Hello, I used to be a Mormon

[bat]

I live in Utah, and was raised as a Latter Day Saint (Mormon). One of my biggest reasons for leaving the LDS Church, was it's inability to make good on it's claims. I can elaborate, but I'm sure most of you are already familiar with the issues.

I am struggling to remain a Christian. I was expected to take the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP on faith, but I found them to be implausible and unlikely to be substantiated in basis.

Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?

My faith has run out. I don't know if I should belive in anything anymore.

How do you all deal with this? How do you have faith in one book that has no tangible basis, but embrace another book that has no tangible basis?

Any helpful comments will be welcomed.

 

[calgal]

Welcome bat! Frankly, I had a hard time when I first left the mormon church with the Bible and my concept of God. Using the mormon model will make all aspects of Christianity all but impossible to believe. It took me several years and some patient friends for all the "corrupted data" I was taught to go away.

The good news for you is the plethora of pastors and congregations who have "been there and done that" in regards to leaving mormonism in the state of Utah. PM me and I may be able to give you a couple names. Always nice to see a fellow exmo here.

I live in Utah, and was raised as a Latter Day Saint (Mormon). One of my biggest reasons for leaving the LDS Church, was it's inability to make good on it's claims. I can elaborate, but I'm sure most of you are already familiar with the issues.

I am struggling to remain a Christian. I was expected to take the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP on faith, but I found them to be implausible and unlikely to be substantiated in basis.

Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?

My faith has run out. I don't know if I should belive in anything anymore.

How do you all deal with this? How do you have faith in one book that has no tangible basis, but embrace another book that has no tangible basis?

Any helpful comments will be welcomed.

 

[Serapha]

I live in Utah, and was raised as a Latter Day Saint (Mormon). One of my biggest reasons for leaving the LDS Church, was it's inability to make good on it's claims. I can elaborate, but I'm sure most of you are already familiar with the issues.

I am struggling to remain a Christian. I was expected to take the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP on faith, but I found them to be implausible and unlikely to be substantiated in basis.

Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?

My faith has run out. I don't know if I should belive in anything anymore.

How do you all deal with this? How do you have faith in one book that has no tangible basis, but embrace another book that has no tangible basis?

Any helpful comments will be welcomed.

Hi there!



welcome to the forums!

I've seen some of your previous postings on another forum, and we may have a common bond in the near future...


<grin> being banned from the same site.

I am struggling to remain a Christian.

There are several areas on Christianforums that are designed to help... there is even a forum "struggles for Christians"... so feel free to post elsewhere on the forums...

I was expected to take the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP on faith, but I found them to be implausible and unlikely to be substantiated in basis.

uhuhh.... ~nods in agreement~

Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?

Well, first of all... I would refer you to manuscript P52 with is the earliest known manuscript of the New Testament. (you may put p52 in your search engine and it will come up with information about the manuscript)

P52 is a portion of the gospel of John, and the most recent dating of the manuscript places it within just a few years of the life of the Apostle who wrote it.

And we could preceed forward from that time concerning the ancient manuscripts.

The point I want to make is this... there are thousands of manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts... and they are grouped into families, being called "witnesses" to each other. They support each other in content and context...

Thousands of manuscripts...

I would recommend that you begin a study of Greek and Hebrew words and study their useage in the Bible... The Bible is so specific in the words that are used in the ancient manuscripts... such as...

In the modern Bibles, there is only one word for "net" as in fishing, but in the Hebrew and in the Greek, there are 4-5 different words for "net", depending upon the context of the passage. In English... the context is lost in generalization.

and for example, in the feeding of the 4,000 and the feeding of the 5,000 (the miracles of multiplication)... in the ancient text, there are differertiation in the use of the word "basket" to differentiate the location of the miracle... that evidence doesn't come out in the English language, but it does in the Greek text.

The Bible is supported by linguistics, by historical evidences and by archaeological evidences. If there is a passage that you can't grasp or reconcile, send me a private...

And be encouraged... if your faith seems to falter... remember

Faltered faith is not failed faith....


~serapha~

 

[leeuniverse]

bat.... What are you doing here you nutty munchkin?
And since when were you a "christian" and "struggling"? hee hee

Welcome to this part of the woods.

 

[Serapha]

Hi there!

How do you all deal with this? How do you have faith in one book that has no tangible basis, but embrace another book that has no tangible basis?

There is tangible basis for both the Old and the New Testament...

I love Bible archaeology... you learn so much in working in Israel at the actual sites where first-century Christians lived and died for the Christian cause.

There is so much "tangible" evidence for the Bible... such as Jesus being the Lord God Almighty... the triune God... look up Peter's house in Capernaum, and you will find that there were 130+ inscriptions in the plaster of Peter's house including one that identifies Christ as the Lord God Almighty... Peter's home in Capernaum was converted into the first house church in Israel. When I lecture, I refer to Peter's house in Capernaum as "First Church of Israel"... because it was.... and the people who lived in Capernaum knew that.

Look at any part of the Bible, and you can find "tangible" support for the locations, for some of the people, for customs of the people, for Judaic teachings that go alongside Christian teachings.

Look at Megiddo with 25-30 layers of strata for different civilizations with comparable evidences that align with the destructions described in the Bible.
The city of Hazar has the "burn" described in the Old Testament when it states that the Israelite came into the promised land...

Look at the Wadi El-Kharrar and the evidences of baptism there... that's the site where John the Baptist was baptizing "all of Judea"... Look at Nazareth and the early inscription there concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus...

There are tangible evidences all over the levant concerning the Bible.


There's no reason not to beleive that all of the Bible is not truth.

~serapha~

 

[Chaucer]

P52 is a portion of the gospel of John, and the most recent dating of the manuscript places it within just a few years of the life of the Apostle who wrote it.

Except that no one knows who wrote the Gospel of John and the fragment is dated at between 120 and 150 CE so that would put it at about 90 to 120 years after Christ, but whatever.

On the other hand P52 is also a Sony digital camera and we know, from fingerprints and corbon dating, who makes those and when.

 

[Serapha]

Except that no one knows who wrote the Gospel of John and the fragment is dated at between 120 and 150 CE so that would put it at about 90 to 120 years after Christ, but whatever.

On the other hand P52 is also a Sony digital camera and we know, from fingerprints and corbon dating, who makes those and when.

Sir,

There is no reason to doubt the authorship of the gospel of John.

http://bible.org/docs/soapbox/jnotl.htm

http://bible.org/docs/nt/books/joh/joh-intr.htm

http://bible.org/docs/nt/books/joh/joh-intr.htm

2. John was either cited or named as authentic during
the first four centuries by the following2
a. Clement of Rome (c. 95-97)
b. Polycarp (c. 110-150)
c. Papias (c. 130-40)
d. Irenaeus (c. 130-202)
e. Justin Martyr (c. 150-155)
f. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
g. Tertullian (c. 150-220)
h. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-200)
i. The Latin Marcionite Prologue (c. 200)
j. Origen (c. 185-254)
k. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386)
l. Eusebius (c. 325-340)
m. Jerome (c. 340-420)
n. Augustine (c. 400)

and you may "argue" p52 however you wish... but you are not the "scholar" and P52 does not stand alone in ancient manuscripts.


http://bible.org/docs/nt/books/joh/joh-intr.htm



My friend, I think you are angry with this member because of past conversations on the "other forum"... and you are angry because he has left your denomination.


Dishing out "faulted" information to encourage a "lack of faith" certainly isn't needed here. You say you seek the truth, but only if that truth destroys the Bible and supports the bom.


~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

On the other hand P52 is also a Sony digital camera and we know, from fingerprints and corbon dating, who makes those and when.

Sir,

THAT.... is off topic

:topic:

Sometimes called a "red herring" in debate where the effort is to throw the opposition off the track onto another topic... a ploy usually used by a losing party. For someone who makes public statements about debate protocol in others, I guess the same debate protocol doesn't apply to you.


~serapha~

 

[leeuniverse]

 

[bat]

Here is another incostancy that I am having a difficult time with.

P52 is a portion of the gospel of John, and the most recent dating of the manuscript places it within just a few years of the life of the Apostle who wrote it.

Carbon dating is cited when it almost supports the Bible, but is immediately discointed by creationists as innacurate when pertaining to the age of the earth by creationists.

 

[Serapha]

Here is another incostancy that I am having a difficult time with.

[/i]

Carbon dating is cited when it almost supports the Bible, but is immediately discointed by creationists as innacurate when pertaining to the age of the earth by creationists.

Hi there!



did you read the site I posted?


Manuscripts are identified by "age" under many criteria... writing style, witnesses to the manuscript, location, ...even the ink used or the fibers of the manuscript can date a papyrus.


Carbon-14 dating isn't the only criteria that is used. Personally, I am not a big advocate of carbon-14 dating... but carbon-14 dating isn't "necessary" for most manuscripts to get an accurate dating.


~serapha~

 

[skylark1]

I live in Utah, and was raised as a Latter Day Saint (Mormon). One of my biggest reasons for leaving the LDS Church, was it's inability to make good on it's claims. I can elaborate, but I'm sure most of you are already familiar with the issues.

I am struggling to remain a Christian. I was expected to take the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP on faith, but I found them to be implausible and unlikely to be substantiated in basis.

Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?

My faith has run out. I don't know if I should belive in anything anymore.

How do you all deal with this? How do you have faith in one book that has no tangible basis, but embrace another book that has no tangible basis?

Any helpful comments will be welcomed.

Hi Bat,

Welcome to CF.

I also live in Utah, but I have never been LDS. Please don't hestitate to pm me, if there is anything that I can help you with. I don't know if you have a church home, or if you are looking for one.

Serapha has given you a lot of wonderful advice already, but I would like to add that the OT prophesies that were fulfilled in Christ are overwhelming evidence. You do not only have to look at the New Testament. I read somewhere that the odds of someone fulfilling all of the OT prophesies concerning the Messiah, would be equivalent to The state of Texas being buried a foot deep in silver dollars, and one of these silver dollars being the "right one."

Thesre are about 100 prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. The chart on the site linked below, lists them, gives the OT verse, and the NT fulfillment.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/proph.htm

Have you ever read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel? If you live in SL County it is in the library system, and they will send it to your local library if you place a hold on it.
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/toughLawyer.htm

 

[skylark1]

This is from http://www.carm.org/bible/prophecy.htm

The article also discusses some of the prophesy that Jesus fulfilled, with references.

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy ​

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.

"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in


100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.


The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."
​

 

[Chaucer]

Sir,

There is no reason to doubt the authorship of the gospel of John.




and you may "argue" p52 however you wish... but you are not the "scholar" and P52 does not stand alone in ancient manuscripts.





My friend, I think you are angry with this member because of past conversations on the "other forum"... and you are angry because he has left your denomination.


Dishing out "faulted" information to encourage a "lack of faith" certainly isn't needed here.

Let me see if I understand your thinking. You think that I am upset that someone let his religion and I take out my anger stating - correctly - that the author of John is unknown and by correcting you on the dating of manuscript fragment.

Now you have just charged me with putting out "faulted". That's a spurious charge. I gave correct information about the fragment and about John. The fragment known as P52 has a few partial lines consisting of a couple dozen words and is thought to have been written sometimes between 117 or 120 and 150 CE or so.

"It is unfortunate that P52 is but a small fragment and not useful as a witness to the form of the Fourth Gospel in it's "First Edition." If it were a complete gospel it could tell us much about the later redactions and interpolations to the canonical John."

http://www.historian.net/P52.html

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

Now the way authorship of John works is a matter of deduction. The author only identifies himself as the disciple who Jesus loved. His knowledge indicates he is probably a Palestinian Jew and he represents himself as an eyewitness to the events he describes. Then a "loved disciple" had to come from the inner circle and the inner circle is considered to be Peter, James and John. Peter, it seems is seperate, so that leaves James and John but James died too early...

So, by means of supposition and elimination we arrive at the apostle John.

Our supposition also matches the supposition of earlies Church figures so we all feel good about that.

That's how we know or believe authorship. Why people get all bent out of shape when you explain the basis of your knowledge is beyond me.

 

[Chaucer]

Carbon dating is cited when it almost supports the Bible, but is immediately discointed by creationists as innacurate when pertaining to the age of the earth by creationists.

Come on man. Carbon dating proves that donkey's talk:

Numberss 22:21-41

This really has nothing to do with the initial topic of the thread, but since the discusion is going this way and you mentioned it... (let me know if I am highjacking your thread)

Bible afficionados act as if all the archeological evidence (and carbon dating) actually prove something. Like if Jericho was a real city, then the story told in the Bible might actually have had a real place to take place in and therefore that provides evidence for the Bible being true. (actually acheological evidence about Jericho tends to disprove the Bible account but that's another story.

The idea that archeological evidence can prove the central claims of the Bible is utter nonsense. The central claims of the Bible are that there is a God of Israel who did covenant with them and that Christ was born and died and is our Savior and through him we might all live.

I believe and accept that, whole-heartedly. I also know that no amount of archeology will ever add a single bit of proof to that.

Happy hunting.

 

[Rescued One]

There was only one donkey that talked; now they let jacka__es do the talking! Just kidding!

bat, most people who are raised in and then leave the LDS faith have the same struggles that you do. I won't attempt to prove to you that the Bible is the Word of God because I haven't the time. I hope someone else will take up this gauntlet for you.

What is faith?

[bible]Hebrews 11:1-6[/bible]

 

[Chaucer]

"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in


100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.


The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."
​

Holy Moly.

No offense to the sumptuary actuary who wrote that but come one man., who does this impress? Who is drawn to Christ because some apologist likens prophecy fullfillment to a blind man looking for silver dollars in Texas. And the bit about ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,oo,ooo,ooo,.... I'm no statistician but give me a break. Ask a Jew iff that makes any sense at all. (No offense to you personally Skylark)

I'll give you my take. All that inane number crunching and acheological blather is just window dressing mucking up the view. If you were Mormon and found that through it's application you were unable to establish a valid connection to God, then I hope you find it elsewhere. From what I can tell, Mormon application of the gospel falls down in one key area. Mormons get the idea that salvation is a function of nose-to-the-grindstone, sweat and blood, stick-to-it-ness. I think that they are fully aware that salvation is an act of grace but they still have their thinking twisted up in knots about behavior and behavior always is questionable (look at the way supposed Christians treat each other) and that leads to stress and unhappiness...

Okay I'm rambling here but there is a point. When I was a bit younger, I was always struggling with sexual temptation. I'm not making any judgements on anybody else's morality but I had my own ideas of correct morality and I was always fighting it. I thought that was good becasue I was proving my obedience by sheer force of will. -- And, then when I would mess up I felt miserable and like a failure... you know the drill.

Then my life went through a profound change, because of the gospel, I think, and a lot of the temptations left me. Now it is much easier for me to be obedient to whatever idea of morality I have in my head. Then I got depressed thinking, Darn, when it was hard to be obedient, I failed. Now that it is easy to be obedient, I am successfull so obviously I missed my chance.

Then it dawned on me that the reason I am a better person now is not because I achieved it by the force of my will, but rather I allowed the gospel to change my nature. It is supposed to be easeir. That's the whole point. I was going about it backward.

Good luck.

 

[Serapha]

Come on man. Carbon dating proves that donkey's talk:

Numberss 22:21-41

This really has nothing to do with the initial topic of the thread, but since the discusion is going this way and you mentioned it... (let me know if I am highjacking your thread)

Bible afficionados act as if all the archeological evidence (and carbon dating) actually prove something. Like if Jericho was a real city, then the story told in the Bible might actually have had a real place to take place in and therefore that provides evidence for the Bible being true. (actually acheological evidence about Jericho tends to disprove the Bible account but that's another story.

The idea that archeological evidence can prove the central claims of the Bible is utter nonsense. The central claims of the Bible are that there is a God of Israel who did covenant with them and that Christ was born and died and is our Savior and through him we might all live.

I believe and accept that, whole-heartedly. I also know that no amount of archeology will ever add a single bit of proof to that.

Happy hunting.

But on the other hand...


While archaeology does support the names, places, and accounts of the Bible... archaeology does not support the names, places, and accounts of the book of mormon.


Let's not leave itty-bitty statement out of the discussion.

The idea that archeological evidence can prove the central claims of the Bible is utter nonsense.

Excavations at the Wadi El-Kharrar show that John the Baptist did baptise people, in fact, they now know that the baptisms were done, not IN the River Jordon but in pools beside the River Jordon with separate pools for the men and women to comply with Judaic teachings.... and the written record identifies that the purpose was for repentance.

Of course, baptizing and acknowledging repentence are not central themes of the Bible.

Golgotha isn't a central theme, nor an empty tomb...

The central claim that Jesus Christ taught new commandments in the Synagogue in Capernaum align with the teaching of the School of Hillel, which was the dominant teacher at that time (proven by historical documents), the two commandments certainly are not central themes in the Bible, are they? ... of course, it is not a central theme of the Bible that Jesus taught us to love our enemies... that couldn't be a central theme.

Of course, the inscriptions at Nazareth, Capernaum, and Caesarea Maritima are simply "frauds" and would not support the facts of Jesus's life and ministry... those certainly could not be "central themes" of the Bible.


I believe that you speaketh of things that you knoweth not.

~serapha~

 

[skylark1]

Holy Moly.

No offense to the sumptuary actuary who wrote that but come one man., who does this impress? Who is drawn to Christ because some apologist likens prophecy fullfillment to a blind man looking for silver dollars in Texas. And the bit about ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,oo,ooo,ooo,.... I'm no statistician but give me a break. Ask a Jew iff that makes any sense at all. (No offense to you personally Skylark)

I'll give you my take. All that inane number crunching and acheological blather is just window dressing mucking up the view.

Chaucer, sorry that you have such a problem with the numbers. My point is that Jesus fulfilled many OT prophesies, and the chances of one person fulfilling them is amazingly small. It doesn't muck up the view for me at all, but helps me to appreciate how specific the prophesies concerning Christ actually are. Bat didn't ask us what drew us to Christ, but how we know that the Bible is true. I don't consider prophesy to be window dressing, and it certainly doesn't "muck up my view." It gives light and knowledge.

 

[Frankie]

Then my life went through a profound change, because of the gospel, I think, and a lot of the temptations left me.

Because of the gospel? Which Gospel?