A Very Limited Geography

[_harmony]

Who are you to say Abraham never existed? Oral tradition is conservative. In any event, what is most ridiculous about your initial post is the suggestion that Abraham and the Book of Mormon characters are in the same boat when they manifestly are not. Abraham is at least contextually credible. By way of contrast, the latter are not remotely contextually credible.

How can the Biblical Abraham be contextually credible? There is no evidence he ever existed. At least we have some semblance of evidence for King David and a smidgeon of evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus (although his status as the Son of God is definitely in question)... we have no evidence that Abraham ever existed.

I see no difference in weight for Abraham than I see for Nephi. They may both serve as valuable teaching tools, but there is no evidence of their existence in the real world (Joseph's imagination notwithstanding).

[_Simon Belmont]

So you have no argument. I am not surprised.

The beatitudes (a set of guidelines) + The setting apart of apostles (a hierarchal structure) = church.

Elementary stuff.

[_harmony]

So you have no argument. I am not surprised.

The beatitudes (a set of guidelines) + The setting apart of apostles (a hierarchal structure) = church.

Elementary stuff.

Where exactly are you getting the "setting apart" from?

[_Kishkumen]

The beatitudes (a set of guidelines) + The setting apart of apostles (a hierarchal structure) = church.

Elementary stuff.

Sorry, Simon, but you don't get to create an ad hoc definition of church based on whatever you could slap together from the Gospels and then declare victory.

[_Simon Belmont]

Sorry, Simon, but you don't get to create an ad hoc definition of church based on whatever you could slap together from the Gospels and then declare victory.

You said "prove it" and I proved it. You don't get to create an ad hoc definition of what a church is, either. I'm happy to let readers and lurkers realize that Christ organized a church while he was here.

This is one of those examples of you never willing to admit when you are wrong. Your ego is taking on a life of its own.

[_Kishkumen]

You said "prove it" and I proved it. You don't get to create an ad hoc definition of what a church is, either.

You didn't prove diddly. I didn't create an ad hoc definition of the word church. Jesus did not found a church during his lifetime.

I'm happy to let readers and lurkers realize that Christ organized a church while he was here.

You mean you are happy to parrot the assumptions you were raised to believe. You said, "hey, I am some guy on the internet who agrees with you LDS lurkers!"

This is one of those examples of you never willing to admit when you are wrong. Your ego is taking on a life of its own.

No, this would be another example of you parroting the usual party line, which in this case is based on poor historical evidence, to be generous, and not offer anything in the way of a convincing argument.

We are well aware of your M.O.

[_beefcalf]

I say 'who gives a flying flip if Abraham was a real man or not?'

It doesn't matter, and I'll tell you why.

He failed the test. The story of Abraham tying Isaac upon the alter, and, with a breaking heart, lifting the knife to deliver the killing slice...

The fact that he got to that point means he failed.

When this bully of a god told him to kill his innocent child, Abraham should have replied:

"No. If you want to kill innocent children, you'll have to do it yourself. I'm not going to be part of your sick plan. I'd rather burn in hell for a thousand eternities than be a pawn in your murderous game and I will defend this child from any barbaric lackey you may send to kill him."

(If this post was in the telestial forum, the above quote would have used f-words as well.)

That would have been the correct answer.

So, it doesn't really matter if Abraham was real or not. He failed the most important test of his life.

[_Buffalo]

I say 'who gives a flying flip if Abraham was a real man or not?'

It doesn't matter, and I'll tell you why.

He failed the test. The story of Abraham tying Isaac upon the alter, and, with a breaking heart, lifting the knife to deliver the killing slice...

The fact that he got to that point means he failed.

When this bully of a god told him to kill his innocent child, Abraham should have replied:

"No. If you want to kill innocent children, you'll have to do it yourself. I'm not going to be part of your sick plan. I'd rather burn in hell for a thousand eternities than be a pawn in your murderous game and I will defend this child from any barbaric lackey you may send to kill him."

(If this post was in the telestial forum, the above quote would have used f-words as well.)

That would have been the correct answer.

So, it doesn't really matter if Abraham was real or not. He failed the most important test of his life.

[_Kishkumen]

So, it doesn't really matter if Abraham was real or not. He failed the most important test of his life.

I agree.

[_sock puppet]

If Abraham was a real man, did what is described in Genesis, then yes, he failed.

On the other hand, if Abraham did not exist, except in the minds of those concocting the god of Abraham tradition and the rest of Genesis, then it serves as more evidence of the pernicious lengths that those inventing the religion will go to in trying to come up with a story of extreme obedience, so that the followers will fall in line and those in charge will have more power over the followers.

From my perspective, I'd like to know. But never will.