Posted on 01/31/2006 9:37:58 AM PST by SirLinksalot
> Greenleaf explained that the apostles had absolutely no motive for fabrication – and every human motive to recant their stories. But they did not.
Just like Joseph Smith and the early Mormons.
Mormons? What about modern evolutionists?
Hey...what about .....Democrats?
Why a trial? Trials are not tools for discovering truth. THey're for determining guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. The truth in a case may well be someone is guilty, but if the evidence doesn't support that, well hey, no conviction.
There are a number of historical (non-Biblical) evidences for the existance of Jesus. More so than some other historical figures whose existance is never doubted.
Judges!?! Sheesh! Politicians, heck people. Try doing something with your property without going before a community review Name an area of life that gov doesn't micro manage. They know everything (sarc).
Is this an invitation for Mormon "bashing?"
I think there is hardly any comaparison between the foudners of Mormonism and the Apostles.
We are supposed to believe that an angle named Mormoni, never before mentioned in the Bible, appeared before an illiterate upstate New Yorker named Joseph Smith, provided him with a set of golden tablets written in an unknown language, gave him some magic glasses which allowed him to read said tablets through a cloth which covered them, that these tablets were transcribed into a "Book of Mormon", that several witneses, all of whom appear to be related to one another or to Smith himself, "witnessed" this and attested to its veracity, and finally - that an entire civilization - no traces of which have ever been found - existed in North America before the Europeans came and was detailed in the same Book of Mormon?
I don't think Mormons today are fools or insincere people. I believe most of them believe this - probably because cultural and family ties are strong. But that hardly makes the story of Joseph Smith and the Bible in any way, manner, shape or form analogous.
A good judge would simply throw the case out of court and say --- THIS COURT DOES NOT MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING CASES LIKE THESE. DON'T WASTE MY TIME.You are absolutely right.
How about the Shroud of Turin?
Its an inexplicable relic that ties so closely into the story of the New Testament that it substantiates its veracity.
Smith wanted fame and forged the tablets.
What did Christ have to gain by dying and before death ordering his body removed from the tomb, an almost impossible feat to begin with?
With all due respect, Joseph Smith and the leaders of Mormonism did quite well out of the deal.
The author's argument actually falls apart because the same can be said about many political and religious movements down through history.
For instance, early socialists and communists showed devotion to their "cause" similar to that of early Christians despite great persecution. And for many decades the chance of their coming to power was very slim. Without the disruption to societies caused by WWI, they probably never would have gained power in any country.
Pick the cult of your choice and odds are that many of those following it do so despite great inconvenience or even persecution. That people are willing to suffer for their beliefs does not necessarily make their beliefs true.
Courts deciding the validity of religions.
In a word: ridiculous.
As is your post.
> Smith wanted fame and forged the tablets.
And got hounded and shot for his troubles, as did his followers who got chased halfway across the continent. Why would they go through all the bother?
> What did Christ have to gain by dying ...
Assumign he did. Look at it this way: what woudl the apostles have to gain by making up the story of Christ? Aprt, that is, from fullfillment of prophesy and possibly finally linking all the Jews together into a political entity capable of throwing off the Romans...
> before death ordering his body removed from the tomb, an almost impossible feat to begin with?
What, exactly, was impossible about removing a body from an unguarded tomb (it was left unguraded for the first day or so)? Second: if the lack of remains prove something, then what it proves is that a LOT of people in history and mythology were borne up bodily into the heavens.
Actually the Church should give the same response Uri Geller had for the Amazing Randy when Randy tried to de-bunk him by saying prove you're a psychic. Geller said I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove I'm not.
Nope. Just pointing out that early Christians and early Mormon, within the lifetimes of their religions founders, deeply believed in somethign the rest of the world found silly, and were willign to suffer for their beliefs. If you can accept that level of belief from Mormons and still think their religion is false/shaky/whatever, then there's no reason to assume early Christians were in any way special.
> There are a number of historical (non-Biblical) evidences for the existance of Jesus.
There are a lot of written records from decades after the time of Christ that mention Christians and their beliefs. All that is evidence of is the existence of Christians.
> Geller said I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove I'm not.
It's the one making the initial, remarkable claim that should step up and prove their case.
Look at it this way: let's say you're walking down the street and a bum walks up to you and claims to be God hisself. Who has the responsibility to prove the case? You *can't* prove that he's not God. Does that mean you should bow down to him, worship him and follow him? Worked for Manson's followers, I suppose, but it seems a poor strategy for success.
You're wasting your time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.