Vorkosigan

That's one reason I believe that Mark intended to place Jesus sacrifice in the Temple.

Michael

stephan huller

Unless of course the person/people writing the gospel thought the temple was illegitimate. There is nothing in the Pentateuch that requires a physical structure like a temple. The Dositheans were certainly opposed to this claim (Stephen in Acts epitomizes this view also). The Samaritan continue to make sacrifices without a temple. The fact that Jews gave up following the ordinances of Moses developed from arguments outside of the Pentateuch.

sotto voce

The 'King James' atrocity at least did not contain references to Jesus going to America. What Smith did was contrive or possibly adapt a fictional story, put it into anachronistic KJV style, ship in whole passages from the KJV verbatim, and add flat contradiction of the real Bible— which was his only real purpose. He merely attempted to re-present Catholicism in and for a changing world; and didn't he get some suckers. But that was America, incubator for foolish cults, and it still is. No offence to the bright ones.

But the BoM is not to be compared in any way to the 66 books of the Bible, written by over 40 authors over hundreds of years in a fixed historical and geographical context, that make a coherent narrative with applicable rationality sufficient to compel recognition in some form over virtually the whole world, now. The allegation of redaction and editing appears to be wishful thinking that has shifted neither officialdom nor conservative interpretation and praxis by one iota. The image of a duck's back in times of inclemency come to mind.

The message of the letters attributed to Paul is entirely consistent; internally, with the rest of the apostolic writing, and with the OT. One cannot get a cigarette paper between those authors. Later writers quote earlier ones prolifically, deliberately, as evidence that they are not wandering off acceptable limits. The theme throughout the Bible, from the allegories placed at the beginning of Genesis to the last word of Revelation, is that of 'blood'. It's the thin, or not so thin, red line that stretches through the minds of all those writers, and unites them to provide a complete solution, a salve of bad conscience for those who possess it. It's a somewhat demanding message, and it's very predictable that a species with such an appalling moral record as is that of Homo sapiens should attempt to evade that message with stratagems various.

To compare BoM or Qur'an is farcical and even somewhat sick. Those single volumes, with single authors, without detectable context, with risible provenance, rely on the authority of only the Bible for their own currency, as do most other cults that have arisen in the last two millennia.

If they were all forged, who could have invented such distinctive teaching and chronicle that is like nothing else in all literature? A very strange forger, for sure.

There is undoubtedly current dissatisfaction with Paul because he was explicit about gender issues, which does not suit the phase that capitalism entered in the last few decades. But Jesus and biblical authors take exactly the same opinion on gender, so even if Paul was excised from the Bible, there would be no shift of view.

Chili

Paul was the [new] cloak [of faith] that Peter put on when he was fishing naked all night and could not cath a thing , and when Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side of the boat (read subconscious mind) he put on this cloak and dove head-first into the 'celestial sea' to catch those big ones that nearly sunk their boat. This was on the post-resurrection fishing trip in John 21 after Peter was 'defrocked' when Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and My God," and so it was when all doubt was removed that Peter was left without a Jewish cloak of faith on this next fishing trip and therefore could not catch a thing all night.

This then sets the NT apart from the OT, and Paul was just as genuine as Peter except that he now was the inspired cloak of faith to be seated on the faith of Peter who's connection goes beyond all OT agency to the very source of origination in Gen.1, 2 and 3. It so sets apart Beauty and Truth as the papal throne from where edicts will be made before they moved to Rome.

So yes Paul was Real.

Diogenes the Cynic

The BoM Is also recognized all over the world, has as coherent a narrative as the Bible (which isn't saying much) and was also written in a "fixed historical and geographical context."
What do you mean by officialdom," and of what relevance is "conservative interpretation?"

That the Bible is a work of layered, redacted, syncretized, edited, rescended, interpolated, sometimes forged work is really beyond serious debate, but the main point made above was that that many of the Gospel narratives were composed largely by creative inference from the Hebrew Bible. The authors of the Gospels, lacking any real biographical information about Jesus, turned to the LXX and basically made pictures out of clouds, extrapolating like crazy, seeing Messianic prophecies where there weren't any, etc.

I won't necessarily call it fraud or intentional deception. More likely, they thought they were ferreting out good information and God was showing them truth. Their agendas were not exactly journalistic anyway.

Anyway, the point is that some of the NT used the OT as a template. It's really not that different from what Joseph Smith did. I'd say Smith is more analogous to Paul than Jesus, though.

sotto voce

Like Islam, JWism and many other religious forms; all due to the compelling character of the Bible. There are cities, universities, streets, buildings, even sports grounds named after biblical people; around the world, towering statues of a carpenter that dominate skylines.

Ah. So we can now finally see the evidence that Jesus went to America. Perhaps we will discover what Lamanites looked like.

Diogenes the Cynic

The same can be said of lots of other religions. Once upon a time, the world was filled with shrines to the sun and the moon. Ad populem arguments don't mean much. Neither does special pleading.

There is just as much evidence for the Lamanites as there is for Moses.

sotto voce

Most readers here can probably go for a walk for an hour or so and observe half a dozen buildings that owe their existence to the Bible (OT + NT). Perhaps we may learn about other religions of which this can be said?

Not any more. Can't imagine why.

But you used one, anyway.

So there is good evidence for Moses! Come on, where is this fixed historical and geographical context now discovered? Unearthed Lamanite ships? Digs of Lamanite synagogues? Nephite battledress? Fix it!

Diogenes the Cynic

You're asking what other religions have buildings inspired by the Bible? That can't be what you're asking. If you're asking what other religions have buildings inspired by their own sacred literature, then we start with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, which collectively covers most of the world.

This is a completely silly and meaningless sidetrack, though. The number of buildings a religion has is no evidence for the historical, factual accuracy of its sacred literature. Popularity means nothing.
Christians destroyed them.
No, I didn't. I did not argue that the popularity of any other religion made it more likely to be true. I'm arguing just the opposite. Once upon a time, the Roman cults were just as ubiquitous as the Christian ones are now. In another 2000 years (if we're all still here), the world will probably be dominated by a Lady Gaga cult or something.
There is zero evidence for Moses. He is a completely made up character. That was my point. Both the Book of Mormon and the book of Exodus are as fictional as The Lord of the Rings. The Bible is no more historically reliable than Homer or Gilgamesh.

Duvduv

What is evidence? What is the evidence for the existence of Hammurabi or Julius Caesar?
What is the evidence for Plato's actual existence or for the existence of Socrates?
What is the evidence of the Trojan Horse or of Ramses of Egypt?
Heck, what's the evidence for the existence of Mohammed, Ali, Hussein, and Abu Bakr?