Was Jesus a Mormon?

[_Fence Sitter]

I have answered every relevant question posed to me.

No true Scotsman would answer those other questions anyways.

[_LDSToronto]

Biblical myths not supported by historical sources other than the Bible (from Wikipedia)

1 Marriage at Cana John 2:1-11
2 Exorcism at the Synagogue in Capernaum, Mark 1:21-28, Luke 4:31-37
.
.
.
37 Catch of 153 fish

Oh, never mind the virgin birth and the Resurrection of Jesus...

Show us why we should believe in these historically unsupported biblical myths and *then* we can start talking about why your rejection of Mormon myths is acceptable.

H.

Your answer is irrational. Just because there are things in the 4,000 year record documented in the Bible that are not supported by historical findings is no reason to think that there is NO evidence for any others. Even an elementary-level of familiarity with the field of Biblical Archaeology or even basic historical reality would have made that simple, self-evident fact obvious to you.

Moreover, most of your examples above are things that would not leave anything in the way of evidence other than the testimony of the eye-witnesses to begin with! What ...do you really expect there to be archaeological evidence that would survive 2,000 to 5,000 years of history that would prove that a wedding occured, that a storm was calmed, of a man being healed, a fish being caught, a man walking on water? If you DO think that there would be some kind of evidence that could survive for thousands of years of such events, then please identify it and substantiate that expectation with some examples. If you cannot do that, then your entire premise here is demonstrated as baseless.

Well, this just proves the point, doesn't it Brian - there is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus is the person described in the Bible. So you must believe these things for some other non-evidence based reason...and if that is the case, you would be arguing from the same footing that Mormons argue from.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

I have answered every relevant question posed to me. YOU, on the other hand have done nothing but call me names.

Awwww, is Bwian's feewings hoit? Let me invoke the words of a wise man:

Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance.

[_Stormy Waters]

I have answered every relevant question posed to me. YOU, on the other hand have done nothing but call me names.

I pointed out that your challenge itself was illogical in the third post of this thread. I figure that if you go around calling people cowards for not answering challenges, I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.
The real reason you keep insisting that the Bible isn't relevant is because you don't what to have to try to defend it. You're here to pick on the weakest kid and seemingly nothing can deter you from your obsession.

You should have read the OP, opr at least the post to which you are responding here. It would have saved you the embarrassment you just caused yourself. You see if Mormonism is a fruad BECAUSE the Bible is a fruad, the only answer available is that Mormonism is a fruad. See how that works.

That's exactly my point. Thus Jesus could not have been a Mormon, which answers the thread. This means the validity of the Bible is relevant to the answer of this thread despite your insistence that it is not.

[Hawkeye]

So then ...asking you to simply quote the material in your own source that you claim supports your view is "ridiculous"?????

Yep. That's what I said.

Gee, you had no problem at least TRYING with the SoH, even though you could not subsequently show that any portion of your citation actually supported your claim.

I am neither Consig nor Runtu. I cited the book related to the topic of proxy ordinances and gave the page numbers (related to the SoH) after you asked for them.

At this point it appears I have called your bluff on that one and you are found empty handed.

At this point it appears that you don't know up from down.

Now we have a new mystery. Why would you pretend to cite a book that you refuse to quote and cite properly? My guess is, you are bluffing.

Stupid assumptions tend to lead to stupid conclusions.

After all, anyone can google up the title of a book and pretend its contents inflappably proclaims their position, and then mock any effort to get them to simply quote and cite their own source correctly.

Which is precisely why I encouraged you to read the entire book.

Really ? Well then before I invest substantial portions of my time to read "generous portions" of the volume can you tell me if the portions you cited appear in this link ...?

I gave you the freaking page numbers. You are a big boy. Find out for yourself.

Oh, never mind, let's just look for ourselves, shall we?

Um... yes. You should look for yourself. This is what I suggested you do from the beginning.

Unless reading the portion YOU cited will substantiate your claims, it will remain obvious that you are just blowing smoke.

I suggested you read the entire book; not merely the pages I cited.

Oooooo a "warning" AND a childish insult.

Yes. Guilty as charged. I apologize to Don Quixote for comparing him to you.

Impressive. Let's see just how many teeth your cute little "warning" really has.

Drum-roll please....

Ah ...here it is, Pgs 47-49 discusses...

1. The Shepherd of Hermas, the content of which we have already seen does NOT teach that the early Christian church baptized living believers in place of dead non-believers. Even the specific passage discussed in your soruce makes no such claim, not even close. The self-evident fact is, Sim 9:16 says nothing about baptizing biologically living people for the sake of dead ones. So its hard to see why you would try to pull this little trick off, when the original text of the SoH is so abundantly avialable to check against your claims.

Read what the author says. You know... the respected scholar who actually wrote the book published by Oxford University?

Pg 49 ends his section on the SoH, saying, "The analogy with early Mormon baptism of George Washington could not be more apt."

How did you miss that elephant?

So ...that part doesn't help you.

Help me? I am afraid that it is you who is in need of help. Sadly… I am unqualified to do so. My area of study is Christian history, not psychiatry.

...there you have it. You are bluffing. The original documents your supposed reference discusses do not provide any support to your claim.

You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make him think.

And all you can do when I ask you to simply point out the text in your soruce that supports your claim is mock me. It is obvious you are bluffing.

-BH

http://youtu.be/zKhEw7nD9C4

[_Runtu]

You know, I think we've all gotten off on the wrong foot with BrianH. It's not like his views are uncommon here, but I think a lot of us got defensive when he came in, guns blazing. Maybe we all just need to take a deep breath, relax, and try to be civil. I'm sorry I've been a bit harsh and snarky with him, and I forgive him for being so with me.

[_consiglieri]

Fair enough, Runto.

Now if BrianH will simply give us some reason to take his word for early Christian doctrine regarding baptism for the dead over the scholar Mike Reed has referenced in the companion thread, we will be getting somewhere.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri