Interesting

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).

To whomever has read this, I'm curious to know what Barker's position is. I'm on ch. 10, and so far it seems that her data represents YHWH as multiple deities in the OT times which some Israelites believed in. The Deutoronomists came later to correct tradition which is where we now have our Masoretic and LXX texts describing YHWH as only one being, but before texts may have read differently. I wonder if I am presenting her data/position correctly. It's a fascinating read! Definitely still contemplating the subject and plan to read much more! It's great to read about how the model of the Trinity isn't so farfetched at all and is backed by loads of evidence in terms of understanding one God in multiple persons, or in Barker's case, she says "deities" or beings. Not sure if she is Christian or not, but a good read. I am posting because I am curious if I presented her case correctly or not. If not, please help me understand her main points so I can continue reading with clarity and outside the fog. If you want to read this yourself, check out this PDF I found online. Also, here's Heiser's Two Power's in Heaven website where other books remain for your reading pleasure and mine.

We talk a lot about making sure our philosophical foundations are set. I found this awesome resource for all things historical apologetics which would be a great opportunity for all of you to apply you’ve learned to the historical data. Here’s an extremely helpful database endorsed by apologists and scholars I trust: https://historicalapologetics.org/ Let us know what you think.

The consensus view is that Israel was originally polytheistic, then became henotheistic, eventually arriving at Yahweh-only monotheism. This is important, because false religions such as Mormonism and Islam like to argue that El Elyon (The Most High) in Genesis, Deuteronomy 32, and Psalm 82 was originally conceived to be a separate being from that of Yahweh. Think about it: if Yahweh is El, and Yahweh is called LORD in Gen 14:18-22, then the activity of indexing LORD to Christ in reference to the Jewish Shema (Israel’s monotheistic confession) allows us to infer that those like St. Paul are deliberately including Christ within the divine identity of the Most High God. The great and late Michael Heiser argues against the consensus in his paper “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82? Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?”