justinc

It depends on which Jews but principally yea, they are still waiting for a Messiah. As far as we know the Jews at the time of Jesus were aware that the tomb was empty. They said that the disciples "stole away the body" which was their explanation for why the tomb was empty. Right. Early Christians wrote down that Jesus rose from the dead. We cant just accept that as evidence on face value. What we need to do is apply the Criteria of Authenticity to see if we can establish authentic facts within the historical accounts. And then figure out what hypothesis best explains those historical facts. I see them more as historical records which contain the word of God. It's close enough for me : ) The issue is your equating wisdom & knowledge. There are different words for these in the Greek had the author wished to have been more clear.

Where did the Jews claim this? Historical evidence does make the belief that Jesus rose from the dead reasonable. Although it may not be true, in light of history, its the most reasonable position to hold. Probability over Possiblity. We have to remember that the New Testament was compiled much later then the individual documents were written. I look at the New Testament documents as historical records as apposed to the word of God. It is because of the resurrection that I am able to accept the Judeo-Christian worldview as the most plausable, and thus accept that the bible (and other ancient Jewish literature) contain the word of God. I think we should always seek the wisdom of God. All I am saying is that James is not talking about knowledge. Proverbs 2:6 seems relevant "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." I agree that James teaches God given wisdom. But Wisdom is not the same thing as knowledge, which the author of Proverbs believes is found in Gods words (mouth etc). The Book of Mormon promise requires one to pray already "having faith in Christ" (Moroni 10:4). Which begs the question, where does one obtain faith in Christ apart from the Book of Mormon, since this is what one is praying about? Of course one must turn to the historical records of the New Testament. My faith in the Judeo-Christian faith is based on Jesus' resurrection. I haven't looked into the flood enough to come to any conclusion. But if it did or didn't happen I don't have an issue with it. Same, as above. Agreed. But its not analogous since Adam would have actually seen and spoken with God etc.

What I am saying is that in order to avoid circular reasoning and maintain belief, one must have reason to base faith on other than the scriptures and personal experience. One might use historical evidence for the resurrection (see N.T Wright, Mike Licona etc). God then is the best explanation for Jesus resurrection as opposed to some naturalistic hypothesis. This would avoid the circular reasoning. But you are saying to pray for knowledge "if these things are.. true" James 1:5 is about God providing wisdom in time of trials. As the saying goes "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." James 1:5 doesn't offer us a way of gaining knowledge, just that God will give us wisdom to make the right decisions in times of trial. The Koran says Jesus never died. No historian takes that seriously. New Testament critic, Robert Funk, says that the crucifixion is "one indisputable fact" concerning Jesus.

But this assumes that the scriptures are a reliable source for truth about God. How do we know the scriptures are a reliable source of truth about God? God will confirm it. How do we know God will confirm it? Because the scriptures say so One cant just "ask.. if these things [written in the Book of Mormon] are not true" because that assumes that Moroni 10:3-5 is true, the very thing you are supposed to be praying about.

This is where the Latter-day Saint view starts to break down. You say that one must receive confirmation from God in order to know the Mormon faith is true. How do you know what confirmation from God is? Read the Scriptures. How does one know the scriptures are a valid source of truth? God will confirm it. It seems in order to maintain faith at the very least one needs to have some reasonable basis somewhere to build from.

Yea, I agree. I was just talking in the context of John tarrying etc.

Well not explicitly. But he implies it is wrong. How would someone know God has confirmed it to them?

I would definitely be interested in your methodology. Latter-day Saints will often point to biblical passages to establish they are the restored church. Yet when the accounts differ from Latter-day Saint tradition suddenly the validity of the sources needs to be reconsidered. It seems a little unfair to me.

The apostle John, "the disciple that Jesus loved" (13:23; 19:26; 20:2) is the same "disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." (John 21:20, 24) What probably happened is the apostle John used scribes (hence the third person references) but the record states (as above) that John was the actual source for his gospel. But it doesn't really matter who wrote the Gospel of John, we know very little about who wrote much of ancient literature. The point is that here is a historical source which is telling us what Jesus said. If there are no issues with translation on this one, then I guess you all believe that it's the Word of God?

LDS.org says re. Section 7 "The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John" Does anyone have access to the record written by John? It just seems strange because I thought John cleared up the issue: "rumor spread among the brethren that [John] would not die. But Jesus did not say that [John] would not die; he only said, “If I want [John] to remain alive until I return, what is that to [Peter]?" - John 21:23

Where does the idea that John wouldn't die come from?

I left because I took issue with traditional Latter-day Saint doctrine. For me things just didn't add up.

Late to the discussion but I noticed the Grace, Faith & Works topic came up. Someone mentioned Romans 6:11 "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." What we cant forget is that when Paul speaks of grace he is really saying 'grace through faith'. The reference to 'works' here is most likely an abbreviation of the phrase 'works of the law' which refers to things like circumcision etc within Judaism. Paul was arguing that it is on the basis of our faith in Christ that we are Gods people and not by our 'works' (circumcision etc). We will all be judged in accordance with a moral life lived, our Lord Jesus was very clear on this.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/53620-spirit-matter.html This might be worth reading regarding the nature of spirit matter etc.

Read carefully Anddenex, Traveler has raised an objection to the moral argument for Gods existence that we both adhere to. Here is the moral argument I shared earlier "Imagine that only a Jew and a Nazi exist. The Jew believes that murder is wrong, the Nazi believes it is right to kill the Jew. If the Nazi kills the Jew is it right or is it wrong? Since the Jew is dead, the Nazi has the only perspective, namely that it was right to murder the Jew. If God exists then the Nazi is wrong since God is the foundation we can turn to as the ultimate objective source of morality." P1: If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist P2: Objective morality does exist C: Therefore God exists Traveler has raised some interesting questions about God keeping his own commandments etc. In essence we may ask the question: By what standard is God good? If God is good based on some external standard then we don't need God since the moral standard exists apart from him. Thus God is not required for morality and premise 1 fails. If God is good because God defined good in a way that fits who he is then morality is arbitrary and not objective - indeed another set of moral conditions could equally apply. Thus morality is not objective and premise 2 fails. The third option is that God is what we call "the good." God is the paradigm of goodness and anything which does not conform to his good nature is what is "evil". On this view God is not just loving, but "God is love" (1 John 4:8). This is the view I hold. Simply God by his very nature is good. We may trust that he can't commit evil since it would be against his very nature - it is inconceivable that he might commit evil. We can trust that God will give us truth because he "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). My question Anddenex is, can the Latter-day Saint affirm the third option? It seems that on the LDS view God is subject to some external moral law - option 1 - and if God is subject to some external moral law he is not required for morality to exist - defeating premise 1. I said that I believe that God establishes natural law (the way things normally work) but God can interfere in the way things normally work to bring about some other result. Normally after three days people stay dead, however God intervened and brought Jesus back from the dead. I believe in a God which is supernatural. You believe God is natural. What more is there to say, we can probably drop this one now. Running in circles. You are not fully quoting Acts 10:34 - "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." What this is saying is that God will allow people from all nations to come to him. God can create us all differently. We all have different Chemistry, Connections, Circumstances & Consciousness but it is what we do with our free will that God will judge us by. Some people will experience harder lives then others, its what we CHOOSE to do with what we are given that counts. So God can easily create us as different persons out of nothing. There is no logical problem. God is worthy of "glory and honour and power" because he has "created all things" (see Revelations 4:11) But if God created all things that entails that nothing existed apart from him prior to creation. For there were no preexisting materials, he created all.

Please share. Please explain? Since hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" I would say God is not claiming higher "than is the case" rather God is actually higher and more noble in reality. Do you disagree? Is God claiming to be higher and more noble then he really is? Are you accusing me of believing God is not bound by the laws of nature as justification for breaking commandments? Maybe you have misunderstood. What I am saying is that God is not bound by the laws of nature. (Obviously our views will differ since you believe God is material). For me it seems that if God created the laws of nature then I see no reason that he couldn't intervene in creation where he sees fit. The notion of an embodied God subject to the laws of nature seems limited in what he can actually do. Our views on whether God created the laws of nature or is instead bound by them will inevitably differ at Creation Ex Nihilo. If God created the Universe then he created natural law and therefore transcends it. If God only exists within the Universe he too is subject to natural law.

This demonstrates the point I was making, thanks for clarifying.

The first premise is making two statements. 1) Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. - That is to say everything that exists has some reason or justification, some answer for why it exists. There are two reasons why something might exist, either 2a or 2b) 2a) Why does this thing exist? Because it exists by necessity. (eg. Some mathematicians believe that numbers exist by necessity.) or) 2b) Why does this thing exist? Because something outside or which transcends this thing brought in into existence. (eg. A watchmaker creates a watch.) Here's a LINK to something that might be helpful. The most interesting thing is that this theorem would also apply to a multiverse if such exists. I don't have a problem with that definition. This is why I was asking if a Latter-day Saint must accept the traditional materialist view or if the Standard Works might provide some alternative. Latter-day Saint Blackmarch, also expressed that a Latter-day Saint need not hold to such a view (LINK) Thanks :)

Please clarify your position. Do you believe the spiritual and physical are the same thing? If not, when someone says they see something with "spiritual eyes" they do not necessarily mean "physical eyes", right?

By which natural law did Jesus come back from the dead? Your making the claim that it can happen Scientifically, what evidence is there that such is possible? I would say God is not a hypocrite. Hypocritical: "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" I would say God is not "claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" rather God does actually have "higher standards and more noble beliefs". Have to agree to disagree on this one since you believe God is subject to and uses science whereas I believe God created science and laws. On your view, When Polygamy became illegal did God not change his mind about polygamy due to circumstance?

Someone need not be a Latter-day Saint to interpret the Standard Works. Non-members are regularly encouraged to read the Standard Works.

There's about ten lines of conversation happening at the moment. If your really interested try reading afew pages back or so. We seem to have deviated from the OP which is almost always the case. :)

I was making a statement based on Anddenex's personal understanding of what spirit matter actually is. You obviously ignored the context and outline of the conversation. Please next time don't make assumptions and then assert my ignorance.

The first premise is that everything that exists has an explanation for existing. Either something else caused it to exist or else it must exist. That would be something one might look at in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In 2003 it was proven that the universe must have an absolute beginning. I talked about this earlier. This however is not relevant to this particular argument. Your objection to Premise 2 here is to say that the universe just exists because it must exist. As evidence for this you say it just does. This is a bold assertion which you give no reasons for. It is easy to conceive that the universe might have existed with some other configuration. So rather then saying the universe must exist in this way because it just does, you must give some explanation why it must exist in this way. It's possible that your right but you must give reasons rather then saying "they [just] do" exist in this configuration. Even atheists are not eager to embrace the idea that the universe exists necessarily. Thus Premise 2 seems more plausibly true then its negation leaving it as good grounds that the Universe has some external cause. You'll have to clarify this one for me. :) "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos" Oxford Online Dictionaries The notion of a multi-verse has no evidence, rather it is postulated as a way of explaining the complexity of life. Yes, contemporary Latter-day Saints have talked as though there is a difference between spiritual and physical. What I'm saying is that it doesn't appear Smith thought the same. Rather spirit had finer matter etc.

Do you believe then that Jesus rose naturally from the dead? How would you support this view in Science (the study of nature)? Or do you just believe in a 'science of the gaps'? "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs" Oxford Online Dictionary How is God acting sovereign over the laws of nature themselves an illusion? It could very well be the TRUTH.