tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8418662297608148515..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Does 3 Nephi Wrongly Put Words from Peter in Christ's Mouth? Another Book of Mormon Weakness ... Becomes a Strength?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21349023023666739182013-06-17T10:17:46.252-05:002013-06-17T10:17:46.252-05:00More like ad Anonym, but I won't do that eithe...More like ad Anonym, but I won't do that either :-)<br /><br />To my knowledge, Mark never says that Jesus resurrected himself by his own power. Interestingly, Paul and other New Testament epistle writers say repeatedly and explicitly that God raised Jesus from the dead (1Cor 15:15; 6:14; 2Cor 4:14; Rom 8:11; 10:9; 2Tim 2:8; 1Peter 1:21; 1Thes 1:10; Acts 3:15; 5:30; Acts 13:30). So the idea that Jesus raised himself from the dead isn't supported by most New Testament writers. You could infer it from John's writings, but John has a higher Christology than just about anybody else. Even Matthew and Luke use "raised" from the dead in the passive voice.Romannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60562406727860558532013-06-16T09:54:06.070-05:002013-06-16T09:54:06.070-05:00No need to go all ad hominem.
Christ resurrected ...No need to go all ad hominem.<br /><br />Christ resurrected himself by his own power. To date, no unjust person has been resurrected by any power. No other person who has been resurrected has been resurrected by their own power. That's a significant difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21741552333705897442013-06-15T13:49:56.794-05:002013-06-15T13:49:56.794-05:00I know. It's difficult to get past your presup...I know. It's difficult to get past your presuppositions. Does Paul mean to say that the resurrected unjust will be divine, because they are resurrected (Acts 24:15)? If Jesus is divine, why does not the description of good apply to him as it does to God (Mark 10:18)? You can't see that not all scripture writers believed the same things. You're stuck with the worldview that you inherited.Romannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85363860668461574192013-06-14T21:12:35.550-05:002013-06-14T21:12:35.550-05:00I guess I would put money on Mark and Luke believi...I guess I would put money on Mark and Luke believing that Jesus was/is divine. To infer that they didn't because some key word is missing in the extant translations of their writing seems quite the stretch.<br /><br />(A man is crucified and is clearly dead. On the third day from his crucifixion he rises from the dead, ascends into heaven, and is seen on the right hand of God. Not divine? Whatever...)<br /><br />(Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear the Son of God. Not divine? Go figure...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36970770897759974872013-06-13T12:47:11.654-05:002013-06-13T12:47:11.654-05:00Quantumleap,
I appreciate your thoughtful engagem...Quantumleap,<br /><br />I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. You're right about my argument depending on a definition, but I disagree that it's circular. I'm not arguing that the premise follows from the conclusion. My conclusion is simply that apologetic arguments suffer from confirmation bias because demonstrably improbable belief claims are relegated to objects of faith rather than accepted as disconfirmatory. It's a system where only positive hits count. <br /><br />My assertion that objects of religious faith are improbable is based on the idea that if something is believable because it is supported by objective evidence, then religious faith is not required. The faith is dormant, to borrow a phrase from the Book of Mormon. The various faith claims that distinguish one religion from another cannot be supported by objective evidence. That which can be demonstrated is generally agreed upon by people of different faiths. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16817605704119830512013-06-13T12:33:19.770-05:002013-06-13T12:33:19.770-05:00Anonymous,
Mark doesn't claim that Jesus is G...Anonymous,<br /><br />Mark doesn't claim that Jesus is God. See Mark 10:18. Resurrection doesn't make one God or a god. Remember the resurrection of the unjust? There was an early view among Christians called adoptionism, where Jesus was believed to be the adopted son of God. This view is expressed in an older Greek manuscript of Luke where Jesus is adopted at his baptism. Being called the "Son of God" didn't necessarily make one God or a god in the worldview of the Jews or Mediterranean pagans. Israel was called God's son, and stoic philosophers said that we are children of God. Only John uses the phrase "only begotten." You're right that some gospel writers thought that Jesus was divine. Hence the disagreement.Romannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20803706179761704422013-06-13T09:48:14.150-05:002013-06-13T09:48:14.150-05:00Our friend Roman here offers a rather circular arg...Our friend Roman here offers a rather circular argument. The general assertion is that Religious apologetics (Mormon apologetics in particular) ultimately retreat to the unprovable and the things that must be taken on faith. But if you look closely at what he is saying we see that he has defined religion is such a way that it can <b>never</b> be proven correct, or even have any salience to the facts of history.<br /><br />He says that historians seek to demonstrate what is "probable", with the implication being that the most probable explanation being the non-religious one. Then he defines the "objects of religious faith" as those things that are improbable. This is currently a very popular argument and I have seen this argument in many different forms but essentially is boils down to this:<br /><br />(P) Religion deals with things that are inherently unprovable and cannot not be historically (or scientifically, choose your favorite word here) proven.<br /><br />(C) Therefore any argument for religion is inherently unfounded and cannot be proven because religion (from our premise) consists of all things that cannot be proven.<br /><br />The problem is that this is a circular argument as people like Roman first assume that <i>any</i> Religious apologetics must retreat to a basis of faith (where faith is defined as things that can <i>never</i> be proven), then say that any apologetic argument is unfounded because it relies on an unprovable faith.<br /><br />But this argument doesn't work if you don't assume that the objects of religious faith are things that are inherently unprovable or even improbable.<br /><br />[As a final note, I should point out that certain strands of religious sentiment are not free from this same logical fallacy. This is why I have very little regard for Kierkegaard and generally place him in the same category as Nietzsche. Both have perhaps done more to destroy religion than almost anyone else in the past 200 years. I would explain why I say that except this is not my blog and it would take several posts just to explain why I feel that way.]Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77261718112161255202013-06-12T21:56:13.480-05:002013-06-12T21:56:13.480-05:00"Not all gospel writers agreed about the divi..."Not all gospel writers agreed about the divinity of Jesus."<br /><br />Well, let's see, that would be four writers. Matthew is pretty clear that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. To me that suggests divinity. Mark talks about the resurrection of the Lord. That seems pretty divine to me. Luke quotes the Father telling Jesus, "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." John tells us that Christ created all things - seems pretty divine to me.<br /><br />So is this a hair-splitting exercise? Are we next going to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31506721093073202552013-06-12T15:41:00.326-05:002013-06-12T15:41:00.326-05:00Who are these facile apologists? All of them. It&#...Who are these facile apologists? All of them. It's due to the nature of religious apologetics. Anything is possible, but the historian seeks to demonstrate what is probable. The objects of religious faith are inherently improbable. Apologetics mixes appeals to probability with retreats to faith. <br /><br />Apologists and critics seem to be converging. Apologists recognize that the Book of Mormon relies heavily on the KJV text. Great. How do they explain that? Joseph Smith used phrases from the King James to translate the Book of Mormon where possible. The problem is, how often should such a thing be possible? Here's an experiment for you. Without changing the meaning of their words, can you paraphrase Amos and Obadiah to sound like Paul? Another problem: various New Testament writers had distinctly different points of view. Not all gospel writers agreed about the divinity of Jesus. Not all New Testament writers agreed about the necessity of keeping the Torah. But in the Book of Mormon, different New Testament writers are quoted in such as way as to seamlessly harmonize all the points of view in the New Testament, as if they were all in agreement. Reasoning by analogy, the Book of Mormon paints an improbable picture of agreement among ancient writers and one harmonious theology between it and the Bible. How do you reconcile that? Romannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2419325407046939652013-06-11T19:11:51.327-05:002013-06-11T19:11:51.327-05:00Roman, who are these deft apologists? The ones I r...Roman, who are these deft apologists? The ones I read fully recognize that the Book of Mormon relies heavily on the KJV text and get into many other nitty gritty details in dealing with some of the concerns people have raised. I don't see the deft aversion of substance that you refer to. But yes, faith is always an element in our, um, faith. There will always be questions and objections and uncertainties. But we're glad to have some cool things to strengthen that faith at time. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71103915339454324852013-06-11T15:59:02.291-05:002013-06-11T15:59:02.291-05:00You're right, Jeff. It's a small thing and...You're right, Jeff. It's a small thing and no reason to leave or join the Church, but Pauline phrases and other passages from the New Testament occurring at times verbatim throughout the Book of Mormon are a bit more difficult to get past. A neutral evaluator blinded to the title, provenance, and current status of the Book of Mormon might fairly conclude that its author or authors were dependent on the New Testament. That's fair, isn't it? It takes faith and other presuppositions to conclude otherwise. I don't accuse you or other apologists of ever denying that your position depends on faith and presuppositions, but often the apologetic method invokes the methodology of history and probabilities to make a point, and then facilely switches to a position of faith when the conclusion is no longer warranted by probability. Probability is favored when it bolsters a certain position, then ignored when it doesn't. Heads you win, tails I lose.Romannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32329138293566181122013-06-11T09:16:57.064-05:002013-06-11T09:16:57.064-05:00I first learned about the passages in 3 Nephi and ...I first learned about the passages in 3 Nephi and acts only a few months ago (something that was never covered in Seminary, Institute, or Sunday School, sigh). I had to learn about it from a random anti-Mormon site. (they always have great stuff. Great as in, nice bog long lists of everywhere in the Book of Mormon where it quotes the Bible. Great resource, if you can get past all their mindless accusations, and ironically, mutual plagiarism).<br /><br />So a couple of months ago I did my own write up on these passages on my own blog, with a side-by-side comparison (if you want to check it out, <a href="http://quantumleap42.blogspot.com/2013/04/comparison-of-texts-from-3-nephi-2023.html" rel="nofollow">click this link</a>).Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.com