form, the point is he saw Jesus. That is the point. He was a former skeptic and persecutor of the early Christian church, and he abandoned that way and stepped into the light after he claimed he saw Jesus.



We don't need to get beyond Paul, even though the Gospels corroborate his story, as does the book of Acts.



You can assume all you want, I will go by what the narratives say. Luke stated that upon hearing of the empty tomb, Peter ran to the tomb and discovered it empty. If he ran to the tomb and discovered it empty, then he knew where it was.



Lets just ignore the fact that both Peter and Paul, throughout the book of Acts, on numerous occasions mentioned the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. It was a bodily Resurrection...and the interesting part about it is the fact that the Gospels and the book of Acts were all written after 1 Cor 15, so for these books to corroborate what Paul claimed in 1 Cor 15 is a marvel.

I reject the arbitrary distinction between 'actual' and 'potential' infinities. The concept is ill conceived. If you can have, and it's completely logically conceivable, to have an infinity of future events, it is acceptable to have had an infinity of past ones.

As far as the past of my birth, that is an event. It has a unique spacetime label. The events are ordered sure but all equally real. The event of my birth and the event of my death are 'equally real', and just 'as real' as the present events.

As far as the other Mormon claims, the issue is merely logical possibility since you seemed to say it is *logically impossible*. That means you need to show there is a logical incoherence in the very concept, and I don't think you've done that. Weirdness or implausibility doesn't do that.

Why would an atheist find the typical Christian conception of God more or less likely than the Mormon one prima facie?

Okay, suppose Paul saw Jesus in a 'spiritual form'. The problem for the argument is isn't it about the resurrection fo Jesus' dead body? If you make it about resurrection in a looser sense also, it will become even less motivating. People see their dead relatives not infrequently it seems. At least I have heard such stories of so and so grandpa's coming back in spirit form to give some message. Now I do not think so and so's grandpa has come back. It seems to be a psychological thing that happens to some when they lose loved ones.

I suppose you'd have to show why I or anyone else ought to 'go by the narratives'. Why should I trust the events portrayed in Luke as written? The more details you ask people to accept, the more skeptical they ought to be.

I don't think there is any marvel in latter writings corroborating an earlier declaration of faith. That just suggests to me that the early movement survived to pass on its teachings.