There is no case to be made for a historical Book of Mormon

[_Gray Ghost]

Gray Ghost, Your statement makes sense to me, I believe it is correct. However we could consider the case of the fellow working at the hardware store who asks himself did Jesus really visit the new world? There is nothing requiring him to limit his thoughts to the academic rules of history. He might pursue lines of thought Nevo has pointed out.On the other hand if that fellow is taking a college course on the history of Mexico writing a paper on the Book of Mormon would be inappropriate for the reasons you have stated (and Kishkumen expanded upon).

Yes, people can talk about the past in terms of folk belief or theological ideas. Mormonism posits that Jesus "really" visited the Americas. That's not history in the academic sense, though. That's faith. It's a story that some people believe based on spiritual presuppositions or experiences.

[_Gray Ghost]

I don't think that solves most of the problems. Like the sermon on the mount. Revelation does not explain how the sermon found in the Book of Mormon is essentially a word for word copy of the one found in the Bible.

If Jesus is able to come back from the dead and fly through the air, I think there's an outside chance he would be able to deliver the Sermon on the Mount in the New World.

What would be the point in a miraculous retelling of a document that hadn't been created yet? Was Jesus trying to discredit the Book of Mormon through supernatural means?

In any case, from a historical perspective it's a big strike against the Book of Mormon as history.

[_Gray Ghost]

I didn't expect to end up defending the modest observation that a historical Book of Mormon is not impossible if one makes sufficient allowance for the miraculous. I was suprised it drew such a strong response.

"If you'll just read this poem you'll find that my math theorem is true".

You can't use miracles to establish the historicity of something. Miracles by definition are outside of the realm of the historical.

[_Gray Ghost]

You should watch youtube videos about the resurrection of Jesus. I recommend William L Craig and N. T. Wright. The resurrection is the only way to explain the rise of the church.

Craig is an apologist, not a historian. His arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are not historically sound.

[_Gray Ghost]

His line of reasoning seems like a slightly dressed up, "I don't know man. You believe crazy things can happen. Why not this crazy one?"

The composition of the Book of Mormon presupposes a naïve understanding of the Bible as history. So it is not surprising that Book of Mormon believers would take this approach.

Exactly. The Book of Mormon is written from the perspective of a modern Biblical fundamentalist.

[_Gray Ghost]

See, normally you can point out how William Lane Craig's *ahem* arguments apply to things like the transfiguration of Brigham Young even better than the purported resurrection of Jesus, but faced with a Mormon, they're liable to be all like, "Yeah!"

You can also explain that by Craig's argument the rise of Seventh Day Adventism can only be explained by Ellen White having actually been given revelations from God.

It's not a historical argument, it's just Craig throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

[Guest]

You anti-mormons cannot explain the seal of mulek dating to the 6th century BC.

"Malchiah son of Hammelech" DOES NOT equal "Mulek." Explained.
Now find the seal of Nephi in the new world and you might have something, finding something related to a figure mentioned in the Bible in the vicinity of the Bible story lands...... What a coincidence........
Meh

[_Physics Guy]

Habermas / Craig / Wright ... argue that the best explanation for early Christina disciples' ministry is a genuine belief that Jesus was resurrected, which itself is best explained by that actually having happened. A lot of effort in demonstrating this goes into attacking alternative explanations as [in]sufficient.

How far do they (as opposed to their overzealous fans) try to push this argument? I think it might be fair to say that for a belief so bizarre to be strongly held by many people, something pretty weird must have happened. Resurrection after crucifixion by Romans isn't as easy to swallow as simply seeing somebody look like someone else for a while, or believing that somebody else had a vision. It would arguably take weirder circumstances to get a bunch of people to buy into a resurrection than it would take to get people to buy into those lesser miracles.

That far, I think, there may be a case to be made. Do H/C/W actually try to insist that the weird circumstance that provoked belief in a resurrection can only have been an actual resurrection, though? I think that would be pushing too far. It would be perverse argument, after all: making out that the resurrection is more credible because it is less credible. What?

It would be reasonable to assign extremely low prior probability to a resurrection, and once one is considering such fantastically unlikely circumstances then there are all kinds of other weird flukes that should be considered as well. The body of Jesus could have been vaporized by a meteorite, for example, or quickly mauled beyond recognition by a pack of street dogs that got loose just at the one moment when the six members of the crucifixion squad all mistakenly thought that it was their turn to go on break.

I think that this is really why the possibility of miracles has to be ignored by historians. It's not that historians are all so extremely sure that miracles never occur, but that even if miracles do occur they are so rare that if miracles were considered by historians, then zillions of other weird flukes would also have to be considered. Once you're in meteorite territory you have to give up.

[_fetchface]

It would be reasonable to assign extremely low prior probability to a resurrection, and once one is considering such fantastically unlikely circumstances then there are all kinds of other weird flukes that should be considered as well. The body of Jesus could have been vaporized by a meteorite, for example, or quickly mauled beyond recognition by a pack of street dogs that got loose just at the one moment when the six members of the crucifixion squad all mistakenly thought that it was their turn to go on break.

I think that this is really why the possibility of miracles has to be ignored by historians. It's not that historians are all so extremely sure that miracles never occur, but that even if miracles do occur they are so rare that if miracles were considered by historians, then zillions of other weird flukes would also have to be considered. Once you're in meteorite territory you have to give up.

I think Satan ate Jesus' body, thus gaining the power to appear in his form in order to found a religion that would confuse a great many people into thinking that correct supernatural beliefs were more important than ethical behavior.

Is that any less or more likely than Jesus being resurrected? Once we bring in supernatural powers that are beyond our comprehension to explain our beliefs, how can we be sure of anything?

This reminds me a little bit of Joseph Smith's handshake test to determine if an angel was sent from Satan. How can he be sure it wasn't one of Satan's henchmen who taught it to him to trick him? It's all circular when you really think about it.

[Guest]

Habermas / Craig / Wright ... argue that the best explanation for early Christina disciples' ministry is a genuine belief that Jesus was resurrected, which itself is best explained by that actually having happened. A lot of effort in demonstrating this goes into attacking alternative explanations as [in]sufficient.

How far do they (as opposed to their overzealous fans) try to push this argument? I think it might be fair to say that for a belief so bizarre to be strongly held by many people, something pretty weird must have happened. Resurrection after crucifixion by Romans isn't as easy to swallow as simply seeing somebody look like someone else for a while, or believing that somebody else had a vision. It would arguably take weirder circumstances to get a bunch of people to buy into a resurrection than it would take to get people to buy into those lesser miracles.

Physics Guy, I feel sure that Wright knows that there are other possible explanations for the belief in Jesus resurrection than that actual event causing the belief. Habermas shows that the belief is old, foundational to the growth of the Christian movement. That impedes some alternative explanations some. Craig, I don't know he puts me off so I haven't followed him much.

I suppose a reasonable course of doubting the resurrection story is to stick with saying that we have no evidence to show which alternative path events is the real one but resurrection is sufficiently unlikely than any alternative is more likely.

People that believe in or are somewhat positively disposed to a belief in a creator God naturally assess the likelihood differently. Stories of what caused the belief alternative to the gospel versions tend to be a bit weird but as you point out a weird end may be the result of weird circumstance.