Tuesday, June 28, 2011

New Reactions Buttons

At the bottom of each post, I have made it possible for readers to respond with an quick "agree," "disagree," or "this post changed my opinion." This should be an easy way to provide some feedback anonymously without having to post a comment!

I would love it if you would go back and leave a response on your favorite posts!

Here are a few posts I would especially appreciate feedback on:

Monday, June 27, 2011

Craig vs. Ehrman Part 1: Craig's Opening Statement

While searching for the answer to the question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” I stumbled across a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. The purpose of the next series of posts will be to summarize the arguments from both parties, glean any relevant information from the discussion, point out logical fallacies on both sides of the field, and attempt to draw conclusions.


Summary of Craig’s Opening Statement

(The following is a direct quotation)

(I) Four Historical Facts Which Must Be Explained By Any Adequate Historical Hypothesis:

  • Jesus’ burial
  • the discovery of his empty tomb
  • his post-mortem appearances
  • the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
(End direct quote)

Support for this statement: (For my summary of this evidence, see “Just the Evidence: The Burial of Jesus, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/just-evidence-burial-of-jesus.html)

  • Multiple, independent sources attest to Fact #1:
    • Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
    • The extra-biblical Gospel of Peter
    • The apostle Paul
  • The burial account is part of Mark’s ‘source’ material
    • This ‘source’ is probably based on eyewitness testimony, and is dated back to under 7 years from the crucifixion (According to Rudolf Pesch)
  • Paul cites another ‘source’ which ‘most scholars’ date to within 5 years of the crucifixion
  • Joseph of Arimathea is a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin
    • Because the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus, it is unlikely that Joseph is a Christian invention
    • In the eyes of the early Christians, the Jews ‘engineered’ the death of Jesus- why make one of them look good?

“Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.”

Support for Fact #2:

  • Multiple, independent, early attestation
    • Mark- makes use of the same early ‘source’ material listed above
    • Matthew, John, and Acts (Acts is a continuation of Luke) also contain accounts
    • Paul implies the empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:4)
  • The tomb was found empty by women
    • In ancient Jewish society, the testimony of women was worthless
    • Women were not permitted to serve as witnesses in Jewish court
    • If the gospels had been made up, ‘reliable’ sources like Peter, or John would have been listed.
    • The most likely explanation for the women being the ones to find the tomb is that the women actually did find the tomb.

“Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.”

Support for Fact #3:

  • “Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.”
  • According to Paul, Jesus appeared to Peter, the 12 disciples, 500 disciples at once, James (the brother of Jesus, who was not a believer at that time), and finally to himself in a vision.

“Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.”

Support for Fact #4:

“Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead.

And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and

immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief.”

Craig claims that the best explanation for the radical change which took place in the lives of the disciples and the explosion of the early church is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
----------------------------------------------------------


“(II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.”

The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth.”

Alternative explanations- the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, etc. are not as good as the explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.

 Craig’s Conclusion:

“In conclusion, then, I think that there is good historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

Specifically, I’ve staked out two basic contentions for discussion tonight:

I. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection, and

II. The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.”


Coming soon: Summary of Dr. Ehrman’s Opening Statement

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Discrepancy Between the Gospel Accounts? (Part 1) Curtain Tear

Introduction:
In a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. William Lane Craig, Ehrman makes the claim that there are discrepancies between the gospel accounts:
"Read one story in Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up with. You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicity says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicity says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the cross or did only one of them and the other come to his defense? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It depends which Gospel you read."
------------------------------------------------------
In this post we will examine Dr. Ehrman's claim with reference to just one of his examples- At what time did the curtain tear? Before or after Jesus' death?
Here is what the gospels have to say concerning the tearing of the curtain:
Account #1
Matthew 27:45-54
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 47 And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." 48 And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. 49 But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" (ESV)
Account #2
Mark 15:33-39
33And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 35And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah." 36And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down." 37And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. 38And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" (ESV)
Account #3
Luke 23:44-49
44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. 47Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent!" 48And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. 49And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things. (ESV)
--------------------------------------------------
Now, are the gospel accounts contradictory with reference to when the curtain was torn?
Lets break down each of the accounts:
Account #1
Jesus cries out, and dies. The very next sentence is "And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom."
Account #2
Jesus cries out, and dies. The very next sentence is "And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom."
Account #3
The relevant verses seem to be "And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last."
--------------------------------------------------------
Is there a discrepancy?
It does seem like the order is switched in the third account. But is it so difficult to reconcile the gospels on this issue? I have never been one for cooking up a crazy interpretation in order to force the accounts to mesh, but if there are multiple legitimate interpretations I think it is vital to consider all of them.
Observations:
  • In every account, the death of Jesus and the curtain tearing are directly next to each other
  • The first two accounts start the second statement with the word "and," not "then"
  • The third account is the only one in which the word "then" is used- making the order of events implicit
  • Perhaps the events were simultaneous?
  • Is chronology intended?
Conclusion:
 It seems that there is a discrepancy in the order of events. While I do recognize that there are multiple explanations for what could have occurred, it seems that the best explanation of the evidence is that accounts 1 & 2 disagree with account 3. However, I would not consider this to be a blatant error.
Additional Notes:
I would greatly appreciate any input on this post! I must confess that after looking at the evidence I do not have a great deal of confidence in my current conclusion. I would love any additional evidence, perspectives, or opinions that you might have!

Saturday, June 25, 2011

There is No Evidence that the Disciples Died for Their Beliefs

I cannot count the number of times I have heard Christians make the claim that "The disciples would not have died for a lie." However, I can count the number of times someone has given me evidence that the disciples actually died for their beliefs- zero.

The relevance of this topic is fairly obvious- if the disciples were indeed killed and tortured for their beliefs, and if denying their faith would have saved their lives and ended the torture, then it is far less likely that they all lied about the resurrection of Jesus.

Unfortunately, after searching through the works of apologists, historians, and checking in to see if Google has anything to say on the matter, I have come up with absolutely no evidence concerning the deaths of the disciples.

Consider the testimony of Dr. Bart Ehrman, who has spent much more time searching than I have:
"And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I
didn’t hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian
source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I’d like him to tell us what the piece ofevidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection." (Taken from the debate between Craig and Ehrman concerning the historicity of the resurrection)

For the full debate, see:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/DocServer/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf?docID=621

My claim in this post would be extremely easy to discount if Dr. Ehrman and I are wrong. Just find some evidence and leave a comment with your source! I would greatly appreciate the new information.

Conclusion:
The claim that "the disciples died for their belief" has no historical backing whatsoever. It is a highly popular dogmatic tradition which has spread rapidly through the Christian world and is accepted because Christians want to believe it, not because there is a reason to believe it. Be careful when assuming that 'facts' about the past are actually factual!

Friday, June 24, 2011

Just The Evidence: The Burial of Jesus

For a long time I have had the desire to compile evidence concerning controversial issues, and present it free of interpretation. The idea is to give the reader the material and then let them draw their own conclusions.
 
As such, the purpose of this post is merely to provide the readers with the available evidence concerning the burial of Jesus; not to draw any historical conclusions as to whether or not Jesus was actually buried (and if so, in what manner). The following are ancient manuscripts that date back to well under 100 years after the death of Christ (except for the Gospel of Peter), and none are eyewitness accounts. It will be up to the reader to decide specific dates for each of the texts, whether or not we know who the author is, and whether or not each text is historically reliable. I do not agree or disagree with any of the following texts at this point- I'm merely making the information available.
 
 
Historical Evidence for the Burial of Jesus
  • Mark 15:42-47
  • Luke 23:50-56
  • Matthew 27:57-61
  • John 19:38-42
  • The Gospel of Peter (Extra-Biblical)  
Mark 15:42-47 
42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. 46 And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. (ESV)
 
Luke 23:50-56 
50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid. 54 It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. 55 The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. 
On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. (ESV)
 
Matthew 27:57-61 
57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. (ESV) 
 
John 19:38-42
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. (ESV)
  
The Gospel of Peter: (Not included in the canon)
 
 
Conclusion:
You decide! Let me know what you think!!!
 
 
 
 

One Fact That Discounts Over 50% of The Anti-God Arguments

Consider the following questions:
  • If God loves everyone, then why is there so much suffering in the world?
  • Do people who never get the chance to hear the gospel go to hell?
  • If God wants everyone to be saved, why does he fail to save most people?
  • Where did sin come from? Did God create it? Why would a loving God allow sin to ruin so many people's lives?
  • Why would a loving God create a place where people are tortured for eternity?
  • Why would a loving God kill the first born of Egypt when they had done nothing wrong? It was their parents who were defying God, not them.
  • Why did God perform genocide against the Amalakites? Why did God kill so many people in the Old Testament?


It is from questions like these that well over 50% of the anti-god arguments I know of arise. The atheist takes a peek at the world and what is recorded in the Old Testament, then listens to Christians say 'God is all love!' and (rightly) point out that there is a giant disconnect between the way Christians describe God and what the world is like (and the way the Bible describes God).


Here is a summary of the arguments against God's existence which are based upon 'God is love'


  1. The problem of evil
  2. The problem of suffering
  3. Argument from nonbelief
  4. The destiny of unbelievers
  5. The destiny of the unevangelized
  6. The origin of sin
For more in depth explanations of each, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God


All of the arguments and questions above are rooted in the assumption that God loves everyone. If the Bible claimed that God did love everyone, I would certainly discount the existence of the God of the Bible.


However, the Bible does not claim that God loves everyone in an ultimate sense (except for common grace- see http://www.bibleteacher.org/cg.htm for details).

It seems to me that according to the Bible God loves his children so much that his love for them cannot grow, he extends common grace to everyone while they are alive on earth, but ultimately is wrathful toward and hates most people.
If you haven't yet, go check out "God does not love everyone, here is why:"  (http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/god-does-not-love-everyone-here-is-why.html)


Conclusion:
If it is assumed that 'God loves everyone' (in an ultimate sense), then most of the arguments against the existence of God are valid.

Because God does not love everyone, I disagree with most of the anti-god arguments. A valid answer to every question listed above stems from the statement 'God does not love everyone.' There is no inconsistency between the fallen world we live in full of people who are going to hell and the God of the Bible.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

The Cosmetic Argument- Do you guys like the new background or the old one?

Basically that's all I'm wondering- do you like the old background or the new one?

Fundamental Assumptions:
  1. People like sweet backgrounds on the blogs they read
  2. If the background compromises readability, sometimes a less-cool but more readable background is in order
  3. On occasion, blog publishers like to shake things up to keep their blog interesting

How does this apply to this blog?
  1. This is up to you guys, the readers
  2. Leave a comment and let me know what you think
  3. At some point in the future, I may try out a new, stylish background. Watch out.
Conclusion:
I personally think that the earth in the background looks pretty sweet, but sometimes makes the text hard to read.

Leave a comment and let me know what you think I should do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Historical Argument- Evidence for the Crucifixion

What sort of historical evidence is there for the crucifixion of Christ?

As far as I know there are three major sources which document Christ's crucifixion:

1. Jewish- Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43
2. Roman- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman Historian
3. Christian- The writers of the gospels and Paul

And now for a closer look:

1. Jewish
J. Shachter and H. Freedman describe the Talmud and the Sanhedrin:
"The word Sanhedrin in the tractate which bears its name has a specialised meaning somewhat remote from that of its Greek original ([G]). It designates the higher courts of law which in the latter part of the period of the Second Temple administered justice in Palestine according to the Mosaic law in the more serious criminal, and especially capital cases. The main subject of our tractate is the composition, powers, and functions of these courts. Incidentally, as is only natural, it deals in some detail with the conduct of criminal cases; and in this way it forms, along with Makkoth, the chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud."

Christ's crucifixion is documented in Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43
(http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html):
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged (crucified). For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! 35 — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? 36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'" (emphasis mine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Roman
A description of Tacitus from Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb
"Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (56?-117 CE), writer, orator, lawyer, and senator, was one of the greatest historians of antiquity. His Annals and Histories are a panorama of first century Rome, from Tiberius to Domitian. His prose style is in the first tier of Latin writers. Tacitus presents a vivid picture of the high-water point of the Roman empire, and does not gloss over the toxic corruption and brutality of the time."

While writing about the misfortune of many early Christians, Tacitus mentions Christ's crucifixion (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm):

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." (emphasis mine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Christian

Probably the earliest Christian account of the crucifixion comes from Paul (ex. 1 Corinthians 1:23). Although Paul was not an eyewitness, he was a contemporary.

All four gospel accounts record the crucifixion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

At a later date, we will examine whether or not the gospels are historically reliable. At this point, it seems to me that the crucifixion of Christ is a well enough documented fact that I would bet my life on it. Here are my reasons:

1. Multiple attestation: Jewish, Roman, Christian
2. Coherence: All of the accounts above agree that Jesus was crucified
3. In the Jewish account, the mention of Christ's crucifixion is in a legal document. The account does not seem to be tampered with, flows with the context, and comes from a hostile source.
4. As for the Roman account, Tacitus is a highly reliable historian (see description above). His account also does not seem to be tampered with, he anchors Christ historically to Tiberius and Pontius Pilatus (adds to coherence), and he is also a hostile source.
5. The crucifixion has broad explanatory power with reference to the beliefs of the early church
-----------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:
Historically speaking, Jesus Christ was crucified.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Have a Heart, For Heavens Sake

I realize that the issues I write about in this blog are extremely difficult. I have advocated the radical stance that God does not love everyone, questioned the most foundational beliefs of multiple religions, torn to pieces the arguments of men whose job depends on their performance as apologists, and encouraged readers to revolutionize their entire worldview.

This post is here to recognize that it is difficult to sift through these deep issues. While I have had over a year to process the thoughts which are now being published on this blog, any who have read most of the controversial posts will only have had a short time to think about the things I am saying.

I completely realize that the things I say are scary (because they are scary for me)- especially for Christians and Mormons. Coming from a Christian background myself, I have had to deal with the loss of many things as I go through this process. The scariest part for me is questioning whether or not the infinitely beautiful promises that Jesus makes in the Bible are true. I built my life on those promises- made every major decision from what I would major in to who I would date based on Jesus Christ.

For Mormons, the three posts I published were highly critical. I can entirely understand that it would be pretty disturbing if someone started pointing out major problems with your most fundamental belief.

Honest doubt and looking for answers is emotionally, mentally, and socially difficult. Other people question you- become afraid of what might happen to you. They get uneasy and withdraw. Especially if you are a pastor or involved in some type of ministry- you can't just lightly 'take a season off' because you are suddenly doubting God's existence. Doing something like that could disqualify you from continuing your work. What if you have a family? What do you tell your kids? How do you raise them without an objective moral foundation?

I hope this post has shown a different side of me. I do not enjoy tearing others apart (even though I do it often). I wish that this honest search for truth would end, and I hope that yours will begin if it hasn't yet, carry out its course, and also come to an end as soon as possible (without compromising the integrity of the search).

Until then I will continue to hunt for the truth. I will sacrifice anything and everything in order to find out whether or not god exists: and if he exists- who he is.

-Josh

Historical Argument- Criteria for Authenticity

While perusing through the various pieces of evidence concerning the historical Jesus, it will be useful to determine what types of ancient accounts can be taken as trustworthy.

Here are some of the criteria for the authenticity of ancient texts:
  • Multiple Attestation
    • If multiple, independent accounts of the same events are documented, it is more likely that the information is accurate.
  • Embarrassment
    • If someone writes something that is embarrassing for himself/herself, it is more likely that it is true than something that makes the writer look good.
  • Coherence
    • If the account is similar to another account with previously established reliability, it is more likely to be accurate.
  • Sitz im Leben
    • "Setting of life". If the writing describes occurrences that are outside of the culture of the time (an extreme example would be saying that Jesus used tear gas to clear the temple), then it is less likely that the account is true
  •  Internal Consistency
    • If the account makes multiple statements which cannot be true at the same time, it loses credibility
  • Vividness of Narration
    • The inclusion specific details, as opposed to making broad generalizations can sometimes be an indicator of authenticity
Obviously, there are many more criteria that could be included! If you know of any, feel free to leave a comment!

Apologetics is Bad (Part 6): A Better Way!

If the (modern- I have no issues with apologetics as it was during the early church) apologetic thought process is so bad, resulting in dogmatically static individuals who are not willing to change even when presented with valid arguments, then what is a better way to go about processing the deeper issues of life?

A Better Way:
1. Gather evidence first and then draw conclusions based on your findings. Attempt to change your bias from a predetermined starting point to one that it inclined only toward the truth.

2. Evolution. Always be searching for the most accurate information possible. When an error in your thinking is exposed, accept it and change. As more and more time passes, the percentage of accurate information you posses will increase.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Historical Evidence for the Existence of Jesus Outside the Bible

Since I am still in the evidence-gathering stage concerning the historical argument, I will refrain from drawing conclusions at this time. Instead, I encourage everyone to read the evidence with an open mind and share any thoughts you have by leaving a comment!

Dr. Jim Denison has compiled evidence for the existence of Jesus using non-Biblical sources. For his article, see http://www.godissues.org/how-do-we-know-jesus-christ-existed/

Historians listed by Dr. Denison (in case anyone wants to do more research):
  • Thallus the Samaritan
  • Mara bar Serapion
  • Suetonius
  • Tacitus
  • Pliny the Younger
  • Flavius Josephus (some of Josephus' works may have been tampered with)

Apologetics is Bad (Part 5): Apologetics Ball

In this post, we will examine what I consider to be a helpful analogy.

It seems to me like this is the game that Dr. Craig wishes to play: Apologetics Ball.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are the rules:

-It is just like soccer, except that there is a brick wall in front of one of the goals.
-There are two teams: "Dr. Craig and apologists like him" (Team A) and "everyone else" (Team B)
-Team A is allowed to score "goals," and Team B is not allowed to.
-Goals occur when a team makes a successful argument. This causes a person from the other to change what they believe and join the other team.
-Since there is a wall in front of Team A's goal, even if Team B shoots and would have scored, it does not matter.
------------------------------------------------

Craig expects others to do something that he is not willing to do himself. Unfortunately, it is not just Dr. Craig who likes to be on Team A. Almost every Christian pastor (and Mormon, Islamic, Atheist, etc. persons) I have spoken to is eager and willing for me to change, while simultaneously putting up a brick wall over their own goal.

I think that all of us should be willing to change. Instead of attempting to 'win' arguments or converts, we should have an attitude of learning from each other. When two people discuss differences in belief, both should carefully examine what the other has to say, determine what differences they have, figure out who has the better perspective, and then change.

HSFT is not about winning arguments- it is about evolution. When someone points out an error in my thinking, I accept it, change my beliefs, and then become a proponent of the new idea. As more time passes, HSFT will accumulate more and more correct ideas (instead of statically adhering to dogmatic beliefs). I think that real progress could be made in answering life's most important questions if everyone were to have the attitude of HSFT.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Apologetics is Bad (Part Four)

As with the other posts, here is are quotes from Dr. Craig and my critique. Feel free to critique my work in this fashion.
 
3a. "Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself." (Craig)
 
3b. First off, Craig assumes that "it" is true before hearing what the other person has to say. In fact, according to Craig, if the other person does not agree with the Christian's logic, that person is still wrong. They just are. Perhaps this would be a great time to check out my post "The Golden Rule."
 
The basic premise of "The Golden Rule" of HSFT is that one should treat another's logic/reasoning the way one would want their own logic/reasoning to be treated. Do you think that Dr. Craig would appreciate it if someone told him "I already know god X (not the Christian God) is true. Here are some arguments for him, but if you disagree, you are still wrong. The fact that you disagree is not god X's fault, but mine, and you are still accountable to him." If Dr. Craig and my hypothetical person got into a conversation, no progress would be made.
 
It is wrong to assume you are right before hearing what the other person has to say. What if the other person says something that actually makes sense?
---------------------------------------------------
 
4a. "Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." (Craig)
 
4b.
Issue #1:
"Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Allah it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of Allah on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Muslim because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Muslim because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with Allah."
 
Issue #2:
I am an example of the kind of person Dr. Craig claims does not exist. I am a person who is honestly looking for evidence concerning the existence of god. The reason that I would fail to become a Christian would not be because I love darkness and want nothing to do with god, but because of the lack of arguments. If god exists, I absolutely want to have everything to do with him (eternal joy and not going to hell sounds pretty sweet). If he does not exist, then I will not sacrifice my life by "taking up my cross" (Luke 9:23) and becoming "among all men the most to be pitied [if it is not true]" (1 Corinthians 15:19).
----------------------------------------------------------

5a. "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." (Craig)

5b. It is in this statement that we see the most fundamental difference between Dr. Craig and myself. I think that argument and evidence take precedence over abstract assurance. I have already covered this topic in Fundamental Assumptions 1 & 2, so jump over there for my thoughts!

Apologetics is Bad (Part Three)

It seems to me that an additional clarification is in order. During the early church, 'apologetics' was very different from what it is today. Back in the early years, defenders of Christianity dealt largely with misunderstandings of Christian doctrine which led to Christian persecution. I have no problems with that type of apologetics. As we have seen and shall see again in this post, my issue is with the starting place of 'modern' apologetics.
 
Check out Parts 1 & 2 if you haven't yet!
 
2a. "And you can know [the gospel] is true, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true." (Craig)
 
2b. It seems to me that Dr. Craig is assuming that God actually is 'knocking' on person X's heart. What if person X does not feel that knock? It does not seem like it is fair to make this type of judgement.
 
The second statement seems entirely unfair. What if I were to tell Dr. Craig that I am sincerely seeking God, and yet I do not have assurance that the gospel is true? Would it be just for Dr. Craig to tell me that I'm not actually looking honestly? It seems to me that Dr. Craig is encouraging other apologists to make judgement calls concerning other people's mindsets when they have no reason to do so.
 
My last qualm with Craig's statement is that someone from any religion/belief system could make a version of the same statement.

Apologetics is Bad (Part Two)

First I feel it would be a good thing to clarify that I do think apologetics can be the process through which valid arguments for the existence of god can be created. I also acknowledge that some apologists do not adhere to the specific mindsets that I am speaking against. That said, I disagree with the starting point "we know Christianity is correct, now let's look for evidence to support that claim," which is the mindset of most of the apologists I have studied.
 
If you haven't yet, go check out Part 1 of this series! That post was a summary of Dr. Craig's apologetic mindset. This post will honestly examine what Dr. Craig said, then see if he makes any unfair statements, has any assumptions that he does not justify, or makes any logical errors.
 
1a. "What, then, should be our approach in apologetics? It should be something like this: 'My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true.'" (Craig)
 
1b. It seems to me that Craig is relying upon personal experience for the initial justification of his claim. I disagree with using personal experience as an argument for two reasons:
  • I would not trust another persons experience to invalidate my own, and I think it would be wrong to tell a person that their experience was invalid based on mine.
  • People of every religion rely upon personal experience to validate their claim (Mormons, Muslims, etc.). If, lets say a Christian and a Mormon were to get into a discussion concerning the validity of their faith which was based on personal experience, it would go something like this: "I know my God is the real one." "No, you're wrong, my God has SHOWN me that he is the real one!" "Oh yeah? Well the HOLY SPIRIT has SHOWN ME that you are wrong and that MY God exists." See how no discussion can take place when both parties use personal experience? If, instead, logic and reason based on evidence are appealed to, progress can be made in constructively searching for truth. (See Fundamental Assumptions Parts 1 & 2)
Because Craig is in favor of making this thought process the starting point, he is advocating to Christians that they should assume that God's Spirit exists before justifying that assumption. (again, see Fundamental Assumptions Parts 1 & 2)

In order to make this blog more reader friendly, I'm going to break this up in to more posts! For the continuation of this examination, see Part 3!

Friday, June 17, 2011

Apologetics is Bad (Part 1)

In the next few posts we will take a look at apologetics as a thought process and why I think it is bad. For Part 1, the apologetic thought process of Dr. William Lane Craig will be examined and I will provide a brief summary of the meaning I take from him. In the next post(s) we will expose the errors that I perceive in Craig's line of thinking.

According to Dr. Craig:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa."[William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]

 and,
"What, then, should be our approach in apologetics? It should be something like this: 'My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it is true, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself.'" [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 48.]

and,
"Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Here is what I just heard Dr. Craig say:

  1. I already know God exists based on personal experience (the Holy Spirit assures me)
  2. If you were honestly searching for truth, you would already believe in God too.
  3. Even though I already have my conclusion (which should also already be yours), I also happen to have some snazzy arguments for my pre-determined conclusion!
  4. If you don't think the arguments I have are good, it doesn't matter. My pre-determined conclusion is still valid, and you should agree with it.
  5. Even if it seemed like you were logically correct, you aren't. Your thought process is imperfect because we live in a fallen world. Furthermore, I won't change what I believe even if what you say makes sense.

I would like to point out that this is the starting point from which Craig encourages other Christians to defend their faith. He says to start out knowing that you have the right answer, and that it does not matter if you fail to demonstrate that answer with sound logic.

In the next post we will examine in detail what I consider to be the errors of Craig's statements!

I would also like to recommend some posts which are extremely relevant concerning this topic:
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/golden-rule-is-universal-principle-in.html

Thursday, June 16, 2011

1 Month Review: Where we've been, where we're going

An honest search should have an end, right?

When you begin a journey to find the answers to life's deepest questions, it can seem like you are caught up in an ocean of information that has no end. Fortunately, I think that an honest search for truth can be finite.

Below is a flowchart containing every argument I know of concerning the existence of god, along with every religion/belief system that I have studied (other than atheism and deism). The arguments/thought processes that have been demonstrated to be errant on HSFT have been labeled with a red X. As time passes, every line of thinking on the chart will be examined in depth and labeled with an X or a check. If god's existence is demonstrated to the point that I would bet my life on it, every religion will be examined in more detail to determine which one(s) are true. Obviously, if god's existence is not demonstrated that step will not be necessary.

The gold numbers correspond to the posts on HSFT that deal with the given topic, and links to those posts can be found at the bottom of this page.


Josh's Flowchart


Other relevant topics examined:

Flowchart's Corresponding Posts:

1. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions.html
and, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-to-don-carsons-how-do-i-know.html

2. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html

3. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/historical-arguement-beginning-of-long.html
and, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/nt-wright-resurrection-of-son-of-god.html
and, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/summary-of-senses-of-history-according.html

4. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-ontological-argument-fails-response.html
and, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/second-look-at-ontological-argument.html

5. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-cosmological-argument-fails.html
and, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-cosmological-argument-fails-second.html
and, http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/updated-less-confusing-hopefully-2nd.html

6. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/russels-teapot.html

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Russell's Teapot

In 1952, philosopher Bertrand Russell commissioned an article entitled "Is There a God?" Here is what he had to say:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

I completely agree with Russell! I love this analogy (which is not unlike the contemporary and satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster). On this blog we are seeking to find out if there is evidence for the existence of god (and if there is, which god?) to the extent that we would bet our lives on it.

The entire article can be found at:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

The Historical Arguement: The Beginning of a Long Journey

Of all of the arguments for the existence of God, and more specifically for the resurection of Jesus, I have found that the Historical Argument is by far the most complex. Unfortunately, it is also the argument that I know the least about. As a result, I will be doing research, summarizing what I find, and creating reports so that everyone can stay up to date.
Because there is SO much information (the history of the Bible covers well over 2000 years, and the history of the church after Christ covers over 2000 years) we will be narrowing the scope of our search to the most vital points first.
What are the most vital points? I would say the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, and what transpired after what is now commonly known as Easter are the most vital points to analyze.
To determine what can be said about these events, we will take the following approach:
  1. Examine the cultures, mindsets, ideologies, etc. of the Jewish and non Jewish people before Christ
  2. Examine the cultures, mindsets, ideologies, etc. of the Jewish, non Jewish, and Christian people after Christ
  3. Examine as much evidence as possible in light of the cultures in which we find it
  4. Draw conclusions, and label each conclusion with an appropriate degree of certainty
  5. Expand the search to include other historical topics
I have already posted two reports on N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God." Check them out!
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/summary-of-senses-of-history-according.html
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/summary-of-senses-of-history-according.html

Sunday, June 12, 2011

A Second Look at the Ontological Argument

In response to the last post on the Ontological argument, the following video was recommended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHXq_8n2O1I&feature=related (I thank the person who posted this!)

Before going further, I would like to encourage everyone to read the first post on the Ontological argument! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHXq_8n2O1I&feature=related) Due to the abstract nature of the argument, it would basically be impossible to understand this post or the video mentioned above without gaining some experience on the topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I do not think that any of my reasoning in the first post has been overturned by the second video from Dr. Craig. It is helpful to watch the second video, however, because it becomes easier to see Craig's error.

Consider what Craig said concerning point #3:
"If a maximally great being exists in one [possible world], then he exists in all of them."

A better rewording of the above statement would be:
"If a maximally great being exists in possible world X, then he exists in all of them, according to possible world X"

But if possible world X is not a valid possible world, it doesn't matter what it contains. Those contents cannot jump into other possible worlds. Even if some entity had the ability to jump from one possible world into another according to possible world X, if possible world X is not valid, then the entity cannot jump into other worlds.

Conclusion:
As with the previous discussion of Craig's presentation, the assumption that all possible worlds are valid has still not been justified. While I may have red hair in one possible world, the reason I do not is because that possible world in which I do have red hair is not a valid one (don't get any ideas). We are still left with the task of determining which possible worlds are valid, because the existence of anything in any possible world is dependent upon the validity of the possible world itself.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Why The Ontological Argument Fails, Response to William Lane Craig

The Ontological argument is one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God.

For an explanation of the argument, I highly recommend watching the following video by Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr36HID62wM

Watching the video by Dr. Craig is vital if one desires to understand this blog post.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig's Summary:
  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world
  5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being  exists
  7. Therefore, God exists
---------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Dr. Craig on point 1. I think it is possible that a maximally great being exists.

I disaree on points 2 and 3. Dr. Craig makes the assumption that all possible worlds exist and are valid and fails to justify it.

Consider the following scenario:
In description x of the world, a maximally great being exists (and therefore it exists in all other worlds). However, if description x of the world were to be falsified, then that maximally great being would not exist. Whether or not the maximally great being exists is dependent upon the existence and validity of the 'possible world' itself.

For example, Nazgul exist in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Why is it that Nazgul do not exist in reality? Because Tolkien's world is not the actual world. If a maximally great being were to exist in Tolkien's world, it would not follow that the maximally great being existed in reality.

Therefore, the Ontological argument does not introduce any new insight on the existence of God. The question originally being asked was "does God exist?" which could be rephrased "Are the possible worlds in which a maximally great being exist valid?"

Conclusion:
Because whether or not the maximally great being exists depends upon whether or not the possible world exists and is valid, the Ontological argument in no more than a logical trick which fails to provide any evidence as to whether or not God exists.

Friday, June 10, 2011

God does not love everyone, here is why

I understand that this topic may be upsetting to most people (I have personally  spent hours agonizing over this). It is not my intention at all to make fun of, speak lightly about, or in any way treat this topic in an inappropriate way. I am honestly searching for truth. Please give what I have to say a chance before writing it off as false. As always, I welcome any evidence or logic that would prove me wrong.

Note: 'God' in this post refers to the Christian God of the Bible, YHWH

Disclaimer #1: All arguments in this post could start with the phrase "assuming God exists..." This is not a post concerning the existence of God; it concerns one of the characteristics of God if He does exist.
Disclaimer #2: While I do consider myself a Calvinist, I am choosing not to utilize some of my Calvinistic beliefs in this post in order to avoid unnecessary debate. (Calvinism is not necessary for me to make my point)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

My argument is based on the following assumptions:
  1. God created everything
  2. God knows everything
  3. If people do not accept Jesus, they go to hell
  4. Most people do not accept Jesus
I do not think that anyone will make the argument that the Bible does not claim #1, #2 and #3. (If anyone wants to debate whether or not the Bible claims these things let me know!)

When it comes to #4, just check out any religion statistics website. Most people are not Christians.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

God created everything, which means that He also created the human race. When He did so, He knew that the majority of people would not accept Him. In addition, God created hell. He knew that He would send most people to hell because of their failure to accept Jesus.

Did God do this because He loved those people? I think that the obvious answer to that question is no. A much better explanation for why God created the majority of people knowing that they would go to hell would be that He wanted to pour out His wrath upon them. He had the option to 'not' create those people, correct?

In addition, mainstream Christianity considers hell to be eternal, inescapable torture.
-------------------------------------------------

I expect that many readers may be thinking "God wouldn't be loving if He didn't give them the choice." Is it loving to give a child the option to throw themselves into eternal torture, knowing that the child will choose the torture? It would be much more loving to take away that decision.

-------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:

Is the Christian God a 'loving' God?

It depends on the person. If person x is a child of God (a Christian) then YES, God is extremely loving (so much that His love for them cannot grow). If person x is an enemy of God (not a Christian) then NO, God is wrathful and terrifying. God does not love the people He sends (or allows to go) to hell.

Mormonism, Anachronism #2

If you have not yet read "Mormonism, Anachronism #1", you may find it extremely helpful to do so before reading this post! http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/mormonism-anachronism-1.html

Possible Anachronism #2, Iron, Steel, Metal Swords, and Rust
As with Anachronism #1, I will try to be as fair as possible with this analysis. Keep in mind that while there are dozens of conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence available, we are in search of the best conclusion. The specific question we are attempting to answer is "based on the subject material of the Book of Mormon, is it more likely that Joseph Smith wrote the book apart from any sort of divine influence or that God wrote the text and Smith merely translated."

Thesis: It is more likely that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon apart from the influence of any 'God' because 'God' would not have made the errors found in the Book of Mormon. The error being examined in this specific post is the inclusion of metals which were not present in the ancient Americas.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Josh's Assumptions:
1. Iron, steel, swords made of steel, and swords which 'rusted' are all mentioned as being produced and used during the time period 2500 BC to AD 400 in the ancient Americas
2. The items listed above were not present in the ancient Americas
3. If metal implements had been used by the Jaredites and Nephites (groups of people about which the BoM is written about), then we would have found them

Justification for Assumptions:

1. See 1 Nephi 16:18, 2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8, and Ether 7:9 (I quote 3 of the 4 below)
2 Nephi 5:15
“And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance”

Jarom 1:8
"And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war."

Ether 7:9
"Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib."
--------------------------------------------------------------
2. There is no evidence of there being steel weapons or tools in the ancient Americas. If you know of any, please let me know!
 -------------------------------------------------------------

3. If the "great abundance" of metal weapons/tools had been produced, we would have found them.

Archaeology has allowed us to discover many items much less durable than metal which existed during or before the time of the Book of Mormon.

Here is an extremely interesting example:

Mormon 6:6-14
[6] And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.
[7] And it came to pass that my people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them.
[8] And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers.
[9] And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war.

[10] And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.
[11] And when they had gone through and hewn down all my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.
[12] And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.
[13] And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.
[14] And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.
[15] And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth. (all underlines and bolding mine)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Mormon 6:6-14-
  • The Lamanites attack the Nephites with all sorts of weapons (including swords). There is no reason to believe that these weapons were not made of metal (including steel).
  • The Nephites had around (7 x 10,000) + (6 x 10,000) + (10 x 10,000) = 230,000 people (who also had metal weapons)
  • The Lamanites beat the 230,000 (I wonder how many people they had?)

IF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FOUGHT A GIGANTIC BATTLE AROUND 400 AD, THERE IS ALMOST NO WAY THAT ARCHAEOLOGISTS WOULD HAVE MISSED IT.

Would you bet your life on archaeologists missing an event of such magnitude?

ALSO, EVEN IF THEY DID MISS THIS GIGANTIC BATTLE, WHAT ABOUT THEIR CIVILIZATION? THESE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ALL LIVED SOMEPLACE, RIGHT? MAYBE THEY USED METAL TOOLS?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:
The Book of Mormon claims in multiple places that metal (including steel) weapons/tools were used extensively in the ancient Americas. No trace of these weapons/tools has been found. If these weapons/tools had existed, we would have found them. This is fatal evidence against the validity of the Book of Mormon being a book inspired by 'God'.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Mormonism, Anachronism #1

In the Book of Mormon, I have found a large number of anachronisms, which are errors that have to do with placing a person, animal, object, event, etc., in an inappropriate period of time. An example would be saying that Alexander the Great used machine guns to attack Tyre. In this series of blog posts, several of these anachronisms will be examined.

Possible Anachronism #1, Horses

To try to be as fair as possible we will examine one topic at a time, state a possible error in the Book of Mormon, consider evidence for and against whether or not there actually is an error, and attempt to draw a conclusion.

Thesis: Horses are mentioned multiple times in the Book of Mormon. However, no horses were on the North American continent (the location where the events of the BoM took place) during the time period described, 2500 BC - 400 AD. Horses became extinct in the Northern Hemisphere around 10,000 years ago and were not reintroduced until after 1400 AD by the Spaniards. The fact that Joseph Smith includes horses in the Book of Mormon at a time period when historical and archaeological evidence says that horses were not present is evidence against validity of the Book of Mormon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In the statement above, I made several assumptions and statements which have not yet been justified. There would be no reason to agree with the statement above unless it is backed up with accurate information!

Josh's assumptions:
  1. Horses are mentioned in the BoM (Book of Mormon)
  2. There were no horses on the North American continent from 2500 BC to 400 AD
    • Horses became extinct in North America 10,000 years ago
    • Horses were not introduced until after 1400 AD
  3. What Joseph Smith meant by 'horses' is not a different type of animal (for example, a Tapir)
Justification for Josh's assumptions:

  1. Horses are mentioned as being present in North America by the BoM during the time period from 2500 BC to 400 AD. See:
    • 1 Nephi 18:25
    • Enos 1:21
    • Alma 18
    • Alma 20:6
    • 3 Nephi 3:22
    • 3 Nephi 4:4
    • 3 Nephi 6:1
    • Ether 9:19
  2. There were no horses on the North American continent from 2500 BC to 400 AD
  3. When Josheph Smith mentioned horses, he actually meant horses.
    • Mormon apologist Robert R. Bennett claims that Joseph Smith may have actually been reffering to 'tapirs' when he mentioned 'horses.'
    • Since everyone knows what a horse looks like, I encourage everyone to do a google image search of 'tapir' and decide for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:
Joseph Smith mentions horses being present on the North American continent at various points between 2500 BC and 400 AD, historical and archaeological evidence points towards the extinction of horses in North America before 10,000 BC and their introduction after 1400 AD, and the best interpretation of 'horse' in the BoM is 'horse' (not 'tapir' or some other 4 legged mammal). Unless my statement is shown to be false by solid evidence, the BoM contains a significant error.