Recently, Alex O’Connor had a debate with Trent Horn over the resurrection of Jesus. Alex is known for bringing up the Book of Mormon witnesses in objection to the resurrection witnesses. He also brought up the eight witness account, the apparent martyrs and persecution of Mormon witnesses, as well as the transfiguration story of Brigham Young. I might respond to those in later posts, haven’t researched those as much. I will give some short points addressing some of the three witness account claims by O’Connor below. If we as Christians, accept as supporting evidence the witnesses of the resurrection, why not similarly with the gold plates brought forth by the Angel Moroni? Besides immediate theological objections you may want to bring up, such as the need for a restoration or the claim of the Father having a corporeal body(foundational LDS claims), let’s examine the historical basis for the three witnesses and what Alex missed or maybe doesn’t know about. The claim is that three men, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, said they saw gold plates revealed by the Angel Moroni just as Paul and other early Christian’s claimed they saw Jesus. One of O’Connors first questions, not verbatim but implied, was how do you account between the corroboration of the witness statements between Harris and the others, given Harris’ vision was away from the other two? First, I’d want to clarify what exactly he meant. Joseph’s own History of the Church provides us with the details of Harris withdrawing from the group. The other account he had originally mentioned before was the testimony of the three witnesses that was written by Oliver Cowdery, likely by command of Joseph, and was apparently signed by the other two. We only have a printers manuscript of Cowdery’s writing of the account with him signing for the other two witnesses. A prepared affidavit that presents the original experience as a group experience contrary to Joseph’s account in the church history, does not constitute a relevant type of corroboration. Joseph was the one who knew the account before it happened and decided whether Cowdery and the other two were in or not as he “received revelation” there was going to be three witnesses, inquired of God if they were to be the witnesses, and “recieved revelation” that the three were to be the witnesses (History of the Church Vol. 1 Chapter 6).

In GodLogic’s discussion with Mohammad Hijab, Hijab asked GL this question. And to many people this seemed like a slam dunk on GL. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Wanted to do a temperature check on your guys’ intuitions and thoughts here. What do you guys think?

I’ve noticed that Muslims are going around with a silly objection lately. But sadly, it’s trapping a lot of Christians. I’ll share the objection here in hopes that we can workshop how to exegete the solution the VERY manufactured problem. The objection: Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until the eschaton, but then later drinks wine. Matthew 26:29 “I tell you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” John 19:28–30 Jesus, on the cross, is given sour wine, which he tastes/drinks. The basic inference line 1. If Jesus vows to not do X, and then later does X, then he broke his vow 2. Jesus vows to not drink the fruit of the vine (Matthew verse) 3. Jesus drinks sour wine which is from grapes still (John) 4. Therefore Jesus broke his Vow Looking forward to your thoughts guys!

It's been a long time coming, but we finally got none other than Dr. Joshua Sijuwade himself giving us a PRIVATE, never-before-seen lecture on how trinitarianism is true monotheism. This will be taking place at 6 AM PST on Thursday this week (April 23). This will be early for some of you, and perfect for others. Hope to see you there.

The most BASED week of the year, hello???