OK, new discussion item, what do you think?

[Serapha]

Excellent article.

The most compelling case I have seen was that the 'wise men' were Buddhists from Tibet. There are records in the posession of a a Tibetan monastry dating to about 6BC that discuss the death of a senior Lama. Through their studies of the heavens they concluded the reincarnation of the Lama would be to a Hebrew. The monks sent a delegation to find him and give gifts to him and instruction on his education to his parents. According to the records, his name was "Issa" and the monks returned for him at age 13 and took him back to Tibet for training. He returned to Judea after completing his training at age 29.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm
http://www.ycsi.net/users/reversespins/teenageJesus.html

I have also read a compelling account that Zoroaster was Melchizedek.

Hi there!




define compelling for me, will ya?



~serapha~

 

[unbound]

I'm not here to "argue"...

~serapha~

You said:

Hi there!



Actually, George Potter is an exceptional LDS writer in that he sees archaeological evidences in a new and different light than previous LDS writers.


I would not term him as "another hack trying to rewrite the Bible"... He is one of the reason why Christians are in need of a wake up call concerning the CoJCoLDS and evidences for the bom.

What archaeological evidences should we worry about? Are there some great new finds that I dont know of?

Like I mentioned earlier, how can you discuss facts with someone who is willing to give the BoM and JS every break concievable, and will bend over backwards to accomodate the fables in the BoM?

The LDS "Scholors" are now reduced to trying to explain away why we have no evidence of those people here in North America. They have to fabricate a story about a man who hightails it thousands of miles to NY and sticks the plates in a hill and calls it camorrah. No battle, no evidence. Very convenient story, wouldnt you say?

I heard your alarm, but I am trying to figure out where the fire is.

 

[Swart]

define compelling for me, will ya?

If I read an article that provides multiple sources for evidences. Looks objectively at the data. Defends against the principle objections and also points out the weaknesses in it's own argument, then I find it 'compelling'.

By 'compelling', I mean it has sufficient information for me to regard it as a possibility. I consider it slightly further along the line from 'plausible' and 'viable', and much further from 'tenable', but short of 'convincing' and a long way from 'undeniable'.

In short, compelling = plusgood.

Regards,

Swart (who has often longed for a minispeak style of adjective classification)