in the John 10:16 it does breifly refer to christ visiting "other sheep" which is ofcourse open to personal interpertation but to me it does sound like visiting other lands also it sounds like you dont refer to mormon as christians, we are a lot of people dont realize that.
any mormon/other evangelical monkeys care to explain...?
- Thread starter formermtboarder
- Start date
I fairly sure the peoples of the middle east had no idea the Americas even existed. I don't think the Jews were a great seafaring nation either. The Romans were capable of building ships that might have theoretically been able to cross the Atlantic, but there is no evidence to my knowledge that they ever did.
By divine birth I mean the divine nature of Jesus and the virgin birth as in Mt. and Lk.
Perhaps there is more archaeological/historical support for some events of Christianity and Judaism. What does that prove? So, we have some scattered mentionings in rabbinic sources and some (highly questionable) information in Josephus. Your point that the rabbinic sources have nothing to prove is well taken....but they actually don't really prove much as it is. Some basic information is confirmed and that's about it- Jesus was alive at the time that is supposed, he taught on particular subjects and was executed. That doesn't add up to Christianity. I do not deny the historical value of the gospels, in spite of the doubtful nature of much that appears in them.
I am not attacking Christianity. I just do not think it's fair to start breaking down Mormonism based on historicity when NO religion stands up on historical or empirical evidence; that's where faith comes in. Talk all you want of degrees and measures, it does not change the inability of one to prove theological truths. You cannot get around that. My basic point is that I generally have an adverse reaction to attempts to bring down the faith of others- Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, whatever. All are equally as shaky at their most basic levels when the underlying propositional truth claims are brought into question. Historical questions are interesting and useful, but are of only secondary concern. Religion is unprovable and even if that were not the case, why would you try and expose one as a fraud based on historicity?
Don't berate me for talking (or not talking) about Christians. Look at my posts in this forum. You'll probably find quite a few instances where I defend Christians and, in particular, views that you have advocated.
Perhaps there is more archaeological/historical support for some events of Christianity and Judaism. What does that prove? So, we have some scattered mentionings in rabbinic sources and some (highly questionable) information in Josephus. Your point that the rabbinic sources have nothing to prove is well taken....but they actually don't really prove much as it is. Some basic information is confirmed and that's about it- Jesus was alive at the time that is supposed, he taught on particular subjects and was executed. That doesn't add up to Christianity. I do not deny the historical value of the gospels, in spite of the doubtful nature of much that appears in them.
I am not attacking Christianity. I just do not think it's fair to start breaking down Mormonism based on historicity when NO religion stands up on historical or empirical evidence; that's where faith comes in. Talk all you want of degrees and measures, it does not change the inability of one to prove theological truths. You cannot get around that. My basic point is that I generally have an adverse reaction to attempts to bring down the faith of others- Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, whatever. All are equally as shaky at their most basic levels when the underlying propositional truth claims are brought into question. Historical questions are interesting and useful, but are of only secondary concern. Religion is unprovable and even if that were not the case, why would you try and expose one as a fraud based on historicity?
Don't berate me for talking (or not talking) about Christians. Look at my posts in this forum. You'll probably find quite a few instances where I defend Christians and, in particular, views that you have advocated.
This is true it is up for interpretation, and I could see how one might arrive at that conclusion, if one read just that passage. Remember in Acts 1 Jesus tells the disciples to go to Jerusalem, Samaria and the rest of the world........He makes no mention of Himself going ahead of them to prepare the way.face said:
With all due respect I do not consider Mormonism to be theologically in agreement with historic orthodox Christianity - the Mormon treatment of Jesus, God, baptism (just to name a few) do not align with the orthodox understanding of Christianity (or even the Judaic for that matter).face said:
Which depending on how you interpret various Hebrew words could have some wiggle room.JRogers said:
Im not trying to prove Christianity, that has never been my objective. Also, I dont consider Josephus to be a reliable source for evidence for Jesus or the early church as I do a nice window in to the 1st century Jewish world. However the rabbinic sources are quite compelling and objective ..again something Mormonism lacks, but yet indicates that they date back to before Jesus, if this is in fact the case where is the evidence?JRogers said:
While true in a sense, Mormonism is very lacking in the historical and archeological department as far as evidence goes, not to mention the huge contextual errors they have trying to blend their book with the Bible.JRogers said:
Im countering statements made on there by Mormons that I believe to be historically false, just like many do on here about all sorts of faiths. I have done so on a respectful objective manner trying to make sure I didnt personally attack anyone. Ive done this with both Evangelical Christianity (which I am one) and Catholicism with narry a whimper.JRogers said:
An unexamined faith is not much of a faith at all if you ask me, Im merely providing an alternate point if view that whole thing Paul said test everything hold on to the good.
My apologies James, I guess I misunderstood your tone, you and I have had some very productive discussion on here.JRogers said:
the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. websters definition. to my knowledge the bom talks about and teaches about christ alot more than the ot. no offence though i dont want to sound like a bible basher. it sounds like you dont really understand our basic beleifs. just go to lds.org and click on basic beleifs. (yeah i know it's a really cheesy looking site but its got a bunch of information on it and probably answers questions alot better than meAndyman_1970 said:
You were so cool but Murdoch was still my favorite.face said:
i suggest you learn so you can understand some of the rediclous beliefs of mormonism/other religions (however atheism doesnt seem to have these complicationsdownhilldemon said:
)
Webster is no theologian. I would respectfully direct you to the Nicene Creed if you would like a rough baseline for Christian orthodoxy.face said:
Youre cool dude, this has been a respectful discussion. Since the Old Testament was the Bible for Jesus its important that we understand the OT when examining the teachings of Jesus, all of which had their basis in the OT ..He was a 1st century Jewish rabbi, as such everything He did revolved around teaching and living out the Torah and the Old Testament.face said:
Thank you Ive visited there and am very familiar with the LDS doctrines and beliefs.face said: