Toto

It took about 300 years for Christianity to go from a small cult to an official religion of the Roman Empire, and it is questionable whether Christianity changed Rome more than Rome changed Christianity.

Mormons are a growing religion. They dominate the state of Utah and are highly influential in other western states, including Nevada. Mormons occupy some high offices in the current US government in both parties, and we might have a Mormon president.

Mormons are probably more influential than Christians were in the late second century.

Toto

It would not support Jesus' historicity unless you can show that it was renamed by someone who knew Jesus and knew about the Lazarus episode, and not by later Chistians who only knew the story.

BethayAlso here (polemically)

hallq

Simply comparing dates on the sources for Alexander and Jesus is deceptive. Our Alexander sources explicitly cite eyewitness reportage that was handed down in written form. The gospels are probably not eyewitness, do not cite sources, and are probably based on written tradition.

Also, we have no evidence Christianity was a large religion in the early years. A very plausible model (though hard to verify due to lack of evidence) is that it grew at a roughly steady % rate each year until Constantine converted, meaning most of the growth in absolute terms happened towards the end of Christianity's first 300 years.

Steven Carr

That's why Holding sometimes claims that certain statements about Alexander come from books written 600 years after his death, and at other times impliesthat they came from Alexander himself.

That's why Holding sometimes mocks the evidence about Alexander, and at other times can tell you in enormous detail exactly what Alexander did at Tyre, who was in his army etc etc.

It all depends what spin he wants to put on things.

aa5874

The question is not whether Joseph Smith existed but if the Jesus Christ that he believed in actually existed and is the same Jesus Christ of the NT.

This is what the current President Hinckley of the Mormons had to say of the traditional Jesus....."The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak..."
See http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/...eptofjesus.htm

And these words come from someone who actually exists today and claim to be in direct contact with God.

Christians surely have a vivid imagination for myth.



For statistics on Mormonism see www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html

gnosis92

That's pretty amazing, considering the number of people's lives affected by him. Why are there no contemporary written sources about him???!!

I've not studied his life in any great detail, but the idea of a world-conqueror reminds me of Bob' Price's universal mythic archetype. Even the idea Aristotle was his teacher speaks of pure myth, that a world conqueror was a philosopher king who studied with only the best is the stuff of Greek heroic myth.

Since MJ go to great length about lack of contemporary sources, wouldn't that also be a problem for Alexander, esp given the alleged scope of his influence?

Toto

There are no surviving contemporary sources. The sources that do survive make reference to contemporary writings about him. Almost nothing in the way of documentary evidence has survived from that period.

For Jesus, we have no reliable indication that there were ever any contemporary written sources.

The universal mythic archetype does not seem to include a military leader who conquers the known world for a brief period of time, then dies and everything falls apart.

Alexander was able to achieve his military victories at least in part by applying the best of ancient Greek science and engineering, which he learned from Aristotle. Myths tend to have military victories due to superior virtue, or the intervention of the gods.

Gamera

Well, this is about as tendentious as it gets. If somebody were going to make the Alexander myth they would of course claim the authority of eyewitness accounts, or such claims would be accrete over time onto the myth.

You seem at pains to explain away the rise of Christianity as evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Of course, you could do the same with Alexander.

Mind you, I'm not the one doubting Alexander's historicity. I'm merely pointing out that the support for the historicity of both Jesus and Alexander are more or less commensurate.

Gamera

The question is whether a founder of a religion existed or not. Joseph Smith existed, there's little doubt about that. So the analogy between Christianity and Mormonism seems to support the historicity of Jesus, not rebut it.

As to the supernatural claims of Mormonism and Christianity, are they really the issue? I don't think so. One can conclude that Jesus was an historical figure without accepting the supernatural claims about him, just as one must accept the historicity of Joseph Smith, regardless of the supernatural claims he made about angels and golden tablets.

In short, invoking Mormonism is a losing argument for the JMers.

Gamera

Again, I would think the analogy with Mormonism, whatever it is intended to prove by way of analogy, actually supports the historicity of Jesus. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism really did exists, despite all the supernatural claims about him and made by him.

So Mormonism is an example of a religion founded by a known historical figure, whose doctrines and narratives include supernatural claims. That seems to provide an example that support the historicists relating to Jesus, rather than rebut them.

As to the rise of Christianity as a parallel to Alexander's historical footprint, the two seem parallel, though of course there are differnces. Both made vast changes in society within a relatively short time, and both claim to be the result of an historical founder. To speculate that Mormonism might do the same is hardly a convincing argument for JMers, and moreover, once again, it would seem to actually support historicism, not rebut it.