Discovering God

[LoAmmi]

Joseph Smith is allegedly like Paul the Apostle or any of the other Apostles who were murdered (though they see him as greater). The difference is that Smith was shooting back, whereas the Apostles died confessing that Jesus is the Messiah.

Whereas the Apostles allegedly died doing that.

 

[Enkil]

Whereas the Apostles allegedly died doing that.

Shooting back at the Romans?

 

[LoAmmi]

Shooting back at the Romans?

I have yet to have someone post evidence about where they died, how they died, or the reasons for dying. Would you like to change that?

 

[Enkil]

I have yet to have someone post evidence about where they died, how they died, or the reasons for dying. Would you like to change that?

The traditions and histories that came later say that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero, allegedly, according to tradition, around the same time Peter was also martyred. He was arrested and taken to Rome due to his work for the Gospel. Their deaths, however, are not actually included in the Bible, though in 2 Timothy Paul does give what is likely his final written words, noting his time of death was near. Stephen, another believer, was stoned to death as told in Acts, and a not as of yet converted Paul was there and oversaw it. The Book of Acts is especially full of the Apostles getting stoned periodically here or there, and not in the drug sense.

 

[LoAmmi]

The traditions and histories that came later say that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero, allegedly, according to tradition, around the same time Peter was also martyred. He was arrested and taken to Rome due to his work for the Gospel. Their deaths, however, are not actually included in the Bible, though in 2 Timothy Paul does give what is likely his final written words, noting his time of death was near. Stephen, another believer, was stoned to death as told in Acts, and a not as of yet converted Paul was there and oversaw it. The Book of Acts is specially full of the Apostles getting stoned periodically here or there, and not in the drug sense.

If I recall, they are stoned but not killed in Acts. However, we still are given only that book to go on and the question becomes is Acts reliable for those stories. Outside evidence, as you have pointed out, does not exist. Traditions within the Church are not really enough to be considered evidence, naturally.

 

[Enkil]

If I recall, they are stoned but not killed in Acts. However, we still are given only that book to go on and the question becomes is Acts reliable for those stories. Outside evidence, as you have pointed out, does not exist. Traditions within the Church are not really enough to be considered evidence, naturally.

This is like saying there is no evidence for Daniel being thrown to the lions because it's only written in the book of Daniel. And the church historians are certainly history outside of the Bible. I merely cannot give them the same legitimacy as the Bible. Whatever the case, the Apostles certainly suffered according to the scripture, especially for Paul's death in Rome, and common memory holds that they were martyred.

 

[LoAmmi]

This is like saying there is no evidence for Daniel being thrown to the lions because it's only written in the book of Daniel. And the church historians are certainly history outside of the Bible. I merely cannot give them the same legitimacy as the Bible. Whatever the case, the Apostles certainly suffered according to the scripture, especially for Paul's death in Rome, and common memory holds that they were martyred.

It is exactly like saying that about Daniel. I don't mind. Doubting Daniel does not effect my faith at all. If Daniel is just a story, it is still fine. If Jesus is just a story, well... as Paul says, without the Resurrection there is nothing to Christianity.

 

[Enkil]

It is exactly like saying that about Daniel. I don't mind. Doubting Daniel does not effect my faith at all. If Daniel is just a story, it is still fine. If Jesus is just a story, well... as Paul says, without the Resurrection there is nothing to Christianity.

So basically, I believe in the Old Testament more than you do lol.

 

[LoAmmi]

So basically, I believe in the Old Testament more than you do lol.

Where did I say that?

 

[roseglass6370]

Which ones do you know were killed for their beliefs? How many of those were direct eye witnesses?

Why did people who follow Joseph Smith dedicate themselves, to the point of death, for what you consider to be a lie?

1) Best known is Stephen. However, most leaders of the early Church risked imprisonment and death for the sake of Christ. Paul, for example, was imprisoned. Eyewitnesses in such a position included: Peter, James, John, and the author of Jude (either Judas the apostle - not Judas Iscariot, or Judas the brother of Jesus).

2) Also, its key to mention that Christ Himself gave His life for His beliefs. Joseph Smith was, as mentioned, an unwilling martyr. Joseph's followers put their lives on the line because they trusted Joseph...who proved to be a liar. The NT writers put their lives on the line because Christ did too, proving His authenticity.

 

[LoAmmi]

1) Best known is Stephen. However, most leaders of the early Church risked imprisonment and death for the sake of Christ. Paul, for example, was imprisoned. Eyewitnesses in such a position included: Paul (author of Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon), Peter, James, John, and the author of Jude (either Judas the apostle - not Judas Iscariot, or Judas the brother of Jesus).

So, the New Testament proves the New Testament. That does not prove anything.

2) Also, its key to mention that Christ Himself gave His life for His beliefs. Joseph Smith was, as mentioned, an unwilling martyr. Joseph's followers put their lives on the line because they trusted Joseph...who proved to be a liar. The NT writers put their lives on the line because Christ did too, proving His authenticity.

Why do the NT writers putting their lives on the line make him correct but Joseph Smith's followers not? That is a double standard and does not count as evidence.

 

[Enkil]

Where did I say that?

Where you said you don't mind doubting Daniel. If it were me, I would like to answer my doubts and make a conclusion one way or the other.

 

[LoAmmi]

Where you said you don't mind doubting Daniel. If it were me, I would like to answer my doubts and make a conclusion one way or the other.

You are reading what you would like into what I actually said.

 

[Enkil]

You are reading what you would like into what I actually said.

Very well, I will rephrase my initial statement then.

This is like saying there is no evidence for Abraham receiving the promise of God because it's only written in the Bible.

 

[LoAmmi]

This is like saying there is no evidence for Abraham receiving the promise of God because it's only written in the Bible.

Yes, that is a correct statement. There is no evidence for Abraham outside of the Torah.

 

[Enkil]

Yes, that is a correct statement. There is no evidence for Abraham outside of the Torah.

That is a double standard and does not count as evidence.

 

[LoAmmi]

That is a double standard and does not count as evidence.

Double standard for what?

 

[Enkil]

Double standard for what?

Presumably, you believe in Abraham and God's promises to Him, and therefore would find the testimony of the Bible to be of some weight. That, and I just copied and pasted what you wrote.

 

[LoAmmi]

Presumably, you believe in Abraham and God's promises to Him, and therefore would find the testimony of the Bible to be of some weight. That, and I just copied and pasted what you wrote.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that Abraham existed and he received promises.

 

[Enkil]

I'm not trying to convince anybody that Abraham existed and he received promises.

No, but I don't think the purpose of this thread was for arguing that one should deny the veracity of the New Testament off hand. It was about a good book she was recommending, actually. So if we can't trust anything that is of Christian origin, surely no one has the right to trust anything of Jewish origin. Every word must be backed by non-Jewish sources. Therefore, we're both smacked by your own logic.