Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-16-2011, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.....Nothing stopping you from making such analogies. The point is that, if you want to make a plausible case that Jesus Christ fits the Angel Moroni at the expense of the model of Jesus as a human doomsday cult leader, then you will have Joseph Smith breathing down your neck.

Again, Joseph Smith is NOT at all like Jesus. In fact, Joseph Smith WROTE about Jesus in the MORMON bible and claimed Jesus was GOD.

Joseph Smith WORSHIPED Jesus as GOD.

The UNKNOWN authors of the Gospels ALSO wrote stories about Jesus and CLAIMED he made PREDICTIONS to some disciples PRIVATELY that there would be Signs of the End of Time.

Joseph Smith is NO different to the Gospel writers.

Please EXAMINE gJohn.

The author of gJohn basically Changed the Jesus character and called him the WORD that was God and the Creator.

Joseph Smith also ALTERED the Jesus story like the author of gJohn.

If one EXAMINES the history of Joseph Smith it would be seen that 200 years after his birth that NO-ONE worships Joseph Smith as a God but about 200 years after the supposed birth of Jesus (described as a Ghost) Tertullian in "On the Flesh of Christ" claimed Jesus was from the SEED of God WITHOUT a human father and was WORSHIPED as God.

Joseph Smith may be COMPARED to ancient HERETIC and Christian writers like Marcion and Tertullian who BECAME a Heretic according to the Church.

Jesus may be compared to the Holy Ghost, God or Angels but Joseph Smith simply INVENTED FALSE prophecies COMPARABLE to ancient writers.

Zenaphobe · 06-16-2011, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

OK, thanks for hanging in there with me, Zenaphobe. You proposed that there is no hint that either Jesus or the Angel Moroni wrote anything, and Joseph Smith did, so I will give you that, too. As for the point that Joseph Smith is not explicitly "worshiped," I don't think it is so significant, since he is highly venerated as a prophet and founder, one way or the other. Neither is the Prophet Muhammad "worshiped," but Muslims act just as though he is the most important human being who ever lived. Mormons behave the same with respect for Joseph Smith.

So, Jesus and the Angel Moroni do have a few things in common. You can also say that Jesus and the Angel Moroni are each reputed to be more "divine" in nature than Joseph Smith.

I just don't think that such similarities compete in significance to the point that both Jesus and Joseph Smith are both reputed to be the human founders and first leaders of their respective doomsday cults. Those are the seeming roles that made those two figures important to begin with. That is the commonality that all but defines who they are and their places in history, be they myth or historical people.

You brought up a tangential objection: "...isn't it strange that no one in Jesus' circle of disciples and family wrote or dictated anything about him at all?"

This wouldn't be so strange at all if the circle of Jesus was truly poor, as they were reputed to be (not an unlikely myth since the vast majority of people really were poor). Writing was primarily an activity either of the rich or of organizations. Only 10-15% of people could read, and writing was a job that was always hired out to educated professional scribes--they were the only ones who knew how to write.

Abe, just a quick response on this,

Quote:

I just don't think that such similarities compete in significance to the point that both Jesus and Joseph Smith are both reputed to be the human founders and first leaders of their respective doomsday cults.

What place would you assign Paul in the analogy? It's striking to me that in reading the gospels that Jesus hand picks 12 followers, singles out a core (Peter, James, John) and seems to have an affinity for Peter, and yet some guy who's knocked off a horse with a vision of Jesus becomes the prime voice of the NT.

What happened to Peter? We have 2 books attributed to him, but IIRC they are not considered authentically his works. The gospels have this inner circle who are commissioned to take the "good news" to all the world, and yet, Acts seems to regulate them to a has been sect who Paul seems to think are on the wrong track with understanding the nature of the Gospel. Paul is also mum on specifics about Jesus as well.

Thanks for bearing with my ignorance of some of the things that I may be missing on this subject.

ApostateAbe · 06-16-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, thanks for hanging in there with me, Zenaphobe. You proposed that there is no hint that either Jesus or the Angel Moroni wrote anything, and Joseph Smith did, so I will give you that, too. As for the point that Joseph Smith is not explicitly "worshiped," I don't think it is so significant, since he is highly venerated as a prophet and founder, one way or the other. Neither is the Prophet Muhammad "worshiped," but Muslims act just as though he is the most important human being who ever lived. Mormons behave the same with respect for Joseph Smith.

So, Jesus and the Angel Moroni do have a few things in common. You can also say that Jesus and the Angel Moroni are each reputed to be more "divine" in nature than Joseph Smith.

I just don't think that such similarities compete in significance to the point that both Jesus and Joseph Smith are both reputed to be the human founders and first leaders of their respective doomsday cults. Those are the seeming roles that made those two figures important to begin with. That is the commonality that all but defines who they are and their places in history, be they myth or historical people.

You brought up a tangential objection: "...isn't it strange that no one in Jesus' circle of disciples and family wrote or dictated anything about him at all?"

This wouldn't be so strange at all if the circle of Jesus was truly poor, as they were reputed to be (not an unlikely myth since the vast majority of people really were poor). Writing was primarily an activity either of the rich or of organizations. Only 10-15% of people could read, and writing was a job that was always hired out to educated professional scribes--they were the only ones who knew how to write.

Abe, just a quick response on this,

Quote:

I just don't think that such similarities compete in significance to the point that both Jesus and Joseph Smith are both reputed to be the human founders and first leaders of their respective doomsday cults.

What place would you assign Paul in the analogy? It's striking to me that in reading the gospels that Jesus hand picks 12 followers, singles out a core (Peter, James, John) and seems to have an affinity for Peter, and yet some guy who's knocked off a horse with a vision of Jesus becomes the prime voice of the NT.

What happened to Peter? We have 2 books attributed to him, but IIRC they are not considered authentically his works. The gospels have this inner circle who are commissioned to take the "good news" to all the world, and yet, Acts seems to regulate them to a has been sect who Paul seems to think are on the wrong track with understanding the nature of the Gospel. Paul is also mum on specifics about Jesus as well.

Thanks for bearing with my ignorance of some of the things that I may be missing on this subject.

It was the core high-ranking followers of Joseph Smith, especially Brigham Young, who were the effective successors of Joseph Smith and turned the cult into a popular religion. Not so much for Christianity, and it is explainable. The immediate successors to Christianity--Peter, James and John--made the mistake of being exclusive with their membership and targeting their evangelism to the wrong group of people. They were Jews, and they believed that the kingdom of God was for the Jews only. This was very likely what Jesus himself had taught. But, Jews were very resistant. The Jews tended to think that the messiah should have been a conquering military leader and hero, who will lead the Jews to an overthrow of the empire, to establish Jewish supremacy, per the messianic prophecies of their scriptures. The other messianic claimants of Jesus's time followed this pattern. It seemed ridiculous to Jews that the messiah should be crucified and resurrected--that is not what the messianic prophecies predict, even with the creative interpretations by the Christians.

Those creative interpretations are exactly what the Gentiles (mainly Greeks) swallowed, hook, line and sinker, especially with respect to Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22--a suffering servant analogy of the nation of Israel getting freed from cruel captivity by the Babylonians. Jews knew that these passages were not about the messiah, but the gentiles knew no such thing. To the Gentiles, it seemed to fit Jesus to a T, Paul realized this, and he was the one who targeted his evangelism to the Gentiles, appointing himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles." It worked. The Jewish-only sect of Christianity remained somewhat obscure, but the all-inclusive sect of Christianity founded (or popularized) by Paul quickly ballooned, and all of the New Testament texts including the gospels followed in Paul's footsteps.

If any of the members of the inner circle of Jesus had been willing to evangelize to the Gentiles, then there would be no Apostle Paul. It otherwise wasn't easy for Paul to compete for leadership with the people who actually knew Jesus, and it may help explain why Paul mentioned the pre-crucifixion human life and ministry of Jesus only a small handful of times in his epistles--his competitors had the upper hand concerning the ministry of Jesus, and Paul would lose any disagreement. Paul taught that he had a spiritual connection to Jesus, and that the resurrected Jesus had made him an apostle.

So, Christianity may be somewhat unique in the respect that the most important successor to the cult founder was not known to the founder. The closest analogy of the relationship between Jesus and Paul that I can think of is the relationship between William Miller and Ellen G. White. William Miller was the 19th century doomsday orator who founded the Adventist movement. Ellen G. White had attended sermons by William Miller, and William Miller had no close relationship to Ellen G. White, being just a member of his audience, but Ellen G. White founded the movement known as the Seventh Day Adventists. Ellen G. White became popular, not through orating like William Miller or Jesus, but, like Paul, through writing.

aa5874 · 06-16-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...It was the core high-ranking followers of Joseph Smith, especially Brigham Young, who were the effective successors of Joseph Smith and turned the cult into a popular religion....

As soon as you INTRODUCE Brigham Young you have effectively destroyed your flawed claimed that Joseph Smith is more like Jesus.

Brigham Young, as a successor, did NOT make Joseph Smith into a God and claim Joseph Smith was God's Own Son and that he could REMIT the Sins of Mankind BECAUSE he was RAISED from the dead. See Romans 8.3 and 10.4

Brigham Young did NOT claim that Joseph Smith had a name ABOVE every name on earth and that EVERY person on EARTH, in Heaven and Hell should BOW before Jesus. See Philippians 2.

Joseph Smith was just an ordinary man who INVENTED False claims about Jesus Christ like any of the authors of the NT.

Mormonism is the BELIEF in what is WRITTEN in the Mormon Bible by Joseph Smith and NOT the Belief that Joseph Smith was the Son of God who died for the sins of mankind.

Jesus is NOT the author of a single written Christian doctrine it was the Pauline writers who INTRODUCED the teachings of the resurrected Jesus by REVELATION.

The existence of Jesus is IRRELEVANT to the NT Canon since there is NO direct input from Jesus.

The NT Canon did NOT need an actual Jesus.

If Jesus was a Myth character then we could STILL have the NT CANON EXACTLY as it is found today.

The existence of Joseph Smith is EXTREMELY relevant to the MORMON Bible because he WROTE it.

Joseph Smith is DIRECTLY responsible as the ORIGIN of the Mormon Bible.

There is NO way that Joseph Smith was MORE like Jesus.

Jesus was MORE like a SUPERNATURAL MYTH character who had NO direct input into the NT Canon.

Joseph Smith was MORE like the Ancient writers that INVENTED False Prophecies and stories about Jesus like the UNKNOWN authors of the NT, including "Paul".

gurugeorge · 06-16-2011, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I strongly conclude that Jesus is far more analogous to

Joseph Smith than the

Angel Moroni.

Basically, Jesus is the reputed human founder and reputed human leader of the religion that was a doomsday cult according to its earliest doctrines. And, so was Joseph Smith, but not the Angel Moroni.

These claims are not speculations--they are well-established facts. So, if you think that Jesus is more analogous to Angel Moroni than Joseph Smith, then please explain your reasoning with facts.

Why does this matter? If you are going to argue your case with historical patterns, then you need to be sure that your model fits the patterns better than the model of the opposition.

This example would be more persuasive if there was a religion called "Smithism".

ApostateAbe · 06-16-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I strongly conclude that Jesus is far more analogous to

Joseph Smith than the

Angel Moroni.

Basically, Jesus is the reputed human founder and reputed human leader of the religion that was a doomsday cult according to its earliest doctrines. And, so was Joseph Smith, but not the Angel Moroni.

These claims are not speculations--they are well-established facts. So, if you think that Jesus is more analogous to Angel Moroni than Joseph Smith, then please explain your reasoning with facts.

Why does this matter? If you are going to argue your case with historical patterns, then you need to be sure that your model fits the patterns better than the model of the opposition.

This example would be more persuasive if there was a religion called "Smithism".

Yes, but I don't think that it makes so much of a difference. We all think that Islam is closely analogous to Christianity, but Muslims have never called their own religion "Muhammadanism," though that was the name given to Islam by Western outsiders before the 20th century, following from the myth that Muslims worshiped Muhammad rather than merely venerated Muhammad as the prophet and founder. Mormons have a very similar perspective of Joseph Smith. Some cult founder figures achieve the status of God as their cults become religions, others make it to merely Prophet, but they are all highly venerated, and the most important patterns remain, despite the relatively minor variations.

dog-on · 06-16-2011, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Let me get this straight ...

My only choices are that Jesus was

1) a Moronic angel -or-

2) a commonly named Joe

Why not Clem Kadiddlehopper (country bumpkin), or a member of the Revolutionary Three Stooges Brigade (revolutionary), or Chicken George (escaped slave), or Longhorn Leghorn (tutor/tormenter of tied up dogs and chicken hawks)?

DCH

Nothing stopping you from making such analogies. The point is that, if you want to make a plausible case that Jesus Christ fits the Angel Moroni at the expense of the model of Jesus as a human doomsday cult leader, then you will have Joseph Smith breathing down your neck.

Poe...

aa5874 · 06-16-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

This example would be more persuasive if there was a religion called "Smithism".

Yes, but I don't think that it makes so much of a difference. We all think that Islam is closely analogous to Christianity, but Muslims have never called their own religion "Muhammadanism," though that was the name given to Islam by Western outsiders before the 20th century, following from the myth that Muslims worshiped Muhammad rather than merely venerated Muhammad as the prophet and founder. Mormons have a very similar perspective of Joseph Smith. Some cult founder figures achieve the status of God as their cults become religions, others make it to merely Prophet, but they are all highly venerated, and the most important patterns remain, despite the relatively minor variations.

As soon as you mention the Islamic religion you have destroyed your FLAWED claim that Joseph Smith was like Jesus.

Joseph Smith was MORE like MUHAMMAD who is claimed to have written the Qur'an After Revelations from Allah.

When MUHAMMAD was dead he was NOT worshiped as a God by his successors.

Again, Jesus wrote NOTHING and did NOT PREACH to the Jews he was Christ or a King and was EXECUTED when he was found guilty of death by the Sanhedrin and was REJECTED by the Jews.

It was the AUTHORS who INVENTED the Jesus story and the Failed Prophecies like Joseph Smith INVENTED his FAILED prophecies for 1891 which PEOPLE BELIEVED.

Please, read the Jesus story in the Synoptics.

Jesus was a TOTAL DISASTER. It was the Holy Ghost that STARTED the Christian cult in Acts of the Apostles but it was Joseph Smith that STARTED the Mormon religion and WROTE the Mormon Bible.

Jesus Christ wrote NOTHING and DIED as a Blasphemer and his disciples ABANDONED HIM while Peter claimed he NEVER EVER KNEW Jesus.

It was the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 that made the disciples PREACH that Jesus was Christ.

Jesus, described as a Ghost, was NO cult leader in the NT. Jesus was God Incarnate.

John 1:1-4 -

Quote:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made....

Joseph Smith was MORE like Muhammad NOT the LOGOS who was God and the Creator of heaven and earth called Jesus Christ.

gurugeorge · 06-17-2011, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I strongly conclude that Jesus is far more analogous to

Joseph Smith than the

Angel Moroni.

Basically, Jesus is the reputed human founder and reputed human leader of the religion that was a doomsday cult according to its earliest doctrines. And, so was Joseph Smith, but not the Angel Moroni.

These claims are not speculations--they are well-established facts. So, if you think that Jesus is more analogous to Angel Moroni than Joseph Smith, then please explain your reasoning with facts.

Why does this matter? If you are going to argue your case with historical patterns, then you need to be sure that your model fits the patterns better than the model of the opposition.

This example would be more persuasive if there was a religion called "Smithism".

Yes, but I don't think that it makes so much of a difference. We all think that Islam is closely analogous to Christianity, but Muslims have never called their own religion "Muhammadanism," though that was the name given to Islam by Western outsiders before the 20th century, following from the myth that Muslims worshiped Muhammad rather than merely venerated Muhammad as the prophet and founder. Mormons have a very similar perspective of Joseph Smith. Some cult founder figures achieve the status of God as their cults become religions, others make it to merely Prophet, but they are all highly venerated, and the most important patterns remain, despite the relatively minor variations.

Smith is in no way, shape or form venerated as God, it's just not a very good analogue.

As others have pointed out, Smith is more analogous to Paul, and looking at the analogy that way makes it even less supportive of your position.

ApostateAbe · 06-17-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, but I don't think that it makes so much of a difference. We all think that Islam is closely analogous to Christianity, but Muslims have never called their own religion "Muhammadanism," though that was the name given to Islam by Western outsiders before the 20th century, following from the myth that Muslims worshiped Muhammad rather than merely venerated Muhammad as the prophet and founder. Mormons have a very similar perspective of Joseph Smith. Some cult founder figures achieve the status of God as their cults become religions, others make it to merely Prophet, but they are all highly venerated, and the most important patterns remain, despite the relatively minor variations.

Smith is in no way, shape or form venerated as God, it's just not a very good analogue.

As others have pointed out, Smith is more analogous to Paul, and looking at the analogy that way makes it even less supportive of your position.

Do you think Paul was the founder of Christianity?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.