Does your faith depend on physical evidences?

[Libby]

Was looking through articles on "evidence for Jesus" and came across a statement from a couple of Christians, stating there faith did not rest upon physical evidence. I was happy to see a Christian admit that, because I know, deep down that most EV Christians really do feel that way, but, for some reason, on these boards, they do not allow that for other faiths, like Mormonism. There is all of this talk about physical evidence, as though that is going to prove anything, in regards to faith and the spiritual realm...speaking of it, as though it were THE most important thing.

So, it's nice to know that there are some who don't need physical evidence or will even keep their faith, despite lack of physical evidence. If your knowledge is from God (the Spirit), that's as it should be.

Archeological evidence of Jesus doesn't quell faith for believers

[Libby]

Excerpts from the above link:

Pat Kraff and Nancy Mebed came to the lecture because of an interest in the relationship between science and religion. They said their faith was not in question, regardless of what the archaeology revealed.

"I don't depend on historical evidence for my belief," Kraff said.

Galor said the accuracy of Helena's site cannot be archaeologically or historically verified.

"We haven't uncovered any archaeological evidence for Jesus individually, and there is not much hope that we ever will," she said.

Christina Cunningham, who attended the lecture, rephrased Galor's summary. When asked about the lecture's relationship to her religion, she quoted the well-known saying of faith, which must, it appears, satisfy the scientific quest for physical evidence of Jesus' existence: "If you have faith, no evidence is necessary. If you lack faith, no evidence is sufficient."

That last statement says it all.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Does your faith depend on physical evidences?

Faith in Christ is based on the fact that Christ really did exist on the earth and did the things that he said he did. Do we have physical evidence thar Christ really existed? Absolutely. We have independent eye witness testimonies of this fact.

This type of evidence is completely lacking for the book of mormon which tells me that this book is made up by Joseph and can't be trusted.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Faith in Christ is based on the fact that Christ really did exist on the earth and did the things that he said he did. Do we have physical evidence thar Christ really existed? Absolutely. We have independent eye witness testimonies of this fact.

This type of evidence is completely lacking for the book of mormon which tells me that this book is made up by Joseph and can't be trusted.

Well, that's not true. There were 11 witnesses that claim the Book of Mormon came from a Divine source, just as Joseph claimed. They held the plates, felt them with their hands, saw them and examined them, along with artifacts from the book.

If eyewitness accounts are going to come into play, then they have to be accepted for both Jesus and the Book of Mormon....or neither.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Was looking through articles on "evidence for Jesus" and came across a statement from a couple of Christians, stating there faith did not rest upon physical evidence. I was happy to see a Christian admit that, because I know, deep down that most EV Christians really do feel that way, but, for some reason, on these boards, they do not allow that for other faiths, like Mormonism. There is all of this talk about physical evidence, as though that is going to prove anything, in regards to faith and the spiritual realm...speaking of it, as though it were THE most important thing.

So, it's nice to know that there are some who don't need physical evidence or will even keep their faith, despite lack of physical evidence. If your knowledge is from God (the Spirit), that's as it should be.

Archeological evidence of Jesus doesn't quell faith for believers

Well, if all we had to go on was somebody of highly questionable character who was a serial adulterer, tell us that there was some man named Mormi living on planet Kiola, and that Mormi had lived a perfect life and was executed by the criminal Kiolians, and that his execution now provided eternal life to whoever believed in Mormi; and that believers in Mormi could live eternally on planet Kiola with him, would I believe it? No, because there is no known planet called Kiola, nor any verificiation that there is a Kiolian race of people inhabiting that planet, or that Mormi is any more than the figment of some writer's imangination. Not to mention the fact that the story was invented by someone who had a craving for his neighbors' wives (that would be plural). In other word, a piece of fiction without one shred of evidence.

I don't care what some Christians say, because they are ****ing smoke if they tell you that if there was no evidence for Chrisitianity at all that they'd still have faith. If there was no Israel, no Roman Empire, no manner of execution called crucifixion, and no eyewitnesses to the life of Christ (see the Gospels which are eyewitness accounts), what would make Christianity any different from, for instance, Kolianism? Or, Hare Krishna mythology? Blind faith is not faith at all, it's no more than mindless submission to whatever story happens to make you feel good.

You can bet your life that if some Christian archaeologists were searching for a lifetime (as Mormons have done regarding the BoM) to uncover evidence for the existence of Jerusalem, and found absolutely nothing, they wouldn't be so quick to make such a claim. Mormon archaeologists who have spent their lifetimes in endless quests to prove the Book of Mormon, and been disappointed, have even stated that there is no BoM archaeology. Because Mormonism demands blind, unfounded faith in a myth made up by the Rigdon/Smith/Cowdery cabal, Mormons want to transfer their terrible dilemma to Chrsitianity. Won't work - we have plenty of archaeological proof and eyewitness accounts to back up every narrative in the Bible - and some angel hasn't swooped down and grabbed the evidence away for transportation to some non-existent star called Kolob which provides all the sun's light, so that Quakers can live there!

People really need to think things through before committing their own salvation and those of family members to a belief system that is a hoax.

"Some Mormon scholars are beginning to publicly admit that archaeology does not furnish any significant evidence for the Book of Mormon. Dee F. Green, who at one time served as editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, published at the church’s Brigham Young University, made it plain that archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)" ( from: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/...okofmormon.htm)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

If eyewitness accounts are going to come into play, then they have to be accepted for both Jesus and the Book of Mormon....or neither.

There is no evidence that predates Joseph. Show me any ancient writing that verifies the Nephites ever exited in the Americas.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, that's not true. There were 11 witnesses that claim the Book of Mormon came from a Divine source, just as Joseph claimed. They held the plates, felt them with their hands, saw them and examined them, along with artifacts from the book.

If eyewitness accounts are going to come into play, then they have to be accepted for both Jesus and the Book of Mormon....or neither.

Oh, so if all these "witnesses" came from a "divine source," how come the divine source was so messed up that most of these "witnesses" (outside of the Smith family members), were excommunicated from the cult?

http://www.irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt1.html

I think you need to make a more thorough study of Mormonism - something I think you failed to do when you first left the group. I remember a time when you seemed to have embraced Christ and the Gospel of Salvation through His shed Blood, Libby. You don't need "plates" and "witnesses" and "myths," cleverly invented to mislead people. You need the Living God Who was Incarnate in Christ Jesus. Only He can save you. If you have the wrong Jesus (some created being who is the spirit brother of Lucifer), you have rejected the One Who says, "Come unto me all you who labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." There is no rest in Mormoism, only an endless quest to perform enough works, fulfill enough callings, get baptized for dead people enough times, and give enough money, in order to earn a chance at being in some Celestial Kingdom.

Jesus or Mormonism? That is the choice. Christians don't want to lead you to a particular "true" denomination - they want to lead you to a relationship. That is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. Mormonism is all about "the true and living church," the LDS. Christianity is about proclaiming Jesus Christ, Who He is, and what He has done for us.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Was looking through articles on "evidence for Jesus" and came across a statement from a couple of Christians, stating there faith did not rest upon physical evidence. I was happy to see a Christian admit that, because I know, deep down that most EV Christians really do feel that way, but, for some reason, on these boards, they do not allow that for other faiths, like Mormonism. There is all of this talk about physical evidence, as though that is going to prove anything, in regards to faith and the spiritual realm...speaking of it, as though it were THE most important thing.

So, it's nice to know that there are some who don't need physical evidence or will even keep their faith, despite lack of physical evidence. If your knowledge is from God (the Spirit), that's as it should be.

Archeological evidence of Jesus doesn't quell faith for believers

"It is a painful fact of life, though, that sincerity is not a guarantee against being wrong. Most of us know sincere people who have been sincerely wrong. Faith must have some basis in fact."

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Apologette

"It is a painful fact of life, though, that sincerity is not a guarantee against being wrong. Most of us know sincere people who have been sincerely wrong. Faith must have some basis in fact."

Having never been wrong about anything in my life, and having faith of a sincere pretender of everything I stand for, and sometimes as often believe in, I can say without a doubt (faith doesn't need facts, and that is a fact.)
All faith needs is carrier.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Having never been wrong about anything in my life, and having faith of a sincere pretender of everything I stand for, and sometimes as often believe in, I can say without a doubt (faith doesn't need facts, and that is a fact.)
All faith needs is carrier.

Would you care to rephrase that? I don't know what you're trying to say.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

There is no evidence that predates Joseph. Show me any ancient writing that verifies the Nephites ever exited in the Americas.

Show me solid, irrefutable physical evidence, from non-Christian sources, that Jesus ever existed, and then we'll talk about Nephite evidence, from non-Mormon sources.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette

"It is a painful fact of life, though, that sincerity is not a guarantee against being wrong. Most of us know sincere people who have been sincerely wrong. Faith must have some basis in fact."

Who are you quoting?

It's nice to have physical evidence, but most certainly the lack of it, does not prove what you believe is wrong. Millions of people believe Jesus actually existed, even though there is nothing, in the way of physical evidence, to prove it.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Oh, so if all these "witnesses" came from a "divine source," how come the divine source was so messed up that most of these "witnesses" (outside of the Smith family members), were excommunicated from the cult?

http://www.irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt1.html

I think you need to make a more thorough study of Mormonism - something I think you failed to do when you first left the group. I remember a time when you seemed to have embraced Christ and the Gospel of Salvation through His shed Blood, Libby. You don't need "plates" and "witnesses" and "myths," cleverly invented to mislead people. You need the Living God Who was Incarnate in Christ Jesus. Only He can save you. If you have the wrong Jesus (some created being who is the spirit brother of Lucifer), you have rejected the One Who says, "Come unto me all you who labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." There is no rest in Mormoism, only an endless quest to perform enough works, fulfill enough callings, get baptized for dead people enough times, and give enough money, in order to earn a chance at being in some Celestial Kingdom.

Jesus or Mormonism? That is the choice. Christians don't want to lead you to a particular "true" denomination - they want to lead you to a relationship. That is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. Mormonism is all about "the true and living church," the LDS. Christianity is about proclaiming Jesus Christ, Who He is, and what He has done for us.

Only three of the witnesses were excommunicated and two of them returned...none of them ever recanted their testimony.

As for religious choices, we have many, not just two.

Gotta run, for now.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Show me solid, irrefutable physical evidence, from non-Christian sources, that Jesus ever existed, and then we'll talk about Nephite evidence, from non-Mormon sources.

Okay, so you doubt the existence of Christ? Even solid atheists don't doubt that Christ existed. You really don't know what you're talking about Libby. The fact of Christ's existence was established long ago. I mean, Libby, common sense should tell you that Paul, writing perhaps 30 years or less after the Ascension, is proof positive that Christ existed. He wrote to people who would have known if Christ was an actual person or a myth. The Jews weren't fools you know. Paul established the authenticity of his account when he appealed to the fact that many who were still living were witnesses of Christ's resurrection! Do you think Paul didn't exist?

Paul wrote: "He(Jesus) was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep." 1 Cor 15.4-6

Don't you think the persons living at that time would have booed Paul out of town if he was lying? No, he was a great Apostle, and nobody (not even the Jews) accused him of lying about the existence of Jesus. They simply attacked him for believing that Christ was Who he said He was, the Son of God.

I suggest you read Strobel's book or at least watch the DVD:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...FQaFhwodCxeviQ

This deals with the evidence of Christ's existence. I doubt you'd deny the existence of Ceasar Augustus or Nero, right? Why do you deny, or even question, Christ's existence? There are four eyewitness Gospels written about his life. Luke says he carefully researched everything. He lived while Mary was still alive.

Don't close your heart to Christ - He did exist, and if what He said is true, then you need to decide what you, Libby, believe about Him.

[jdjhere]

Libby- do you or don't you agree that it is MUCH more difficult to find archeological physical proof of the existence of ONE man than it is to find archeological physical proof for the existence of an entire race or group of people that made things and were in a great war? Even with THAT being said, we still have a few-Jesus Christ is at least MENTIONED in other books other than the Bible, whether they are subject to question or not, which is at least SOME evidence that He existed. Can you give us ANY other evidences for the existence of Nephites other than the BOM or other LDS literature? I understand what you are saying about Spiritual evidences, but we as Evangelicals have Spiritual experiences as well and can say the same thing, so we negate each other on that point. That would leave us with OTHER evidences for proof. Are there any for Nephites? Thanks.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

Libby- do you or don't you agree that it is MUCH more difficult to find archeological physical proof of the existence of ONE man than it is to find archeological physical proof for the existence of an entire race or group of people that made things and were in a great war? Even with THAT being said, we still have a few-Jesus Christ is at least MENTIONED in other books other than the Bible, whether they are subject to question or not, which is at least SOME evidence that He existed. Can you give us ANY other evidences for the existence of Nephites other than the BOM or other LDS literature? I understand what you are saying about Spiritual evidences, but we as Evangelicals have Spiritual experiences as well and can say the same thing, so we negate each other on that point. That would leave us with OTHER evidences for proof. Are there any for Nephites? Thanks.

Even the Jews mention Jesus as the illegitimate spawn of Mary, the hairdresser, in the Babylonian Talmud.

[jdjhere]

Libby is defending something she does not believe herself (I think?? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, Libby) but she is just trying to make a point. From the way she vigorously defends the LDS beliefs, I believe she still has one foot in the door of the LDS church, I think, but if you take away ANY historically verifiable REAL PERSON Jesus then the LDS faith falls apart as well. That would mean He NEVER came here to preach to the Native American Indians and therefore, LDS theology is moot.

The problem I am having is that, in my opinion, she is comparing the Needle TO the Haystack, the Needle being Jesus Christ and the Haystack being the Nephite People, Civilization and their great war where close to a million of them were killed.

Let's look at Jesus- It is a KNOWN absolute FACT that Jews exist, and Jesus was said to be a Jew. There ARE books OUTSIDE Christianity that MENTION Him, THUS evidence that He existed. Archeologically the Bible is a very good tool, with all cities accounted for and coins, tools, etc, found for emperors of the time, etc. There are multiple-millions of believers in Christ, thus also Spiritual Evidence that He existed.

Now, let's look at Nephi- no other historical writings OUTSIDE the LDS BOM and other literature mentions Nephi of the Nephites, nothing found physically or archeologically to confirm the existence of an ancient people called Nephites, Nephi or any OTHER main characters in the BOM are mentioned nowhere BUT LDS literature, but millions believe in Christ, thus Spiritual Evidence that He existed.

That is the evidence to date Libby. If you would like to add the best physical or archeological finds to strengthen your case, be my guest.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

Libby is defending something she does not believe herself (I think?? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, Libby) but she is just trying to make a point. From the way she vigorously defends the LDS beliefs, I believe she still has one foot in the door of the LDS church, I think, but if you take away ANY historically verifiable REAL PERSON Jesus then the LDS faith falls apart as well. That would mean He NEVER came here to preach to the Native American Indians and therefore, LDS theology is moot.

The problem I am having is that, in my opinion, she is comparing the Needle TO the Haystack, the Needle being Jesus Christ and the Haystack being the Nephite People, Civilization and their great war where clode to a million of them were killed.

Let's look at Jesus- It is a KNOWN absolute FACT that Jews exist, and Jesus was said to be a Jew. There ARE books OUTSIDE Christianity that MENTION Him, THUS evidence that He existed. Archeologically the Bible is a very good tool, with all cities accounted for and coins, tools, etc, found for emperors of the time, etc. There are multiple-millions of believers in Christ, thus also Spiritual Evidence that He existed.

Now, let's look at Nephi- no other historical writings OUTSIDE the LDS BOM and other literature mentions Nephi of the Nephites, nothing found physically or archeologically to confirm the existence of an ancient people called Nephites, Nephi or any OTHER main characters in the BOM are mentioned nowhere BUT LDS literature, but millions believe in Christ, thus Spiritual Evidence that He existed.

That is the evidence to date Libby. If you would like to add the best physical or archeological finds to strengthen your case, be my guest.

You have it right, Jd. I don't think most religious people base their faith on physical evidence. If they did, they wouldn't have it very long, after reading a lot of non-religious/non-biased biblical scholars, many of whom take the same stance against the Bible/Jesus, etc, as some "Christians" do against LDS. Some people actually do lose their Christian faith, after studying the facts.

There is not much in the way of "physical" evidence, for Book of Mormon peoples, Jd, but there is "some". You will find it in Jeff Lindsay (and other's) writings that I have linked, a couple of times.

(I am not LDS, nor do I plan on returning - I am a Hindu-Christian, but I do think the LDS have "some" things right)

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

You have it right, Jd. I don't think most religious people base their faith on physical evidence. If they did, they wouldn't have it very long, after reading a lot of non-religious/non-biased biblical scholars, many of whom take the same stance against the Bible/Jesus, etc, as some "Christians" do against LDS. Some people actually do lose their Christian faith, after studying the facts.

There is not much in the way of "physical" evidence, for Book of Mormon peoples, Jd, but there is "some". You will find it in Jeff Lindsay (and other's) writings that I have linked, a couple of times.

There is none, nope not even a little, little bit.
I like Jeff Lindsay's determnation in failer, he works so hard at it.
I can't blame you or Jeff for wanting to believe in something, anything that might validate the novel Book of Mormon.
It's kinda like Harry Potter, wouldn't be nice it Hogwarts was a real place, oh but wait, it is, somewhere in the middle of Florida!

[Libby]

Well, you are simply wrong. No surprise there.

I don't need physical evidence to tell me what is true. Neither do I need for Mormonism to be true (some of it is, some, not so much). I am not a practicing Mormon.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, you are simply wrong. No surprise there.

I don't need physical evidence to tell me what is true. Neither do I need for Mormonism to be true (some of it is, some, not so much). I am not a practicing Mormon.

It's okay I am simple, but never wrong. I was born that way, but I do keep trying to be wrong, but it goes against my nature.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

It's okay I am simple, but never wrong. I was born that way, but I do keep trying to be wrong, but it goes against my nature.

lol...you make me smile. Not a bad thing.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Only three of the witnesses were excommunicated and two of them returned...none of them ever recanted their testimony.

As for religious choices, we have many, not just two.

Gotta run, for now.

There testimony was that they saw the plates with the "eye" of faith. Come on, you doubt the Gospel but buy into Martin Harris, for instance, who said he had a greater testimony of Shakerism than the BoM? Or, David Whitmer who basically said Smith was a false prophet; or Cowdery who became a Methodist?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, you are simply wrong. No surprise there.

I don't need physical evidence to tell me what is true. Neither do I need for Mormonism to be true (some of it is, some, not so much). I am not a practicing Mormon.

You might not practice it, but do you believe it?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette

There testimony was that they saw the plates with the "eye" of faith. Come on, you doubt the Gospel but buy into Martin Harris, for instance, who said he had a greater testimony of Shakerism than the BoM? Or, David Whitmer who basically said Smith was a false prophet; or Cowdery who became a Methodist?

I think you meant "their" testimony, although, I'm not sure who you are talking about. I think, it was David Whitmer who said that, and he did not mean it the way you are interpreting it.

All but one of the three witnesses returned to the church. And, all of them, without exception, maintained a very solid testimony all of their lives.