Mormonism

[Aequitas]

I, being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(Mormon), would love to hear your thoughts, feelings, opinions and crazy wack job theories about Mormonism in general. Feel free to ask questions and debate but don't put something like "F***ING POLYGMISTS SHOULD BE SHOT LIKE JAMES SMITH AND HAVE THEIR TEMPLES BURNED TO THE GROUND!!!!!" Anything resembling that shows just how ignorant and closed minded you are. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want to hear what you think about the LDS church.

[CHEVY_454_POWER]

I think most of you guys in my area are very nice people. But you try to hard and it annoys people. As a Christian I don't pay much mind when you knock on my door. I tell them I am not intersted and they leave.

But I do have an interesting story that my fiance told me. When she was temporarily living in a trailer home with her mom (no she is not trailer trash), mormons came through and where hitting every trailer. When they got to hers, no one was home but the door was unlocked. So they let themselves in and wrote a note and put it on the kitchen table. And helped themselves to a glass of water. Well, two glasses were left out I guess.

I think thats a bit of a bad idea.

Chevy

[shetlan]

Most Mormons are nice enough - the door to door stuff is annoying though.

As for the principles of the faith, there's quite a bit about it I don't like. For one thing, I'm surprised that anyone followed Smith who was a convicted con-man, graverobber, and necromancer at the time that he founded the church.

Additionally, I find it funny that nobody questions the story of how the book of Mormon came be to (the "invisible gold tablets" and all), since the tablets themselves are nowhere to be found.

As for polygamy - don't you find it funny that the leaders of your sect decided that a mainstay of your faith could simply be tossed aside when it conflicted with the law? There are alot of these "convenient" things in the history of the LDS church.

[Aequitas]

Yeah, as for the trailer thing, I'm 100% sure they aren't supposed to do that. I know they can be a real pain sometimes, even to members, just be kind and remember they paid out of their own pocket to serve for two years.

Shetlan, I've heard of Joseph Smith being a con-man, but I've never heard of him being a grave robber...and necromancy? For someone who scoffs at the idea of a zombie plan you're suggesting he was a necromancer? I'm including that in the "wack job theories" part of the thread.

As for the Book of Mormon, yeah the story is weird but I prefer that over the way the Bible came to be...a bunch of monks deciding what doctrine should be taught and what shouldn't. I prefer divine intervention over a bunch of old monks any day. (Just a preemptive clarification, Mormons do believe in the Bible as well as the BoM.)

Quite personally I find polygamy to be the greatest mistake of the church, but I consider an honest one. The basis of our belief is that the church is exactly the way it was when Christ set it up, and during Biblical times polygamy was common. I don't think that it occurred to JS that it stopped being acceptable at the same time the Mosaic law was fulfilled. I also want to point out that polygamy was much more common then than it is now. Not only Mormons practiced it, just as not only FLDS members practice it. It is common among native americans, some muslims and certain Jewish sects. I also want to share that many wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other prominent members weren't wives the way we think of them. Many didn't even live in the same house with them and were often widows and single women in need. In Utah you can visit Brigham's "wive's house."

I'm surprised nobody come up with some weird myth they found on google(like necromancy), asked what goes on in the temple or about "magic underpants" Go team.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Shetlan, I've heard of Joseph Smith being a con-man, but I've never heard of him being a grave robber...and necromancy? For someone who scoffs at the idea of a zombie plan you're suggesting he was a necromancer? I'm including that in the "wack job theories" part of the thread.

I didn't say he raised the dead Aequitas, I said he was convicted of necromancy - which was a crime back then. The crime of "Necromancy" doesn't mean he raised the dead, it means he used human remains for some type of occultist ritual. It's still illegal, they just don't call it "Necromancy" anymore.

If you didn't know that Necromancy was a crime back then - you need to open a few more books before coming back to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

As for the Book of Mormon, yeah the story is weird but I prefer that over the way the Bible came to be...a bunch of monks deciding what doctrine should be taught and what shouldn't. I prefer divine intervention over a bunch of old monks any day. (Just a preemptive clarification, Mormons do believe in the Bible as well as the BoM.)

Wow . . . you're trying to have a "educated" and "mature" religious discussion when you don't even know how your own religion's scriptures came to be? Why do I bother

The Bible didn't come to be by the descicions of "a bunch of old monks" - in fact there where no "monks" when the Bible was assembled. Anyone with a mild education on the history of Christianity would know at least that much.

The story of how the Book of Mormon came to be isn't about "divine intervention", it's simply lunacy. Giant tablets of gold written in a language only Smith could translate - oh and also they're invisible. . . anyone else seeing the "con-man" aspect of his past here? It reminds me of a story involving a naked emperor.

Guy: Smith, can I see these tablets you keep talking about?
Smith: No reason to, you won't be able to read them - only I can read them.
Guy: I know, I'd just like to see them.
Smith: Well you can't, because uh . . . they're invisible. Yup, invisible.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Quite personally I find polygamy to be the greatest mistake of the church, but I consider an honest one.

Polygamy isn't the issue. The issue is that your church's teachings said polygamy was good (even required by some interpretations); yet, they tossed it out when it was outlawed.

How holy can the teachings really be if you toss out any part of your faith as soon as it's unpopular?

Originally Posted by Aequitas

The basis of our belief is that the church is exactly the way it was when Christ set it up, and during Biblical times polygamy was common. I don't think that it occurred to JS that it stopped being acceptable at the same time the Mosaic law was fulfilled.

Polygamy was never "acceptable" in God's eyes. A reading of Leviticus shows God saying He "suffered them to have many wives" - it never said He allowed or approved of it, in fact just the opposite.

Your own statement "I don't think it occurred to JS. . . " is an argument against Mormonism on its own. Doesn't Mormonism claim that God ordained the church? If so, how can the church's doctrine be wrong? This raises the question, Did God ordain the Mormon church or did Smith create it himself?

Let's be serious - Smith was horny, so he made polygamy part of his new religion - a religion he was ever so conveniently the boss of.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I also want to point out that polygamy was much more common then than it is now. Not only Mormons practiced it, just as not only FLDS members practice it. It is common among native americans, some muslims and certain Jewish sects.

Ah the classic argument "Everyone else is doing it" - yup, that one really works.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I also want to share that many wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other prominent members weren't wives the way we think of them. Many didn't even live in the same house with them and were often widows and single women in need. In Utah you can visit Brigham's "wive's house."

So, you're saying that Mormons view wives in a light that's far and away from the Biblical view of marriage. Most wives actually had little or nothing to do with their husbands daily lives, so that made it okay?

On the other hand, the Biblical view of marriage (Mormons claiming to hold to Biblical beliefs) places the wife as the closest advisor and partner in her husband's life. Hmm, again with the tossing doctrine out the window when it's convenient.

If you're sticking to the "Keeping it like it was in Jesus' day" idea: Jesus Himself spoke against polygamy.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I'm surprised nobody come up with some weird myth they found on google(like necromancy), asked what goes on in the temple or about "magic underpants" Go team.

I don't care about the "magic underpants". The Baptists aren't allowed to have beards, the Pope wears a silly hat, and the Mormons wear magic underwear - everyone has a wierd quirk. Granted, it's stupid; but so is the pope's hat and the Baptist's beard-phobia.

The first I heard of Smith's necromancy, graverobbing, and con artist convictions was part of a "History of Christian Sects" class I took years ago (though that isn't the only time I've heard them repeated). I've been studying the history of Christianity (and all its off-shoots) as long as I could read. Not surprisingly Aequitas, I likely know far more about the history and founding of your religion than you do.

[CHEVY_454_POWER]

Quite possibly the best shoot down ever concieved on Bombshock. Excellent reading material Shetlan. I agree with every statement, but I am curious. What book did Jesus say he was strictly against polygamy? JW.

Chevy

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by CHEVY_454_POWER

Quite possibly the best shoot down ever concieved on Bombshock. Excellent reading material Shetlan. I agree with every statement, but I am curious. What book did Jesus say he was strictly against polygamy? JW.

Chevy

It's in Matthew (a shortened version is also in Luke)
He did a sermon about marriage and the relationship between husbands and wives, which was sparked by a question about divorce.

The Biblical position on polygamy has been consistent from Genesis on. Quoting Jesus - while he's quoting Genesis " Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Kinda hard to be "one flesh" with multiple women. It's also pretty hard to say you're "be united to your wife" if your wife is never around.

Another quote from Jesus in the same sermon:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Jesus' rules say you can't even get a divorce and re-marry (unless your wife cheated on you), how is skipping the divorce and just marrying more women supposedly overlooked?

We can go back to Genesis and see how polygamy worked out for Abraham. God told him to send Hagar (the mother of his firstborn) away and to take her child as well so there would no conflict between Ishmael (hagar's son) and Isaac (Sarah's son).
Abraham's mistake of fathering a child with Hagar is the basis for the current hatred between the Arabs and the Jews. Hurray, likely the greatest on-going conflict in history, and it's all thanks to polygamy.

Solomon was likely the world's foremost expert on polygamy (having over 700 wives and 300 consorts) - a reading of proverbs will show his dislike of needing to deal with them.

[CHEVY_454_POWER]

Thank you Shetlan, I found it and read it.
Makes sense.

Chevy

[Steve_TPF]

I've always found the story of Joseph Smith and his supposed divine revelation somewhat ridiculous, but after looking into shetlan's statement about his fraud/necromancy convictions my amusement has turned to contempt.

What on earth could convince anyone today, having the information you do, that this man was a prophet of God? It's not just that he was fallible - many prophets had their weaknesses - he was an outright criminal who invented a religion to suit his own purposes. What basis is there for believing in the teachings of mormon when JS was the original source?

(I also find it highly amusing that he recieved instruction from an angel named "Moroni".)

Re. Abraham and polygamy: shetlan is right about the results. But Abraham didn't take Hagar simply for sexual gratification, he took her as a wife because Sarah couldn't conceive. Having an heir was particularly important back then. The whole thing was actually Sarah's idea.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

I've always found the story of Joseph Smith and his supposed divine revelation somewhat ridiculous, but after looking into shetlan's statement about his fraud/necromancy convictions my amusement has turned to contempt.

What on earth could convince anyone today, having the information you do, that this man was a prophet of God? It's not just that he was fallible - many prophets had their weaknesses - he was an outright criminal who invented a religion to suit his own purposes. What basis is there for believing in the teachings of mormon when JS was the original source?

This leads us back to a universal truth I've professed for years, "People are stupid".

I really have no idea why people followed him back then, but the start of the mormon church came duing a period where many church leaders where making predictions about the date of the end of the world. When these predictions didn't pan out, many people left their churches and sought a new one. This likely contributed to Smith's congregation.

As for why people still follow it, consider how so many Mormons are brought up. They spend almost their entire lives in the church, many are educated by the church, and the church dictates what they can read, watch, etc. To most, it's never ocurred to them to question it.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

(I also find it highly amusing that he recieved instruction from an angel named "Moroni".)

Re. Abraham and polygamy: shetlan is right about the results. But Abraham didn't take Hagar simply for sexual gratification, he took her as a wife because Sarah couldn't conceive. Having an heir was particularly important back then. The whole thing was actually Sarah's idea.

That's true, but somewhat beside the point.

Because of the importance of having an heir to your estate, it was actually the tradition of the day for a man to father a child through his wife's servant if his wife was unable to conceive - but the point is, it's not what God told Abraham to do. None the less, after Hagar conceived, the contempt between her and Sarah began immediately.

I find the promise God made to Hagar pretty funny as well as outstandingly descriptive of her descendant's position in the world:
[b]You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

[Aequitas]

Always enjoy your posts shetlan.

Do you have a reference at all for the necromancy charge? I've gone through a lot and all I could find was a story in which Alvin Smith's grave was allegedly disturbed, and Joseph Smith Sr. denied it. Are you possibly referring to baptism for the dead?

The Bible is a collection of documents arranged in a number of councils including the Synod of Hippo, which separated sacred scripture from the apocrypha. A bunch of bishops(excuse me for my inaccuracy) decided which writings were sacred, not God, Christ or even any of his apostles.
Apparently you don't know much about the Book of Mormon either. The plates weren't invisible. If you look right inside the Book of Mormon there are writings from 11 witnesses who each saw and handled the plates. Several of these witnesses left the church for one reason or another, but still didn't deny that they saw the plates.

First off, polygamy was taught by Jews long before Christ and long after. God found it most definitely "acceptable." I put the number of polygamists in the Bible somewhere around thirty. Mosaic law even requires it at times. As for them being far away from their husband's daily life, the law also stated that the husband should attend to his first wife first. If you have to attend to that many spouses(or is it it spice?) in order, I'm sure a few will be left out.

I never said that it was "good," I think it was a bad idea in the first place; what I'm saying is that it occured during Christ's time and the whole idea is that the LDS church is that it's the same as Christ's. Just because a leader made a bad decision, doesn't necessarily mean that the the organization is bad, so long as it is fixed. That's like saying since the president makes a mistake, the entire country has gone bad. Many leaders opposed plural marriage, including Brigham Young who had 55 wives even though he strongly disliked the practice. I admit the Joseph was a crackpot on that, but still, the issue was eventually resolved.

As far as throwing away teachings, Christ was a heretic who disobeyed the law of Moses, as were all of his followers. Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary of all time, went from an extremist Christian killing Jew, to an apostle. Every protestant faith went against one teaching or another, not only Mormons. To dislike Mormonism based on that is to dislike Christianity as a whole. And every religion is considered lunacy by somebody. Would you believe it if someone walked up to you on the street and said "I am the son of God and I've come to die for you and save you from sin."? From the voice of your posts I'm guessing you'd roll your eyes, call him a drunk and a moron and then push past him. May I ask what you believe in Shetlan?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Do you have a reference at all for the necromancy charge? I've gone through a lot and all I could find was a story in which Alvin Smith's grave was allegedly disturbed, and Joseph Smith Sr. denied it. Are you possibly referring to baptism for the dead?

One's I have onhand are:
Church History and Things to Come by Beka Horton
and
Bible Doctrines and the Christian Faith (written by a collection of authors).

Originally Posted by Aequitas

The Bible is a collection of documents arranged in a number of councils including the Synod of Hippo, which separated sacred scripture from the apocrypha. A bunch of bishops(excuse me for my inaccuracy) decided which writings were sacred, not God, Christ or even any of his apostles.

How surprising that you chose the Synod of Hippo as a reference - being that they where one of the councils of the early Catholic church rather than a council that actually assembled the documents now known as the Bible. The Synod of Hippo is famous for "assembling the Apocrypha" into a singular work - likely one of the least relevant acts in Christian history.

The Bible was assembled by a group known as the (First) Council of Nicea. This was the one and only time the Bible was "assembled". The Torah and Talmud where included as the founding blocks of Christianity (becoming the Old Testament) and the New Testament works where chosen based on their agreement and alignment with the teachings and doctrines of the Old Testament.

Again, I find it humorous that the first one you named was the Synod of Hippo, since the Mormon church is one of the few that often uses the Apocryphal works. This is something of a peek into the fact that your entire education on this subject has been through the tinted Mormon lense.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Apparently you don't know much about the Book of Mormon either. The plates weren't invisible. If you look right inside the Book of Mormon there are writings from 11 witnesses who each saw and handled the plates. Several of these witnesses left the church for one reason or another, but still didn't deny that they saw the plates.

Uh huh, so these "witnesses" saw the plates then left? Again with the "convenient" nature of Smith's teachings. I assure you, the witnesses are no more real than the plates themselves.

This is a common ploy of the skilled con-man. Your own word isn't good enough, so you construct several false persons to vouch for you.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

First off, polygamy was taught by Jews long before Christ and long after. God found it most definitely "acceptable." I put the number of polygamists in the Bible somewhere around thirty.

I can find a few dozen murderers in the Bible, including King David - that doesn't make murder a good thing, or a thing God approves.

Care to cite a reference to a section where God approves of polygamy?

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Mosaic law even requires it at times. As for them being far away from their husband's daily life, the law also stated that the husband should attend to his first wife first. If you have to attend to that many spouses(or is it it spice?) in order, I'm sure a few will be left out.

Mosaic law doesn't condone or require polygamy, that's either a gross misreading or a deliberate attempt to distort the laws - dealer's choice.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I never said that it was "good," I think it was a bad idea in the first place; what I'm saying is that it occured during Christ's time and the whole idea is that the LDS church is that it's the same as Christ's.

Then why doesn't LDS condone slavery?
Why don't they condone the sale of women and children as property?
Both aspects of society that where quite prevalent in Jesus' day.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Just because a leader made a bad decision, doesn't necessarily mean that the the organization is bad, so long as it is fixed. That's like saying since the president makes a mistake, the entire country has gone bad. Many leaders opposed plural marriage, including Brigham Young who had 55 wives even though he strongly disliked the practice. I admit the Joseph was a crackpot on that, but still, the issue was eventually resolved.

The church didn't "fix it" Aequitas, it was outlawed.

Let's say you're a doctor and you're poisoning patients. Someone eventually finds out and takes away your medical liscence.
Did you stop? No - somebody stopped you.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

As far as throwing away teachings, Christ was a heretic who disobeyed the law of Moses, as were all of his followers.

Absolutely untrue.
From day one, Jesus followed absolutely every teaching of the Jewish faith, till the day He died.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary of all time, went from an extremist Christian killing Jew, to an apostle.

That he did. Paul believed he was doing God's work by eradicating the Christians, and by Jewish law he was right. As soon as God told him he was wrong, he not only stopped, he became one of Christianity's greatest heroes.

Incidentally, Paul's story has nothing to do with tossing out doctrine, it's a conversion story. He goes from wrong to right.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Every protestant faith went against one teaching or another, not only Mormons. To dislike Mormonism based on that is to dislike Christianity as a whole.

Both statements are utterly false.
Every Protestant faith went against one "Catholic Teaching" or another - the Catholic Church itself is a distorted and corrupted sect.

Secondly, you've totally switched from "tossing a doctrine out" to "differing on doctrine". My point was that the Mormons taught polygamy and then abandoned the teaching when it opposed the local laws.
Again, how sacred could a teaching be if you toss it out when it's challenged?

Originally Posted by Aequitas

And every religion is considered lunacy by somebody. Would you believe it if someone walked up to you on the street and said "I am the son of God and I've come to die for you and save you from sin."? From the voice of your posts I'm guessing you'd roll your eyes, call him a drunk and a moron and then push past him. May I ask what you believe in Shetlan?

Again, a totally irrelevant point with no substance - "Everyone is wrong about something, so I'm right about this."

As I've said before, I hold no denominational title.

[KooperSmith]

I am a mormon too! I was just ordained a teacher a few days a go. Well, for me, I believe in the gospel and I am very strong in what I believe. I can't say I have a knowledge of the existence of Christ and God, and everything else, but I strongly believe it, and have seen how living the standards of the church has brought me lots of comfort during the worst parts of my life. My father and mother both died, and i was adopted multiple times. Its a long story about who I have 2 fathers and 3 mothers, but its very hard, and the gospel gives me comfort when I think there is nothing else. I know for sure it kept me from doing something that would have been the worst ever, but for a 14 year old, I can say it is helpful to me!

[Capt.Trips]

I just thought i would throw this in there: “engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite so thick as common tin.... The volume was something near six inches in thickness....”(Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, v3:9, March 1, 1842, 707.) According to this the weight of the plates would be around 200 lbs. Making them nearly impossible to handle.

[Vertigo]

If there's anything about Mormonism I dislike, it's one simple statement from Jesus after the resurection. He said there would be no more prophets until the end of days when he would return.

Then along comes Big Joe, "Hey, I'm a Prophet of the Lord! Follow me!"

That pretty much kills the idea of Mormonism for me. How can you go blatently against the RED WORDS in the Bible and still claim to be a Christian sect?

[Aequitas]

You know what guys? I've taken a lot of what you've all said into consideration and I decided leave the Mormon church. I have a firm belief in modern teachings, but the story of the restoration and Joseph Smith is sadly something I was stupid enough too believe but a few years ago. I think I'll probably wind up back where I was as a Christian/Buddhist.

Vertigo: Where did you find that?

EDIT: Wooo! 50th post!

[shetlan]

The myth that there where no prophets after Jesus is popular but not one that Jesus Himself preached.

The Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation long after Jesus had ascended into heaven - you can't call an audible for John and still assert that there where no prophets after Jesus.

None the less, Smith was hardly a prophet. He fits the Biblical description of a false prophet to a T. Including defying the Biblical order that no man can add to the Lord's word after John's Revelation.

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

[Aequitas]

We've already established that there was no Bible when that was written. John was referring to Revelations itself, not the Bible.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

We've already established that there was no Bible when that was written. John was referring to Revelations itself, not the Bible.

No, actually we havn't brought that up at all, but that doesn't really matter.

Revelation was the last book - descibing the last events.
John was writing a book of prophesy and declared that anyone who added to it would be punished by God (as would those who took away from it). By default, there's no more to say - John's was the last word.

[Vertigo]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

You know what guys? I've taken a lot of what you've all said into consideration and I decided leave the Mormon church. I have a firm belief in modern teachings, but the story of the restoration and Joseph Smith is sadly something I was stupid enough too believe but a few years ago. I think I'll probably wind up back where I was as a Christian/Buddhist.

Vertigo: Where did you find that?

EDIT: Wooo! 50th post!

Actually, a couple of Elders showed up trying to convert me and showed me their recruitment DVD. The words "Prophet of the Lord" were used somewhere around a dozen times. If you mean the statement from Jesus, I suggest you find it yourself. This is going to read needlessly mean, but it's not how I want it: You seem like you need the time with Jesus.

[Aequitas]

I'm talking about this.

one simple statement from Jesus after the resurection. He said there would be no more prophets until the end of days when he would return.

Just give me a referance because I'm too busy to go through what, 20 chapters trying to find one reference?

This is going to read needlessly mean, but it's not how I want it: You seem like you need the time with Jesus.

I studied the Bible quite thoroughly before I joined the church, and after I joined I spent four years in Seminary studying its doctrine including two years emphasizing the Old and New Testaments. I've spent plenty of time with Jesus.

[bloodlusta]

For me Moronism makes as much sense as any of the monotheistic faith. To me Moronism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.

Also the whole "reading invisible tablet" thing makes as much sense a Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine.

People are welcome to their beliefs and for that reason I enjoy talking to the few Mormons who to come round, I just dislike it when one religion tries to shoot down another, when neither of them makes any sense. Mormons seem well kept and don't commit crime so I think it would be better if more people were Mormon.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also the whole "reading invisible tablet" thing makes as much sense as Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine.

That depends on how you've chosen to view it.

If you're looking at both things and saying, "Neither is possible via human means, so they're both false." - then yes, they're on equal levels.

If you look at then as apples and oranges - a con man claiming to read invisible tablets vs God incarnate claiming to walk on water - then they're not even close.

Separate Point

I've always found people's objections to the miracles of Jesus interesting. The usual objection always seems to be "How could He do that? It's impossible." - one must wonder why people mentally limit the abilities of a deity to manipulate earthly materials and substances. Limitting his abilities only to the extent of human levels.

Is there some reason God shouldn't be able to do something as trivial as turning water into wine? Is there some reason God shouldn't be able to walk on water? For that matter, is there some reason the designer of the universe "can't" use a pre-designed alternate system to cause immaculate conception?

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Separate Point

I've always found people's objections to the miracles of Jesus interesting. The usual objection always seems to be "How could He do that? It's impossible." - one must wonder why people mentally limit the abilities of a deity to manipulate earthly materials and substances. Limitting his abilities only to the extent of human levels.

Is there some reason God shouldn't be able to do something as trivial as turning water into wine? Is there some reason God shouldn't be able to walk on water? For that matter, is there some reason the designer of the universe "can't" use a pre-designed alternate system to cause immaculate conception?

That is taking it as Jesus was god incarnate. Its like me saying "my cousin know a guy who saw someone just start flying" now that guy was really an alien so that makes sense. Saying that YOU believe he is the son of god explains it and means it makes sense does not justify it at all.

Originally Posted by shetlan

If you look at then as apples and oranges - a con man claiming to read invisible tablets vs God incarnate claiming to walk on water - then they're not even close.

But you are looking at the same thing from two different angles and comparing them. You should have said "The prophet of god claiming to read invisible tablets and God incarnate claiming to walk on water"

Other wise a Mormon could say "The prophet of god claiming to read invisible tablets and a guy how had fairy tales written about him 300 years latter by people who weren't there"

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by shetlan

I've always found people's objections to the miracles of Jesus interesting. The usual objection always seems to be "How could He do that? It's impossible."

For me the usual objection is "the life of Jesus and the miracles he performed only seem to be documented in the bible and cannot be found in any independent sources. This is surprising considering how much we know about the time due to the wealth of literature we have from it.". Of course there are plenty of other saviours mentioned in various books, many of Jesus' miracles are attributed to them in these books too but that's not surprising. Saviours were a dime a dozen back then. The only evidence, outside of the bible, of Jesus is James' ossuary with "brother of Jesus" scrawled along the side. And the legitimacy of that is still in question (the guy who discovered it was later found to be a forger).

To even question the legitimacy of the miracles we have to question the legitimacy of the man.

P.S. I apologise for taking this way off topic, perhaps a separate thread would be better (no doubt there already is one).

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

For me the usual objection is "the life of Jesus and the miracles he performed only seem to be documented in the bible and cannot be found in any independent sources. This is surprising considering how much we know about the time due to the wealth of literature we have from it.".

Funny you should say that, since it's completely false.

Look up "Gnostic works" or "The Apocrypha" if you'd like extra-biblical accounts of Jesus' life. These works don't agree on several doctrines, but they are no less accounts of His life.

Incidentally, the lack of accounts of Jesus' life beyond the Bible is somewhat by design. The Council of Nicea wanted to include every account of Christ's life in the assembled Bible, though a few where excluded due to their lack of doctrinal agreement.

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by shetlan

"Gnostic works"

Fantastic, documents of Jesus' life written, at earliest, 200 AD, not exactly what I'm looking for.

"The Apocrypha"

That's only extra-biblical if you're Protestant, they're a part of the Roman Catholic Bible and thus I'm not buying it. You can't suddenly decide it shouldn't be in the bible and then begin calling it extra-biblical, maybe Mark's account will be extra-biblical next.

I'm looking for INDEPENDENT sources, with no affiliation to the church. There are dozens of independent accounts for dozens of other messiahs so why not Jesus?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

That's only extra-biblical if you're Protestant, they're a part of the Roman Catholic Bible and thus I'm not buying it. You can't suddenly decide it shouldn't be in the bible and then begin calling it extra-biblical, maybe Mark's account will be extra-biblical next.

The Apocrypha was added to English translations of the Roman Catholic Bible in the sixteenth century - it is neither an integral part nor a long standing one.

If you're looking for historical accounts that havn't passed through the hands of the Catholic Church - good luck. The Catholic Church was almost the exclusive scource of historical documents and relics, as they where the only people interested in finding or preserving them. If your belief in something depends entirely on the church having no involvement in its record-keeping, you may need to reconsider believing in the existence of quite a few historical figures.

[Aequitas]

I told a guy today that I was a mormon, and he asked if he could see my "little green horns." I didn't even know they were required to be a member!

It's amazing how stupid some people can be.

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by shetlan

The Apocrypha was added to English translations of the Roman Catholic Bible in the sixteenth century - it is neither an integral part nor a long standing one.

Can you give a specific example to a book of the Apocrypha that would provide evidence for Jesus because I'll admit my knowledge on them is limited, however from what I've discovered the majority, if not all, of them are written BC which presents obvious problems.

If you're looking for historical accounts that havn't passed through the hands of the Catholic Church - good luck.

No, I'm just looking for writings that we know to be legitimate, both of the examples you gave are questionable as does everything related to the Bible seem to be. By independent source I'm looking for a first hand account from one of the numerous writers at the time. Even just a brief passing paragraph written on Jesus and his miracles. It seems that outside of the bible a lot of the writings on his life are at earliest written in 150-200 AD

The bottom line is that the existence of Jesus is not fact, and it's more than suspect. To believe he is the son of God you must be certain of his existence, I don't see how you can be.