Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth does not really speak to the veracity of the myth anymore than the truth that Joseph Smith was an actually person who claimed to have written the holy book of Mormon.

[Felix]

The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth does not really speak to the veracity of the myth anymore than the truth that Joseph Smith was an actually person who claimed to have written the holy book of Mormon.

As I recall, Smith's revelations were channeled from a "celestial" being. It sounded a lot like a extraterrestrial flying saucer encounter, he was way ahead of his time in that respect, not until L. Ron Hubbard, 150 years later, do we hear such an extravagant tale.

[h_k_s]

The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth does not really speak to the veracity of the myth anymore than the truth that Joseph Smith was an actually person who claimed to have written the holy book of Mormon.

As I recall, Smith's revelations were channeled from a "celestial" being. It sounded a lot like a extraterrestrial flying saucer encounter, he was way ahead of his time in that respect, not until L. Ron Hubbard, 150 years later, do we hear such an extravagant tale.

In Smith's case around 1820 there were angels, two Gods, golden plates, and a seer stone. No one has ever come up with anything like it. St. Paul comes the closest with his account of first meeting Jesus while on a journey. Moses himself comes close with his story about the burning bush/shrub in the wilderness while herding sheep.

These stories are not unique throughout history, just very astounding. They seem to happen every couple of thousand years.

[h_k_s]

If those texts could be scientifically documented, it would help establish historicity for sure.

First off, I appreciate you bringing up this topic and asking these questions. I have copied notes of interesting comments from you and others, as this has been on my “mental shelf” for a while. I had watched a documentary suggesting Gnostics as the first Christians and saw Christ as a Spirit, not a man. I also remember reading how “Christ is not Jesus’s last name.” Jesus is a Latin name. :D Yeshua is Hebrew.

It seems that Constantine and earliest councils had major influence in bible canon. The details of that influence may never be fully known, as with much of his-story. When you have a corrupt group who strictly forbid lay people from owning a bible (in 1229) & killing people like William Tyndale (in 1536) just for translating the bible into English (the Roman Catholic church had declared Latin as the only language for scripture) - besides inquisition and crusades, you see how corrupt and untrustworthy it is.

As implied, Paul’s epistles &/or Hebrews is considered to be the earliest Christian writings (prior to 70 AD since Hebrews speaks of the temple in present tense - before its destruction). All of those earliest writings speak of Christ as a spirit, not a man.

Moreover, I deem spiritual books as symbolically rather than literally or historically true. Buddhist monks told trainee-monks to consider Buddha never having lived, so they would prioritize the spirit of the writings over a person. This approach ought to be applied to Christian doctrine, but is easier said than done because of corruption. Thomas Jefferson suggested it is as easy to distinguish between the gospels’ genius authors’ words, and inferior minds, as it is to distinguish between diamonds and dung. However, because of dogma that makes human sacrifice scapegoating as common belief as “pass the pepper” and the history of religious persecution, few seem able to distinguish between them. I have enjoyed some ideas of Jordan Peterson’s bible series (including Carl Jung’s symbolic ideas), though it’s primarily Old Testament.

Btw, Anybody know about the Silver Scrolls, found in 1983 in Old city Jerusalem & believed to be oldest bible text?

St. Paul is indeed the earliest writer of what we now call the New Testament. His first epistle to the Thessalonians is the first one. I believe he wrote to them from Corinth.

[Newme]

The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth does not really speak to the veracity of the myth anymore than the truth that Joseph Smith was an actually person who claimed to have written the holy book of Mormon.

Actually those are not true in comparison. Christ’s historicity is questioned whereas the story or myth of him is in most homes. Joseph Smith lived in the 1800’s and his having written the Book of Mormon is historically true, though the book itself is not historically (nor archeologically) true.

[Newme]

As I recall, Smith's revelations were channeled from a "celestial" being. It sounded a lot like a extraterrestrial flying saucer encounter, he was way ahead of his time in that respect, not until L. Ron Hubbard, 150 years later, do we hear such an extravagant tale.

In Smith's case around 1820 there were angels, two Gods, golden plates, and a seer stone. No one has ever come up with anything like it. St. Paul comes the closest with his account of first meeting Jesus while on a journey. Moses himself comes close with his story about the burning bush/shrub in the wilderness while herding sheep.

These stories are not unique throughout history, just very astounding. They seem to happen every couple of thousand years.

It is quite amazing also to see how Mormonism has grown. Having grown up Mormon, but moved past the dogma, I see all of their “prophets” (profits) as more presidents of the religious corporation, but I do see Joseph Smith as having acted prophetically, though fallibly. I also see Socrates, MLK Jr & others as prophets who have a vision of a better way and lead people to it.

One of the best definitions of God was through the symbolic story of the burning bush: I AM THAT I AM. What do you think that means?

[Newme]

St. Paul is indeed the earliest writer of what we now call the New Testament. His first epistle to the Thessalonians is the first one. I believe he wrote to them from Corinth.

Interesting. How is it known? I always thought the 4 gospels were the oldest of all NT writings.

The following short lecture includes explaining how beliefs about Christ have changed over time. The earliest Christians believed Christ became divine only at his resurrection. Then it was pushed back to his baptism, then his birth (Luke & Matthew) & then even before birth eternally (in John?). I wished he had expanded on how at a council when they voted on whether Christ was going to be the son of God or not and barely won the vote.
https://youtu.be/3lBHmpaYUHI


Bit of a vent:
If I were not surrounded by extremely dogmatically religious people who never question religious beliefs, no matter how insane, I probably wouldn’t feel bothered by religion evolving. I can see how what some may argue as literally true, is really just evolved stories people have made up. I can also see symbolic or spiritual truth in parables etc. But when people insist that a story which is KNOWN to have changed over time, to be factual, and on top of that, anyone who doesn’t believe the new and improved story will go to hell - that is annoying.

[Sculptor1]

The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth does not really speak to the veracity of the myth anymore than the truth that Joseph Smith was an actually person who claimed to have written the holy book of Mormon.

Actually those are not true in comparison. Christ’s historicity is questioned whereas the story or myth of him is in most homes. Joseph Smith lived in the 1800’s and his having written the Book of Mormon is historically true, though the book itself is not historically (nor archeologically) true.

I do not think you understood what I said.
Nothing you say here changes what I said.

[h_k_s]

St. Paul is indeed the earliest writer of what we now call the New Testament. His first epistle to the Thessalonians is the first one. I believe he wrote to them from Corinth.

Interesting. How is it known? I always thought the 4 gospels were the oldest of all NT writings.

The following short lecture includes explaining how beliefs about Christ have changed over time. The earliest Christians believed Christ became divine only at his resurrection. Then it was pushed back to his baptism, then his birth (Luke & Matthew) & then even before birth eternally (in John?). I wished he had expanded on how at a council when they voted on whether Christ was going to be the son of God or not and barely won the vote.
https://youtu.be/3lBHmpaYUHI


Bit of a vent:
If I were not surrounded by extremely dogmatically religious people who never question religious beliefs, no matter how insane, I probably wouldn’t feel bothered by religion evolving. I can see how what some may argue as literally true, is really just evolved stories people have made up. I can also see symbolic or spiritual truth in parables etc. But when people insist that a story which is KNOWN to have changed over time, to be factual, and on top of that, anyone who doesn’t believe the new and improved story will go to hell - that is annoying.

Everybody ass-u-me's that St's. Matthew wrote first, Mark second, Luke third, John fourth, then Luke again with Acts, then Paul with his various letters.

Truth is none of them wrote anything down at all until St. Paul first began writing epistles.

This must have made St. Peter jealous, or maybe he thought Paul's letters were a good idea (unlikely -- Peter and Paul did not get along very well ever). At any rate Peter's step son St. Mark then wrote Peter's version of what we call his Gospel (an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "good news" -- in Greek the word is effagellion and is probably a mistranslation of the Greek).

After Peter wrote, then Matthew wrote his version. After Matthew, Luke wrote his, meaning his to be a most correct version of the others, which he mentions early on.

The last book written in what we call the New Testament is John's version of his gospel, sometime after all the other apostles and evangelists had died or been killed, circa 105 A.D.

Eusebius tells us that the Revelation of John is fake news.

It's good to know all these facts. The source is Eusebius. You can google him to find out who he is and when he lived.

Never ass-u-me. They teach you never to assume in Army, Navy, USMC, Coast Guard, and USAF boot camps aka basic training. But civilians never get taught never to assume, so civilians with no military training ass-u-me out the wazoo all the time, which is unfortunate. Ergo civilians are usually arguing from ignorance (a classic fallacy) anytime they assume.

[h_k_s]

In Smith's case around 1820 there were angels, two Gods, golden plates, and a seer stone. No one has ever come up with anything like it. St. Paul comes the closest with his account of first meeting Jesus while on a journey. Moses himself comes close with his story about the burning bush/shrub in the wilderness while herding sheep.

These stories are not unique throughout history, just very astounding. They seem to happen every couple of thousand years.

It is quite amazing also to see how Mormonism has grown. Having grown up Mormon, but moved past the dogma, I see all of their “prophets” (profits) as more presidents of the religious corporation, but I do see Joseph Smith as having acted prophetically, though fallibly. I also see Socrates, MLK Jr & others as prophets who have a vision of a better way and lead people to it.

One of the best definitions of God was through the symbolic story of the burning bush: I AM THAT I AM. What do you think that means?

I AM THAT I AM is explained in Exodus. In Hebrew it is transliterated and pronounced as Ha Ya Ho Veh Yah Yeh. This phrase is too sacred to speak of in public.

[h_k_s]

It is quite amazing also to see how Mormonism has grown. Having grown up Mormon, but moved past the dogma, I see all of their “prophets” (profits) as more presidents of the religious corporation, but I do see Joseph Smith as having acted prophetically, though fallibly. I also see Socrates, MLK Jr & others as prophets who have a vision of a better way and lead people to it.

One of the best definitions of God was through the symbolic story of the burning bush: I AM THAT I AM. What do you think that means?

I AM THAT I AM is explained in Exodus. In Hebrew it is transliterated and pronounced as Ha Ya Ho Veh Yah Yeh. This phrase is too sacred to speak of in public.

Well J.S. Smith Jr. either was a true prophet or was not. If he was, then he sure went viral with the ladies both married and unmarried. Chasing married women is a cardinal sin according to the Old and New Testaments.

If he was not, then they had to get the Book Of Mormon story from somewhere. His buddy Oliver Cowdery was the most educated at the time and was the only person who could have written it. Great story. Somewhat repetitive in many places. Describes 3 migrations to South America by ancient Babylonians and Jews. However there were no ships capable of ocean travel back in those times. All those long boats were only coastal navigators not ocean going vessels. So that's a problem with the story, particularly with the first voyage described to be around 2300 BCE.

[h_k_s]

Sorry, J. Smith Jr. did not have a middle initial. I was thinking of J.S. Sebastian from the movie "Blade Runner."

[h_k_s]

Guess it was really J.F. Sebastian, according to IMDB.

[Newme]

Interesting. How is it known? I always thought the 4 gospels were the oldest of all NT writings.

The following short lecture includes explaining how beliefs about Christ have changed over time. The earliest Christians believed Christ became divine only at his resurrection. Then it was pushed back to his baptism, then his birth (Luke & Matthew) & then even before birth eternally (in John?). I wished he had expanded on how at a council when they voted on whether Christ was going to be the son of God or not and barely won the vote.
https://youtu.be/3lBHmpaYUHI


Bit of a vent:
If I were not surrounded by extremely dogmatically religious people who never question religious beliefs, no matter how insane, I probably wouldn’t feel bothered by religion evolving. I can see how what some may argue as literally true, is really just evolved stories people have made up. I can also see symbolic or spiritual truth in parables etc. But when people insist that a story which is KNOWN to have changed over time, to be factual, and on top of that, anyone who doesn’t believe the new and improved story will go to hell - that is annoying.

Everybody ass-u-me's that St's. Matthew wrote first, Mark second, Luke third, John fourth, then Luke again with Acts, then Paul with his various letters.

Truth is none of them wrote anything down at all until St. Paul first began writing epistles.

This must have made St. Peter jealous, or maybe he thought Paul's letters were a good idea (unlikely -- Peter and Paul did not get along very well ever). At any rate Peter's step son St. Mark then wrote Peter's version of what we call his Gospel (an Anglo-Saxon word meaning "good news" -- in Greek the word is effagellion and is probably a mistranslation of the Greek).

After Peter wrote, then Matthew wrote his version. After Matthew, Luke wrote his, meaning his to be a most correct version of the others, which he mentions early on.

The last book written in what we call the New Testament is John's version of his gospel, sometime after all the other apostles and evangelists had died or been killed, circa 105 A.D.

Eusebius tells us that the Revelation of John is fake news.

It's good to know all these facts. The source is Eusebius. You can google him to find out who he is and when he lived.

Never ass-u-me. They teach you never to assume in Army, Navy, USMC, Coast Guard, and USAF boot camps aka basic training. But civilians never get taught never to assume, so civilians with no military training ass-u-me out the wazoo all the time, which is unfortunate. Ergo civilians are usually arguing from ignorance (a classic fallacy) anytime they assume.

Sound advise - which also applies to the cognitive distortion or fallacy of jumping to conclusions. OTOH, Being paralyzed with indecision or skepticism doesn’t work either.

The bottom line seems to be to take the symbolic, spiritual truth and don’t insist on literal historical truth - of scripture etc.

[Newme]

It is quite amazing also to see how Mormonism has grown. Having grown up Mormon, but moved past the dogma, I see all of their “prophets” (profits) as more presidents of the religious corporation, but I do see Joseph Smith as having acted prophetically, though fallibly. I also see Socrates, MLK Jr & others as prophets who have a vision of a better way and lead people to it.

One of the best definitions of God was through the symbolic story of the burning bush: I AM THAT I AM. What do you think that means?

I AM THAT I AM is explained in Exodus. In Hebrew it is transliterated and pronounced as Ha Ya Ho Veh Yah Yeh. This phrase is too sacred to speak of in public.

Do you really believe anything symbol (ie: word/s) is too sacred to speak of openly? What does “sacred” mean to you in this context?

If God is a God of Truth, why hide it?