Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mormons (or church of latter-day saints)

124»

Comments

  • #152
    2Scoops
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    It is not a reasonable point at all.

    Here, we must agree to disagree. :pac:


  • #153
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I understand that, yet the number of strict Mormons on such topics is not I would say that high.



    It nmatters hugely and hits my points on Mormonism, they do not know who Jesus is. Where and how hHe died is not theology but history.

    Strict Mormons not high indeed, but there is actually a denominational difference between the strict mainstream ones and the ones who are part of the break-away fundamentalist church.

    History says nothing conclusive about Jesus at all, in life or death. Therefore, history supports the possibility that he moved to south America. Now, it is highly highly unlikely that a middle eastern could have made it the new world, but since we don't know how/when/where/if he died, it is at least possible. This is why I say I don't want to get into it. The evidence cannot make a conclusion, which leaves speculation, and in my eyes speculation about holy figures for whom there is scant secular evidence, is theology.


  • #154
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    They are eyewitness, they are supported by other texts, they are supported archaeologically. Therefore historically speaking theyare ruled to be an accurate portrayal of events. These are the disciplines that are applied to other abncient historical documents and events.
    As everybody else has pointed out already, they are most certainly not supported by other texts in anything but the most superficial (Pliny), incidental (Tacitus) or suspicious (Josephus) manner. Neither are the extraordinary events of the NT supported by so much as a single item of archaeological evidence. Not one.

    The archaeologist John Romer did a piece on Radio 4 a few years back in which he referred to the differing styles of international archaeological research in the Middle East. Specifically, he talked about a series of American "religious archaeologists" who showed up with vast funding, but were clueless about how to do the hard, slow work of archaeology itself and who wandered back home after slipshod and useless digs to publish more or less whatever they wanted in their private journals. In terms of accuracy, they attracted the same kind of opprobrium from professional archeologists that creationists do from professional biologists.


Advertisement