Questionable Prophesies by Joseph Smith

[Trout]

POWELL:
Powell needs to take the sidelines in this section of TWEB.

So then can I assume that your explanations wouldn't satisfy JP?

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, Troutk13, you seem to think that when God reveals a prophecy then it's going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that your position?

No, the position from which I started has been that Joseph Smith issued some questionable prophesies. And I recognize the fact that you would like to switch the burden of proof to the Bible and it's prophesies. But since Joseph Smith and the BOM are the new kids on the block so to speak, I'd like to know why I should believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

I have read the BOM. And whether or not I find explanations that satisfy my particular subjective tastes does not necessarily lend truthfulness to the BOM.

[Leroy]

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

JM,

I found this not to be the case.

one of the reasons is, the Book of Mormon Tells us that Lehi "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days," (1 Nephi 1:4) in about 600 B.C. and was a prophet of God from the tribe of Manasseh. Yet we find that his son, Nephi, tells us that his father spoke in a strange language.

Scripture Verse:

BOM 1 Nephi 1:2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians

No prophet of God would have used a corrupt language to convey God's message at this period in History. ( the Egyptian language was very corrupt from an idol worshipping people who had persecuted the children of Israel)

this is a prophets reaction to use of a mixed and corrupt language

Scripture Verse:

Neh. 13:23-25 In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon {and} Moab.
As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, but the language of his own people.
So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
This has replies to both TROUTK13 and LEROY.

TO TROUTK13:

POWELL:
Powell needs to take the sidelines in this section of TWEB.

TROUTK13:
So then can I assume that your explanations wouldn't satisfy JP?

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, Troutk13, you seem to think that when God reveals a prophecy then it's going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. Is that your position?

TROUTK13:
No, the position from which I started has been that Joseph Smith issued some questionable prophesies. And I recognize the fact that you would like to switch the burden of proof to the Bible and it's prophesies. But since Joseph Smith and the BOM are the new kids on the block so to speak, I'd like to know why I should believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, some of the Biblical prophets issued "questionable prophecies" too if you think such things are what WILL happen. No ifs, ands, or buts.

You should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for similar reasons that you believe that those referred to in the Bible were prophets. By their fruits you shall know them. The Book of Mormon is a "fruit" of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a prophet.

Amos 3:7

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

JOHN MORMON:
Since God is doing important things these days, He surely needs prophets to let the rest of us know. Whether Joseph Smith was such a person should be the question, not that he couldn't be a prophet because there are no prophets in these latter days.

Other than the mere fact that their names appear in the Bible, Troutk13, why do you believe those mentioned in the Bible were prophets of God, inspired by God to speak and write God's Word?

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
I have read the BOM. And whether or not I find explanations that satisfy my particular subjective tastes does not necessarily lend truthfulness to the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Troutk13, you considered the fact that the Bible did that sort of thing for you as evidence of the Bible's truthfulness. If the Book of Mormon does the same sort of thing for you, why won't you treat it similarly?

TO LEROY:

JOHN MORMON:
If you sincerely read the Book of Mormon you may find uncanny explanations for your situation. Then perhaps you'll think higher of the Prophet.

John Powell

LEROY:
JM,
I found this not to be the case.

one of the reasons is, the Book of Mormon Tells us that Lehi "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days," (1 Nephi 1:4) in about 600 B.C. and was a prophet of God from the tribe of Manasseh. Yet we find that his son, Nephi, tells us that his father spoke in a strange language.

BOM 1 Nephi 1:2

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians

LEROY:
No prophet of God would have used a corrupt language to convey God's message at this period in History.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Leroy. (sarcasm)

When Joseph interpreted Pharoah's dream, did he do so in the corrupt language of the Egyptians that "No prophet of God would have used . . . to convey God's message" or did he speak to Pharaoh in Hebrew?

When Moses conveyed God's message to Pharaoh, did he do so in Egyptian or Hebrew?

When Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream did he do so in Babylonian or Hebrew or what?

When Adam and his descendants recorded their history did they do so in Hebrew or some other language?

Was the New Testament originally written in Greek or Hebrew or what?

God is not constrained to reveal things only in Hebrew, Leroy. God can reveal in just about any language, corrupt or otherwise.

( the Egyptian language was very corrupt from an idol worshipping people who had persecuted the children of Israel)

this is a prophets reaction to use of a mixed and corrupt language

Neh. 13:23-25

In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon {and} Moab.

As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, but the language of his own people.

So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.

JOHN MORMON:
They weren't cursed by Nehemiah for speaking non-Jewish languages, Leroy, but for being unable to ALSO speak the Jewish tongue. It's like criticizing Latin American kids in the United States, NOT for learning English, but FOR NOT also learning Spanish.

Nehemiah's real gripe is that they were marrying outsiders that were pulling them away from their Jewish traditions, not that they knew how to speak non-Jewish languages.

God is not unhappy with people being bilingual or more. Or, do you think He is? Doesn't God fluently speak more than just Hebrew?

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL:
TO TROUTK13:
POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

Or would it be fair for the Christian to scrutinize the prophesies of Joseph Smith only as critically as he does the claims of the Bible? If we were to use that standard I think we'd find the Bible to be far more reliable than the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, some of the Biblical prophets issued "questionable prophecies" too if you think such things are what WILL happen. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Again, "questionable" is an ambiguous term, and what might satisfy JM, wouldn't necessarily satisfy JP or Jew Powell. (How many more personalities are in there?) In my study, I've yet to come across a problem with the Bible that there hasn't been a personally satisfying answer to be had, the same cannot be said for the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
You should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for similar reasons that you believe that those referred to in the Bible were prophets. By their fruits you shall know them. The Book of Mormon is a "fruit" of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a prophet.

I don't think the BOM can withstand the same level of scrutiny as the Bible has.

JOHN MORMON:
Since God is doing important things these days, He surely needs prophets to let the rest of us know. Whether Joseph Smith was such a person should be the question, not that he couldn't be a prophet because there are no prophets in these latter days.

Acts 13:1

Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

I think that there are prophets.
I don't however see the NT equivalent of what the LDS church has today.

JOHN MORMON:
Other than the mere fact that their names appear in the Bible, Troutk13, why do you believe those mentioned in the Bible were prophets of God, inspired by God to speak and write God's Word?

I have no reason to believe otherwise, the same cannot be said of Joseph Smith.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Troutk13, you considered the fact that the Bible did that sort of thing for you as evidence of the Bible's truthfulness.

And how I feel about the Bible has no bearing on whether it's true or not. The Bible is true or not true apart from my opinion of it.

If the Book of Mormon does the same sort of thing for you, why won't you treat it similarly?

The BOM doesn't do the same thing for me, but even if it did, that wouldn't lend any objective truthfulness to it.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

TROUTK13:
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

POWELL:
Yes. They are being hypocritical. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

TROUTK13:
Or would it be fair for the Christian to scrutinize the prophesies of Joseph Smith only as critically as he does the claims of the Bible?

POWELL:
They should scrutinize both with a consistent standard.

TROUTK13:
If we were to use that standard I think we'd find the Bible to be far more reliable than the BOM.

POWELL:
I doubt it. Although the Book of Mormon has a lot of questionable geography, it avoids the more dramatic questionable claims of the Bible like talking animals, worldwide floods and such things.

The Book of Mormon is a talented attempt at making the hard-to-believe Bible more believable. For example, people wonder what it will be like when Jesus returns to the Earth. 3 Ne 11 gives an idea how that might happen. Genesis relates how Noah makes an ark. 1 Ne and Ether explain how God can instruct people to make ships. The O.T. has wars of extermination. The Book of Mormon tries to show how good people are sometimes forced to exterminate their enemies. The O.T. claims the sun stood still, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that it's the Earth that stops spinning. And so on. People wonder how the Bible could have mistakes yet still be reliable. The Book of Mormon prophets admit to being fallible, but that what they write is true.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, some of the Biblical prophets issued "questionable prophecies" too if you think such things are what WILL happen. No ifs, ands, or buts.

TROUTK13:
Again, "questionable" is an ambiguous term, and what might satisfy JM, wouldn't necessarily satisfy JP or Jew Powell. (How many more personalities are in there?) In my study, I've yet to come across a problem with the Bible that there hasn't been a personally satisfying answer to be had, the same cannot be said for the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. What is your satisfying explanation for why Jonah prophecied that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), but it didn't happen? Was this a CONDITIONAL prophecy or what was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

JOHN MORMON:
You should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for similar reasons that you believe that those referred to in the Bible were prophets. By their fruits you shall know them. The Book of Mormon is a "fruit" of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a prophet.

TROUTK13:
I don't think the BOM can withstand the same level of scrutiny as the Bible has.

JOHN MORMON:
I assure you that it can in the ways that are important. In fact, there are fewer significant errors in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
Since God is doing important things these days, He surely needs prophets to let the rest of us know. Whether Joseph Smith was such a person should be the question, not that he couldn't be a prophet because there are no prophets in these latter days.

TROUTK13:

Acts 13:1

Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

TROUTK13:
I think that there are prophets.
I don't however see the NT equivalent of what the LDS church has today.

JOHN MORMON:
Do those modern prophets of yours sometimes write new scripture like the ancient ones did? Ours sometimes do.

JOHN MORMON:
Other than the mere fact that their names appear in the Bible, Troutk13, why do you believe those mentioned in the Bible were prophets of God, inspired by God to speak and write God's Word?

TROUTK13:
I have no reason to believe otherwise, the same cannot be said of Joseph Smith.

JOHN MORMON:
What are the "reasons otherwise" for Joseph Smith?

JOHN MORMON:
But, Troutk13, you considered the fact that the Bible did that sort of thing for you as evidence of the Bible's truthfulness.

TROUTK13:
And how I feel about the Bible has no bearing on whether it's true or not. The Bible is true or not true apart from my opinion of it.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Troutk, but WHY do YOU believe the Bible is true? You claimed you weren't raised a Christian, but apparently after reading parts of the Bible, you concluded it was true because of its "uncanny explanation of [your] condition."

TROUTK13 (post 16, Testing the Book of Mormon by prayer, emphasis by Powell)

Actually Christianity wasn't spoken of in my upbringing, my father had a deep dislike for Christianity, and called himself an atheist for many years. Where the words of the Bible rang objectively true in my life was it's uncanny explanation of my condition.

JOHN MORMON:
I'm suggesting that the Book of Mormon could do the same for you if you try harder to give it a chance.

POWELL:
If that's your methodology to determine what books are true, then physics and biology and medical and psychology books should rate even higher on your list since they are much more accurate representations of your condition than the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
If the Book of Mormon does the same sort of thing for you, why won't you treat it similarly?

TROUTK13:
The BOM doesn't do the same thing for me, but even if it did, that wouldn't lend any objective truthfulness to it.

JOHN MORMON:
Then why does it lend objective truthfulness to the Bible?

Why do you believe the Bible? What are the reasons?

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL:

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

TROUTK13:
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

POWELL:
Yes. They are being hypocritical. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Only if they were to use the Bible as the standard.

POWELL:
They should scrutinize both with a consistent standard.

What would there be to scrutinize about the BOM? It's historicity? It's geography? It's origin?

POWELL:
I doubt it. Although the Book of Mormon has a lot of questionable geography, it avoids the more dramatic questionable claims of the Bible like talking animals, worldwide floods and such things.

The Book of Mormon is a talented attempt at making the hard-to-believe Bible more believable. For example, people wonder what it will be like when Jesus returns to the Earth. 3 Ne 11 gives an idea how that might happen. Genesis relates how Noah makes an ark. 1 Ne and Ether explain how God can instruct people to make ships. The O.T. has wars of extermination. The Book of Mormon tries to show how good people are sometimes forced to exterminate their enemies. The O.T. claims the sun stood still, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that it's the Earth that stops spinning. And so on. People wonder how the Bible could have mistakes yet still be reliable. The Book of Mormon prophets admit to being fallible, but that what they write is true.

Considering Joseph Smith's background I must disagree, I think the BOM is part of an elaborate con, began by Joseph Smith.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. What is your satisfying explanation for why Jonah prophecied that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), but it didn't happen? Was this a CONDITIONAL prophecy or what was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

John Mormon, what reason do I have for thinking that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Troutk, but WHY do YOU believe the Bible is true? You claimed you weren't raised a Christian, but apparently after reading parts of the Bible, you concluded it was true because of its "uncanny explanation of [your] condition."

After my conversion I discovered how the bible explained my origin, the meaning of life, how I should live and what my destiny would be. But my reading of the Bible came after the fact of my re-birth.

POWELL:
If that's your methodology to determine what books are true, then physics and biology and medical and psychology books should rate even higher on your list since they are much more accurate representations of your condition than the Bible.

JP, that's a valid point. But consider this, if we were to find that the Bible weren't inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the message of Christ wasn't true. After all He said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life" He claimed to be the inerrent Word of God. He also said,

John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So then the sole purpose of the Bible is to testify of Christ. He is the reason for the Bible. His message isn't the Bible, nor did He come to bring the message, He is the message.

If we were to determine that in fact the Bible was inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily make the words in it true. Sometimes lost in the debate is the reason we have the Bible which is Christ, not the book in and of itself.

[Lilith]

Oh Trout13,
Must you constantly pick on us. I would like one of those JHP books.
You know i do find it rather amusing that you people have nothing better to do than
tell people that there religion is wrong and how right you are. Really . . . in the long run, does it really matter to you? you're wasting your lives doing something that
holds little ground for argument. Step out of your little caves and do something worth while! Carpe Diem! Or if you prefer, Carpe Noctum!

[Trout]

Oh Trout13,
Must you constantly pick on us. I would like one of those JHP books.
You know i do find it rather amusing that you people have nothing better to do than
tell people that there religion is wrong and how right you are. Really . . . in the long run, does it really matter to you? you're wasting your lives doing something that
holds little ground for argument. Step out of your little caves and do something worth while! Carpe Diem! Or if you prefer, Carpe Noctum!

I'm sorry you feel picked on.
What kinds of things do you consider to be worthwhile Lilith?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Sure. JP is an atheist. He does not believe Mormonism anymore. He does, however, sometimes see that certain criticisms by Christians are unfounded.

TROUTK13:
So JP thinks that the claims made by Christians regarding the prophesies of Joseph Smith are unfounded?

POWELL:
Yes. They are being hypocritical. They are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

TROUTK13:
Only if they were to use the Bible as the standard.

POWELL:
Not only then. If they aren't consistent in their methodology then they are committing special pleading.

POWELL:
They should scrutinize both with a consistent standard.

TROUTK13:
What would there be to scrutinize about the BOM? It's historicity? It's geography? It's origin?

JOHN MORMON:
Its doctrine. Its power to change lives. Isn't that what's really important about scriptures like the Bible or do you think external evidences are what really matters about the Bible?

POWELL:
I doubt it. Although the Book of Mormon has a lot of questionable geography, it avoids the more dramatic questionable claims of the Bible like talking animals, worldwide floods and such things.

The Book of Mormon is a talented attempt at making the hard-to-believe Bible more believable. For example, people wonder what it will be like when Jesus returns to the Earth. 3 Ne 11 gives an idea how that might happen. Genesis relates how Noah makes an ark. 1 Ne and Ether explain how God can instruct people to make ships. The O.T. has wars of extermination. The Book of Mormon tries to show how good people are sometimes forced to exterminate their enemies. The O.T. claims the sun stood still, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that it's the Earth that stops spinning. And so on. People wonder how the Bible could have mistakes yet still be reliable. The Book of Mormon prophets admit to being fallible, but that what they write is true.

TROUTK13:
Considering Joseph Smith's background I must disagree, I think the BOM is part of an elaborate con, began by Joseph Smith.

POWELL:
What you said was not necessarily in disagreement with what I said.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. What is your satisfying explanation for why Jonah prophecied that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), but it didn't happen? Was this a CONDITIONAL prophecy or what was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUTK13:
John Mormon, what reason do I have for thinking that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?

JOHN MORMON:
For the same reason you think Jonah was a prophet: his works are recorded in scripture. Remember, the Old Testament is not the only scripture. Nor is scripture necessarily limited to just the Old Testament and the New Testament. God can reveal more things if He wants.

Now, what is your answer to the Jonah question?

Apparently you aren't able to mount a good criticism of Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies without also criticizing Jonah's prophecy.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Troutk, but WHY do YOU believe the Bible is true? You claimed you weren't raised a Christian, but apparently after reading parts of the Bible, you concluded it was true because of its "uncanny explanation of [your] condition."

TROUTK13:
After my conversion I discovered how the bible explained my origin, the meaning of life, how I should live and what my destiny would be. But my reading of the Bible came after the fact of my re-birth.

JOHN MORMON:
What were the events leading up to your "re-birth" if they did not include Biblical teachings?

POWELL:
If that's your methodology to determine what books are true, then physics and biology and medical and psychology books should rate even higher on your list since they are much more accurate representations of your condition than the Bible.

TROUTK13:
JP, that's a valid point. But consider this, if we were to find that the Bible weren't inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the message of Christ wasn't true. After all He said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life" He claimed to be the inerrent Word of God. He also said,

Scripture Verse:

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

TROUTK13:
So then the sole purpose of the Bible is to testify of Christ. He is the reason for the Bible. His message isn't the Bible, nor did He come to bring the message, He is the message.

If we were to determine that in fact the Bible was inerrent, that wouldn't necessarily make the words in it true. Sometimes lost in the debate is the reason we have the Bible which is Christ, not the book in and of itself.

POWELL:
That's a more liberal view than that of inerrantists. However, we don't have Christ, all we have is scriptures talking about Him.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Its doctrine. Its power to change lives. Isn't that what's really important about scriptures like the Bible or do you think external evidences are what really matters about the Bible?

There are many works containing correct doctrines and many works that have displayed the ability to change lives, that doesn't necessarily mean that all works that have such qualities are inspired, the external evidences in favor of the Bible lend credibility to the message contained therein.

JOHN MORMON:
For the same reason you think Jonah was a prophet: his works are recorded in scripture. Remember, the Old Testament is not the only scripture. Nor is scripture necessarily limited to just the Old Testament and the New Testament. God can reveal more things if He wants.

He can do anything He wants to. But He has chosen to speak to us by His Son through the Holy Spirit

Now, what is your answer to the Jonah question?

God's prophesies aren't contingent, God's wrath is. It's contingent upon repentance. Jonah was doing his job by telling the people to repent, had they remained in their unrepentant state, the wrath of God would have been visited upon them.

Apparently you aren't able to mount a good criticism of Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies without also criticizing Jonah's prophecy.

So much for that idea.

JOHN MORMON:
What were the events leading up to your "re-birth" if they did not include Biblical teachings?

I would venture a guess and say that there are more Christians in the world who do not own a Bible than there are Christians with a Bible. (I may be wrong.) The man who lead me to the Lord couldn't read, he spoke to me about my condition and how God had demonstrated His mercy to me in the Person of His Son. My re-birth was the initial act, my study of the Bible was the secondary act.

POWELL:
That's a more liberal view than that of inerrantists. However, we don't have Christ, all we have is scriptures talking about Him.

John Powell

And the empty tomb.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Its doctrine. Its power to change lives. Isn't that what's really important about scriptures like the Bible or do you think external evidences are what really matters about the Bible?

TROUTK13:
There are many works containing correct doctrines and many works that have displayed the ability to change lives, that doesn't necessarily mean that all works that have such qualities are inspired, the external evidences in favor of the Bible lend credibility to the message contained therein.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, then they are inspired, but to be scripture it needs to be more than merely "inspired." Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is like the Bible in being scripture.

The external evidences in favor of the Bible do not demonstrate that the DOCTRINE is true. For that, you need God's inspiration. You need to practice the teachings and test whether they are good like a seed that grows in your heart (Alma 32). You need to pray about it and get God's answer (Moroni 10:3-5).

JOHN MORMON:
For the same reason you think Jonah was a prophet: his works are recorded in scripture. Remember, the Old Testament is not the only scripture. Nor is scripture necessarily limited to just the Old Testament and the New Testament. God can reveal more things if He wants.

TROUTK13:
He can do anything He wants to. But He has chosen to speak to us by His Son through the Holy Spirit

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons think that's happening in the Book of Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
Now, what is your answer to the Jonah question?

TROUTK13:
God's prophesies aren't contingent, God's wrath is.

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when God told David that "He (Saul) will come down" (1 Sam 23:11) and "They (the men of Keilah) will deliver thee up" (1 Sam 23:12) then that was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUTK13:
It's contingent upon repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy is contingent on our free will actions.

TROUTK13:
Jonah was doing his job by telling the people to repent, had they remained in their unrepentant state, the wrath of God would have been visited upon them.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell them to repent? He told them they were going to be destroyed. He was disappointed when it didn't happen because they repented and God did not destroy them. Perhaps he was hoping to see another Sodom or Gomorrah.

My point is that, just like even though Jonah did not say "if X then Y will happen," but just "Y will happen," does NOT mean you should ignore the implied conditions, so likewise with Joseph Smith's prophecies.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently you aren't able to mount a good criticism of Joseph's "unfulfilled" prophecies without also criticizing Jonah's prophecy.

TROUTK13:
So much for that idea.

JOHN MORMON:
You're not out of the Jonah problem yet. You need to answer my follow up questions.

JOHN MORMON:
What were the events leading up to your "re-birth" if they did not include Biblical teachings?

TROUTK13:
I would venture a guess and say that there are more Christians in the world who do not own a Bible than there are Christians with a Bible. (I may be wrong.) The man who lead me to the Lord couldn't read, he spoke to me about my condition and how God had demonstrated His mercy to me in the Person of His Son. My re-birth was the initial act, my study of the Bible was the secondary act.

JOHN MORMON:
So the man was using Biblical teachings without, perhaps, quoting anything in particular from the Bible. So, if an illiterate Mormon missionary had been the one to speak to you about your need to follow the teachings of God's restored church then you might have joined the Mormon church rather than the one you did?

Maybe God inspired that man to help you change from skeptic to believer so that you would be closer to hearing the full truth from the Mormons, eh?

POWELL:
That's a more liberal view than that of inerrantists. However, we don't have Christ, all we have is scriptures talking about Him.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
And the empty tomb.

POWELL:
It's controversial with me whether Jesus ever existed to be put in a tomb.

Where does Paul mention the "empty tomb" idea? Modern Christians make a big deal about it, but Paul doesn't seem to see the importance.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
The external evidences in favor of the Bible do not demonstrate that the DOCTRINE is true.

Right, the external evidences of the Bible lend credibility to it.

For that, you need God's inspiration. You need to practice the teachings and test whether they are good like a seed that grows in your heart (Alma 32). You need to pray about it and get God's answer (Moroni 10:3-5).

But there is no good reason to begin practising the teachings of the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons think that's happening in the Book of Mormon.

And Muslim's think equally highly of the Koran, does what they think make the Koran true?

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when God told David that "He (Saul) will come down" (1 Sam 23:11) and "They (the men of Keilah) will deliver thee up" (1 Sam 23:12) then that was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

David asked God a question, to which God answered "yes they will deliver you up". David thought it a good idea to leave, so that he wouldn't get delivered up. So, it wasn't a prophesy, it was an answer to a question.

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy is contingent on our free will actions.

No, God's wrath is contingent upon our repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell them to repent? He told them they were going to be destroyed. He was disappointed when it didn't happen because they repented and God did not destroy them. Perhaps he was hoping to see another Sodom or Gomorrah.

My point is that, just like even though Jonah did not say "if X then Y will happen," but just "Y will happen," does NOT mean you should ignore the implied conditions, so likewise with Joseph Smith's prophecies.

My wife looks at the speedometer on the dashboard of our car while I'm driving and realizing that my rate of speed is greater than that allowed by law she warns, "You're going to get a ticket". realizing that her call to repentance will slow the progress of our vehicle.


When Jonah said, "Forty days and God is going to destroy your town" he was issuing a call to repentance, in very much the same way my wife does. Jonah's dissapointment and God's correction are reason to believe that God had been working in his life also, not just the Ninevites.

JOHN MORMON:
You're not out of the Jonah problem yet. You need to answer my follow up questions.

How about now?

JOHN MORMON:
So the man was using Biblical teachings without, perhaps, quoting anything in particular from the Bible. So, if an illiterate Mormon missionary had been the one to speak to you about your need to follow the teachings of God's restored church then you might have joined the Mormon church rather than the one you did?

Maybe God inspired that man to help you change from skeptic to believer so that you would be closer to hearing the full truth from the Mormons, eh?

Nah, I don't think so, I'd had the missionary lessons on two occasions prior to my conversion to Christ.

POWELL:
It's controversial with me whether Jesus ever existed to be put in a tomb.

Where does Paul mention the "empty tomb" idea? Modern Christians make a big deal about it, but Paul doesn't seem to see the importance.

John Powell

The "empty tomb" idea, or the resurrection idea? Doesn't the resurrection idea infer the "empty tomb" idea?

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The external evidences in favor of the Bible do not demonstrate that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUTK13:
Right, the external evidences of the Bible lend credibility to it.

JOHN MORMON:
For that, you need God's inspiration. You need to practice the teachings and test whether they are good like a seed that grows in your heart (Alma 32). You need to pray about it and get God's answer (Moroni 10:3-5).

TROUTK13:
But there is no good reason to begin practising [sic] the teachings of the BOM.

JOHN MORMON:
Then what good reason is there to begin practicing the teachings of the Bible?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons think that's happening in the Book of Mormon.

TROUTK13:
And Muslim's think equally highly of the Koran, does what they think make the Koran true?

JOHN MORMON:
No. And, Christians think equally highly of the Bible, does what they think make the Bible true? Also, no.

Do you see the "special pleading" you can't seem to avoid committing?

You apparently put the Book of Mormon and Quran in the set of things that "Troutk13 does not find any reason to believe" and the Bible in the set of things that "Troutk13 doesn't find any reason NOT to believe" without clearly indicating why, other than that the Bible seems to have more external evidences in support. However, where's the evidence in support of the DOCTRINE? Why is the DOCTRINE of the Bible accepted by you, but the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon and Quran rejected by you?

Is it because the Bible was the basis for your personal conversion to belief in a God? Was it by chance? If a Mormon or a Muslim had been the first one to get to you, might you have gone a different route?

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when God told David that "He (Saul) will come down" (1 Sam 23:11) and "They (the men of Keilah) will deliver thee up" (1 Sam 23:12) then that was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts?

TROUTK13:
David asked God a question, to which God answered "yes they will deliver you up". David thought it a good idea to leave, so that he wouldn't get delivered up. So, it wasn't a prophesy [sic], it was an answer to a question.

JOHN MORMON:
What is your definition of "prophecy," Troutk13, if it doesn't include "a prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration." (2nd definition in American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)

Given what you say above, perhaps you think that when Jesus answered the question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) with what followed in the chapter then it "wasn't a prophecy, it was an answer to a question." It's not something certain to happen. Is that your position?

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy is contingent on our free will actions.

TROUTK13:
No, God's wrath is contingent upon our repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
According to Jonah, was the destruction of Ninevah contingent on the actions of the inhabitants?

If yes, then why didn't Jonah say so? Was it because it's IMPLIED that when a prophet says "X will happen" then it really means "X will happen if nobody changes the way things are going"?

JOHN MORMON:
Where did Jonah tell them to repent? He told them they were going to be destroyed. He was disappointed when it didn't happen because they repented and God did not destroy them. Perhaps he was hoping to see another Sodom or Gomorrah.

My point is that, just like even though Jonah did not say "if X then Y will happen," but just "Y will happen," does NOT mean you should ignore the implied conditions, so likewise with Joseph Smith's prophecies.

TROUTK13:
My wife looks at the speedometer on the dashboard of our car while I'm driving and realizing that my rate of speed is greater than that allowed by law she warns, "You're going to get a ticket". realizing that her call to repentance will slow the progress of our vehicle.

JOHN MORMON:
Good. So, when your wife says "X will happen to you" it's implied that "X will happen to you if nobody changes things," right? Is it the same way with God?

TROUTK13:
When Jonah said, "Forty days and God is going to destroy your town" he was issuing a call to repentance, in very much the same way my wife does. Jonah's dissapointment and God's correction are reason to believe that God had been working in his life also, not just the Ninevites.

JOHN MORMON:
Nineveh was a lot larger, apparently, than a mere town.

Ok, so when God says "X will happen" it's often a call to repentance rather than a certain prediction of the future, is that your position?

When Jesus told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice (Mark 14:30) was it a CERTAIN prediction of the future (it was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts) or something else, say a warning that *IF* Peter went to the trial then he would be pressured so much to deny that he would very likely do so or something like that?

Could Peter have exercised his free will to cause that Peter did NOT deny Jesus three times that night before the cock crowed the second time or was it unchangeable "fate" or what?

JOHN MORMON:
You're not out of the Jonah problem yet. You need to answer my follow up questions.

TROUTK13:
How about now?

JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for answering my questions.

JOHN MORMON:
So the man was using Biblical teachings without, perhaps, quoting anything in particular from the Bible. So, if an illiterate Mormon missionary had been the one to speak to you about your need to follow the teachings of God's restored church then you might have joined the Mormon church rather than the one you did?

Maybe God inspired that man to help you change from skeptic to believer so that you would be closer to hearing the full truth from the Mormons, eh?

TROUTK13:
Nah, I don't think so, I'd had the missionary lessons on two occasions prior to my conversion to Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you weren't READY yet for the Mormon Missionary discussions. Unfortunately, now that you have a "little" truth you think you have it all and refuse to go beyond what mere Christianity can teach you. You have the Bible so you don't want any more scriptures.

When you're ready to listen to the truth, let the Mormons know.

POWELL:
It's controversial with me whether Jesus ever existed to be put in a tomb.

Where does Paul mention the "empty tomb" idea? Modern Christians make a big deal about it, but Paul doesn't seem to see the importance.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
The "empty tomb" idea, or the resurrection idea? Doesn't the resurrection idea infer the "empty tomb" idea?

POWELL:
Not if Jesus did not live on the Earth. Some mythicists claim that Paul believed Jesus was crucified and resurrected in an intermediate realm between Earth and heaven, rather than that Jesus lived on Earth and was buried in a tomb. The fact that Paul does NOT use this "powerful" Christian argument for the resurrection is pointed to as one of the evidences of this. Perhaps you can find somewhere that Paul says or clearly implies an "empty tomb"?

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Then what good reason is there to begin practicing the teachings of the Bible?

There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Historicity, archeology, linguistics. . .etc.

JOHN MORMON:
No. And, Christians think equally highly of the Bible, does what they think make the Bible true? Also, no.

Do you see the "special pleading" you can't seem to avoid committing?

If I were to pray about the BOM, I would be committing special pleading, because there isn't one reason to think that the BOM corresponds with reality, whereas there are many evidences that the Bible corresponds with reality.

You apparently put the Book of Mormon and Quran in the set of things that "Troutk13 does not find any reason to believe" and the Bible in the set of things that "Troutk13 doesn't find any reason NOT to believe" without clearly indicating why, other than that the Bible seems to have more external evidences in support. However, where's the evidence in support of the DOCTRINE? Why is the DOCTRINE of the Bible accepted by you, but the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon and Quran rejected by you?

There is actually more reason to believe that the Koran is what it says it is, than there is to think that the BOM is the Word of God.

Is it because the Bible was the basis for your personal conversion to belief in a God? Was it by chance? If a Mormon or a Muslim had been the first one to get to you, might you have gone a different route?

The reason for my belief is because of the Word of God, and yes it was a supernatural experience, but one that can be verified by the Bible. And many things contained in the Bible can also be verified.Jesus said, " "You search the Scriptures, for in them(The scriptures) you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." The re-birth is in Christ not in the scriptures.(In my case) In many cases, there exist people who are very sincere and diligent in their LDS faith but after much study and prayer they find that the BOM isn't in fact what it claims to be.

JOHN MORMON:
What is your definition of "prophecy," Troutk13, if it doesn't include "a prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration." (2nd definition in American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)

Given what you say above, perhaps you think that when Jesus answered the question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) with what followed in the chapter then it "wasn't a prophecy, it was an answer to a question." It's not something certain to happen. Is that your position?

Notice that those He spoke with were already certain that the things they asked Jesus about would happen, their question was "when", not "if". So the answer is yes, I would say that those things will come to pass.

JOHN MORMON:
According to Jonah, was the destruction of Ninevah contingent on the actions of the inhabitants?

If yes, then why didn't Jonah say so? Was it because it's IMPLIED that when a prophet says "X will happen" then it really means "X will happen if nobody changes the way things are going"?

Jonah issued a call to repentance, the people responded, God's wrath was averted.

JOHN MORMON:
Good. So, when your wife says "X will happen to you" it's implied that "X will happen to you if nobody changes things," right? Is it the same way with God?

My wife issued a call to repentance, the speed of our vehicle slowed, a ticket was averted.

JOHN MORMON:
Nineveh was a lot larger, apparently, than a mere town.

Ok?

Ok, so when God says "X will happen" it's often a call to repentance rather than a certain prediction of the future, is that your position?

A prophesy is a prophesy and a call to repentance is a call to repentance.

When Jesus told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice (Mark 14:30) was it a CERTAIN prediction of the future (it was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts) or something else, say a warning that *IF* Peter went to the trial then he would be pressured so much to deny that he would very likely do so or something like that?

Could Peter have exercised his free will to cause that Peter did NOT deny Jesus three times that night before the cock crowed the second time or was it unchangeable "fate" or what?

Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." I would say that He was making a predictive prophesy. As far as Peter's free will goes, that would be another discussion.

JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for answering my questions.

My pleasure.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you weren't READY yet for the Mormon Missionary discussions. Unfortunately, now that you have a "little" truth you think you have it all and refuse to go beyond what mere Christianity can teach you. You have the Bible so you don't want any more scriptures.

When you're ready to listen to the truth, let the Mormons know.

Sounds good. But why would my readiness make the BOM true?

POWELL:
Not if Jesus did not live on the Earth. Some mythicists claim that Paul believed Jesus was crucified and resurrected in an intermediate realm between Earth and heaven, rather than that Jesus lived on Earth and was buried in a tomb. The fact that Paul does NOT use this "powerful" Christian argument for the resurrection is pointed to as one of the evidences of this. Perhaps you can find somewhere that Paul says or clearly implies an "empty tomb"?

John Powell

If Jesus didn't live on the earth, then Christianity is completely false. And the fact that Paul spoke of Christ's resurrection while not using the empty tomb analogy means simply that he didn't use the empty tomb analogy.

You could put this issue to rest for good, simply by producing the body.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Then what good reason is there to begin practicing the teachings of the Bible?

TROUTK13:
There are reasons to think that the Bible corresponds with reality. Historicity, archeology, linguistics. . .etc.

JOHN MORMON:
Those are reasons to think the Bible's history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. correspond with reality. The Bible avoids being among those books with false history, archaeology, or linguistics, such as the "Ring Trilogy" by J.R.R. Tolkien.

However, what evidence is there that the DOCTRINE in the Bible is true? For example, what is the evidence that the Golden Rule is a divine principle? Does the fact that Jerusalem really existed in those days and the Greek language really was spoken in those days give good evidence that the Golden Rule is divine? I don't think so.

How do you decide if religious principle RP described in a religious book is "true" or not? Mormons have a way to determine religious truth regardless of the source. Christians merely claim the Bible is the truth and anything in line with the Bible is true. However, they have no way, apparently, to determine if the doctrine in the Bible is true. They merely take it for granted. Christians fail to avoid the circularity of their reasoning.

JOHN MORMON:
No. And, Christians think equally highly of the Bible, does what they think make the Bible true? Also, no.

Do you see the "special pleading" you can't seem to avoid committing?

TROUTK13:
If I were to pray about the BOM, I would be committing special pleading, because there isn't one reason to think that the BOM corresponds with reality, whereas there are many evidences that the Bible corresponds with reality.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what "special pleading" is. "Special pleading" is NOT to make a special request of God, but it's a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) in which you claim rule R applies in situations S, but you don't apply it consistently. You demand your opponents apply rule R to themselves, but you claim or imply you are exempt from the rule without it appearing to be the case that your situation is sufficiently special.

Here's an example.

If a person claims their scripture is true that doesn't make it true. However, I claim the Bible is true, therefore it makes the Bible true. That would be special pleading, but one you're NOT committing.

The special pleading that you're committing is to put the Bible in a "true because I have not reasons to think otherwise" category distinctly separate from the Book of Mormon and the Quran without giving good reasons why the Bible is sufficiently different from them.

JOHN MORMON:
You apparently put the Book of Mormon and Quran in the set of things that "Troutk13 does not find any reason to believe" and the Bible in the set of things that "Troutk13 doesn't find any reason NOT to believe" without clearly indicating why, other than that the Bible seems to have more external evidences in support. However, where's the evidence in support of the DOCTRINE? Why is the DOCTRINE of the Bible accepted by you, but the DOCTRINE of the Book of Mormon and Quran rejected by you?

TROUTK13:
There is actually more reason to believe that the Koran is what it says it is, than there is to think that the BOM is the Word of God.

JOHN MORMON:
Whatever.

JOHN MORMON:
Is it because the Bible was the basis for your personal conversion to belief in a God? Was it by chance? If a Mormon or a Muslim had been the first one to get to you, might you have gone a different route?

TROUTK13:
The reason for my belief is because of the Word of God, and yes it was a supernatural experience, but one that can be verified by the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
BINGO! So, you had a special experience with the Bible, huh? That's what Mormons consider a possible confirmation from God that the Bible is true. We claim you can also have special experiences with the Book of Mormon. We deny, however, that experiences with the Quran will come close to matching those of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. There's surely some truth in the Quran, so you might have some good experiences with it, but taken over all, I'm confident you'd find too much in error.

TROUTK13:
And many things contained in the Bible can also be verified.

JOHN MORMON:
The important question here is how to verify that the DOCTRINE is true.

TROUTK13:
Jesus said, " "You search the Scriptures, for in them(The scriptures) you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." The re-birth is in Christ not in the scriptures.(In my case) In many cases, there exist people who are very sincere and diligent in their LDS faith but after much study and prayer they find that the BOM isn't in fact what it claims to be.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps a few, but most diligent Mormons get the answer they seek from God and remain good Mormons until the end of their mortal lives. Don't let a few apostates dissuade you from the truth. Remember that there were apostates since the very beginning. Even God could not keep Satan and his angels.

JOHN MORMON:
What is your definition of "prophecy," Troutk13, if it doesn't include "a prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration." (2nd definition in American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)

Given what you say above, perhaps you think that when Jesus answered the question "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) with what followed in the chapter then it "wasn't a prophecy, it was an answer to a question." It's not something certain to happen. Is that your position?

TROUTK13:
Notice that those He spoke with were already certain that the things they asked Jesus about would happen, their question was "when", not "if". So the answer is yes, I would say that those things will come to pass.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, what if GOD exercised His free will and decided to destroy the Earth before those events could occur? He could do that you know (unless you don't think God has free will.) It's quite clear to me that prophecies are contingent. They are contingent on what free agents like God, Satan, angels, and mortals choose to do.

JOHN MORMON:
According to Jonah, was the destruction of Ninevah contingent on the actions of the inhabitants?

If yes, then why didn't Jonah say so? Was it because it's IMPLIED that when a prophet says "X will happen" then it really means "X will happen if nobody changes the way things are going"?

TROUTK13:
Jonah issued a call to repentance, the people responded, God's wrath was averted.

JOHN MORMON:
The destruction prophecied by Jonah that "will happen" was averted. The prophecy AS SPOKEN went unfulfilled. The prophecy AS IMPLIED, however, was fulfilled. The prophecy was something like "If you keep doing what you're doing then God plans to destroy you in 40 days."

JOHN MORMON:
Good. So, when your wife says "X will happen to you" it's implied that "X will happen to you if nobody changes things," right? Is it the same way with God?

TROUTK13:
My wife issued a call to repentance, the speed of our vehicle slowed, a ticket was averted.

JOHN MORMON:
Good.

JOHN MORMON:
Nineveh was a lot larger, apparently, than a mere town.

TROUTK13:
Ok?

JOHN MORMON:
It's just a nitpick.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so when God says "X will happen" it's often a call to repentance rather than a certain prediction of the future, is that your position?
TROUTK13:

A prophesy [sic] is a prophesy [sic] and a call to repentance is a call to repentance.

JOHN MORMON:
To prophesy is to prophesy. A prophecy is a prophecy.

Is it your position that often when God or His prophet says "X will happen" it's a call to repentance rather than a certain-to-happen prediction of the future?

JOHN MORMON:
When Jesus told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice (Mark 14:30) was it a CERTAIN prediction of the future (it was going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts) or something else, say a warning that *IF* Peter went to the trial then he would be pressured so much to deny that he would very likely do so or something like that?

Could Peter have exercised his free will to cause that Peter did NOT deny Jesus three times that night before the cock crowed the second time or was it unchangeable "fate" or what?

TROUTK13:
Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." I would say that He was making a predictive prophesy. As far as Peter's free will goes, that would be another discussion.

JOHN MORMON:
Was it before the rooster crows once or before the rooster crows twice?

If it was a prediction, certain to be fulfilled, then Peter had no free will to alter it. If you read Mark it looks like Peter had free will. He denied once. He goes outside and hears the cock crow (the first time). If he really wanted to avoid denying Jesus two more times then that was a great time for him to resist going back inside. He chose to return, however, and was tempted two more times to deny. He succumbed to the temptations.

However, Jesus was no more claiming that Peter would deny Him three times, no ifs, ands, or buts, than God was claiming that Saul "will come down" and the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up," no ifs, ands, or buts. These were both contingent predictions. Their fulfillment depended on the free will actions of everyone involved.

JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for answering my questions.

TROUTK13:
My pleasure.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you weren't READY yet for the Mormon Missionary discussions. Unfortunately, now that you have a "little" truth you think you have it all and refuse to go beyond what mere Christianity can teach you. You have the Bible so you don't want any more scriptures.

When you're ready to listen to the truth, let the Mormons know.

TROUTK13:
Sounds good. But why would my readiness make the BOM true?

JOHN MORMON:
It wouldn't. It just makes you ready to receive the truth.

POWELL:
Not if Jesus did not live on the Earth. Some mythicists claim that Paul believed Jesus was crucified and resurrected in an intermediate realm between Earth and heaven, rather than that Jesus lived on Earth and was buried in a tomb. The fact that Paul does NOT use this "powerful" Christian argument for the resurrection is pointed to as one of the evidences of this. Perhaps you can find somewhere that Paul says or clearly implies an "empty tomb"?

John Powell

TROUTK13:
If Jesus didn't live on the earth, then Christianity is completely false.

POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity. Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

TROUTK13:
And the fact that Paul spoke of Christ's resurrection while not using the empty tomb analogy means simply that he didn't use the empty tomb analogy.

You could put this issue to rest for good, simply by producing the body.

POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

John Powell