mountainman

Smith's chronology places the appearance of the dude Mormon in the year 360 CE, just as Emperor Julian became supreme, and legally renamed all the "Christians" in the Roman Empire to "Galilaeans", and tried to reopen the Panhellenic temples that Constantine and his sons had left standing, but for which "traditional and customary use" had been prohibited (via the army). Quite an auspicious year. Julian didn't see too many more.

Jesus is the reputed human founder and reputed human leader of the religion that was a doomsday cult to the Hellenic civilization, and there is no doubt in the wide-wide world, even to the Americas of Smith's story, that Constantine saw himself as one who would openly fight for Jesus (just like Jesus told Pontius Pilate), at the appropriate moment in military history. This does not tell us that Jesus was historical, and neither does the literary material published in the 4th century, whether the author is labelled "Smith" or "Eusebius". In fact, to my way of thinking, both the account of "Smith" and the account of "Eusebius" are appropriately classifiable as fabrications. A less technical term would be fiction.

These are my facts.
Where is your evidence?

Zenaphobe

After thinking about it a while, I suggest the following as possibilities.

Jesus and Moroni are never said to have penned a single word, and Joseph Smith did.

How many founders of religions or cults have never set anything down in writing or were portrayed as indifferent to setting down their own thoughts in written form?

Jesus and Moroni were objects of veneration, Smith was never worshiped.

Jesus and Moroni left no artifacts, Smith did.

Those are all I've got right now. Do they fit your criteria?

stephan huller

The difficulty with the original question goes back to the query raised by the great philosopher William Jefferson Clinton when he pondered the meaning of the word 'is.' In order to develop a meaningful question between two things they both have to be real. Even a comparison between Hulk and Spiderman would be more meaningful than what is being proposed here because we can trace the ideas back to firm historical foundations. If Jesus was originally identified as the angel of the presence, he is both like and unlike the angel of the Mormon faith. I have no interest in becoming an expert on Mormonism. As such I leave the answer at - Jesus was originally understood to be the angel and as such is bound to resemble the fictitious angelic creation invented by Joseph Smith. I don't know how much further any of us can go with unless someone disputes that and argues that Jesus was a historical person and therefore more closely resembled Joseph Smith.

I just think it is better to ask 'was Jesus an angel' than the way the original question is phrased.

jgoodguy

Similar arguments were being made in that time period by lots of skeptics. That one just dates to the period in question.

Which takes us back to exactly what evidence would be needed to falsify the JM. IMHO We could have absolute, credible, primary and tangible proof of a HJ and the JM would still be valid because the HJ could be(likely) nothing like the gospel Jesus and how the myth developed would still have to be explored.

ApostateAbe

Jesus and Moroni are never said to have penned a single word, and Joseph Smith did.

Almost. Moroni is said to be guardian of the golden plates. Joseph is said to have merely translated them.

Jesus and Moroni were objects of veneration, Smith was never worshiped.

Almost. Joseph Smith is venerated as the first prophet and founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though he was never admittedly "worshiped."

Jesus and Moroni left no artifacts, Smith did.

You got me there.

Zenaphobe

Ah, but you and I both know Moroni didn't write or guard anything at all. We both know, Moroni doesn't exist. Mythical beings don't write stuff, people who claim to have been in communion with them often do though.

As an added note, isn't it strange that no one in Jesus' circle of disciples and family wrote or dictated anything about him at all?

We have the rejected gospels of Mary and Peter and others, but how come nothing has ever been uncovered that looks even remotely genuine?

I know absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, but one would think that a historical person who garnered crowds of 5000 or more people and who got into scuffles with the religious authorities at every turn would have managed to capture some headlines.

Smith is venerated now, but I doubt we could say the same concerning when he was alive and making known his revised gospel.

In the stories about Jesus, he was worshiped by people whom he had contact with.

One out of three ain't bad.

Again, I'm not trying to say that the beginnings of Christianity and Mormonism are totally analogous, but, Smith's venture does seem to lay to rest the old "why would they make it up" argument that apologists are fond of repeating.

If one posits a HJ that no consensus can really be agreed upon, how is that much better than a MJ that no consensus can be reached on? If we know fictional beings have been created and perpetrated as real, it would seem in the absence of a smoking gun, myth might have a thumb on the scales over the historical.

I'm not even going as far as the "Jesus lived and died in a spiritual realm" theory, I'm aiming for a composite character that was shoehorned to try and "fulfill" a creative interpretation of a host religion. Trying to tease out fact from fiction in the genesis of a religion known to be full of forgeries and a generally fast and loose handling of "truth", is quite difficult to say the least.

Anyway, it's fun to put forth a theory and see if it holds water or not. :grin:

aa5874

You show a complete lack of understanding of the MYTH Jesus theory.

The Myth Jesus theory INHERENTLY PREDICTS that there will be NOTHING authentic found for Jesus called Christ.

You appear to have a most strange approach to evidence that ENHANCES the Myth Jesus theory.

Whenever evidence that is found that is later identified as forgeries then that is a VICTORY for the MJ position.

This is so basic.

The MJ theory is BASED on the FUNDAMENTAL premise that there will be NOTHING at all found that can authenticate the HJ theory and so FAR this has been EXACTLY what has happened.

aa5874

ApostateAbe has MERELY Presumed Jesus was a man and used his PRESUMPTION as evidence to support his OWN Imagination.

Which Jesus is ApostateAbe talking in about?

1. The Jesus in the NT Canon.

2. The Jesus in the MORMON BIBLE.

3. ApostateAbe's OWN IMAGINATION Jesus.

In the NT Jesus was God Incarnate and in the MORMON BIBLE Jesus was the VERY GOD.

Examine the MORMON BIBLE.

Mormon 3 Again, another complete horribly FLAWED comparison by ApostateAbe.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus and claimed Jesus was GOD in the MORMON BIBLE.

How long will this PROPAGANDA of ApostateAbe continue?

It is EXTREMELY clear to me that he is LONGER involved in a rational discussion but to promote fallacies and unsubstantiated claims about the "historical Jesus".

There we HAVE it. In the MORMON BIBLE itself.

Jesus was NOT like Joseph Smith.

Jesus was the VERY GOD of Joseph Smith.

Jesus was the VERY GOD of Joseph Smith's Mormons.

I am getting SICK and tired of the propaganda by ApostateAbe.

Steven Carr

Are you saying that people would still continue to claim that Popeye did not exist, even if we found a picture of the sailor that the character was based on?

Some people are so committed to the idea that Popeye never existed that the most solid evidence in the world would not convince them that there was a real historical person at the centre of the Popeye stories.

jgoodguy

A picture can be forged and is not solid evidence. First place I'd check is the WIKI which indicates that Popeye is pure fiction.

The subject is an alleged human that lived 2000 years ago. What primary, tangible or credible secondary evidence would be needed to convince a dedicated JMer of Jesus' existence.