Joseph Smith that is.
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
by XJW4EVR 127 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
designs
Mitt Romney believes in the resurrection of Jesus and Joseph Smith, now which one is considered to be the bigger god in heaven is another question...
-
PSacramento
Bohm,
There is no evidence for Socrates either and yet there is no doubting his existence.
Historical evidence of historical figures must be taken in the context of History.
You posted on view that raises some issues, issues that have been answered by various authours and scholars over the years and I am sure you cna find their responses so I won't bore you with links my friend :)
The thing is that Jesus, in terms of historical evidence, is as well attested as any other historical figure that was NOT a king or emperor.
And pretty much any historian will agree with that.
-
PSacramento
Paul, I'd like to submit, again, Joseph Smith's example: he was a historical person, he had 11 witnesses to the infamous golden plates, they were all profoundly affected, and many people began to follow afterwards.
Why should I judge the claims of JS under a more stringent standard of scrutiny than those of JC? These things may only testify to the gullibility of people or to the abilities of a con.
Yes, something happened. The same could be said of 1914 - something happened. But that "something" that made an impact on mankind cannot be unquestionably linked to an invisible king taking the throne in heaven, therefore it would be unwise of me to make life decisions based on that premise. That's how I see the resurrection of JC as well.
Ok, lets deal with JS, yes he was an historical person, we have evidence AND proof of that and in that way he is better attested than Christ.
I don't recall anyone saying he was resurrected after his death so I am a tad confused as to the comparison, I think I am missing something here...sorry.
As for 1914, again I am not sure of the comparison...1914 was looked upon as the date of "judgment day" and the way it was suppse to happen, didn't happen, so it was re-interpreted.
The apostles didn't look forward to a specififc date BUt hoped that Christ would be the messiah, but he was crucified, died and buried.
It was NOT what they were hoping to happen BUT it was what he TOLD them WOULD happen.
I can see SOME simlarity up to here with the difference being the JW were TOLD and WANTED 1914 to happen and it didn't and the apostles WANTED Christ to proclaim himself Messiah and rule and what they were TOLD was that he would " be betrayed" and "give his life for many".
They did NOT expect the resurrection or ANYTHING after his death.
They didn't "re-interpret" anything, the resurrection "came crashing into their lives" and they had no choice but to accept the new reality and proclaim it as such.
Again, I can KIND of see a "surface" comparison but it is a bit of a stretch in my view.
-
designs
PSac-
I think there very well could have been a young Jewish man from Bethlehem who fancied himself the Messiah. That isn't so strange, all cultures and religions produce zealots. Christians have the more difficult task with regards the resurrected Jesus being a Man/God in Heaven and not manifesting himself to the human race in some dynamic or significant way and settle all of the issues surrounding his claims and promises.
-
PSacramento
PSac-
I think there very well could have been a young Jewish man from Bethlehem who fancied himself the Messiah. That isn't so strange, all cultures and religions produce zealots. Christians have the more difficult task with regards the resurrected Jesus being a Man/God in Heaven and not manifesting himself to the human race in some dynamic or significant way and settle all of the issues surrounding his claims and promises.
Some would answer that, as God chose NOT to manifest himself to all, neither does Christ ( following in the footsteps of his father as it were).
Other would argue, "all in due time" and others would say that Christ does indeed manifest himself, yet gives Us ALL the chice to "hear him" or not.
And I am sure there are even more "answers" to your question and I am sure you will find them all as unsatisfactory.
Understandable, truly it is.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Great link, Doug.
Paul: Ok, lets deal with JS, yes he was an historical person, we have evidence AND proof of that and in that way he is better attested than Christ. I don't recall anyone saying he was resurrected after his death so I am a tad confused as to the comparison, I think I am missing something here...sorry.
No sir, no resurrection. I'm talking about similarities of "outstanding claims" and the fact that there were witnesses to the divine golden plates.
We can't consider this example a 1:1 comparison.... but there are similarities and I'm just suggesting that we be equally slow to accept the claims of JC as we are to accept claims of JS. And I could well reason that JC's resurrection, being that it is far more miraculous than JS's golden plates, would require more substantial evidence to support it before believing it.
But one might ask, "If the plates weren't real and the events JS describes were fabricated, why were so many people deeply affected?"
The plates are not currently available to examine. Jesus is not currently available to examine. All we have are written records of both. We have claims of "eye-witness" testimony, though the record of JS was subjected to 1,800 fewer years of possible corruption. To top it off, I suspect Mormonism has grown at a faster rate even than first century Christianity.
So my question is, if we're counting the "transformation" of the lives of eye-witnesses and followers as a credit to Jesus' resurrection, why not also count a similar transformation as a credit for Joseph Smith's golden plates? I'm looking for consistency of skepticism here.
Do you think JS's claims were complete bullshtink?
-
PSacramento
Ah, the golden plates, gottcha.
So, are we arguing that the golden plates exited or what they were?
Because there is no reason to doubt they existed, or is there?
If I recall, and I am going on memory, there was even some controvery as to whther ALL 11 saw these plates, no?
because there was no controversy in regards to all apostles and many others, seeing Jesus.
( By controvery I mean a record of anyone that was said to have seen Jesus, denying it).
-
PSacramento
Remember, SBC, I do NOT discount the issue of Faith, as a matter of fact, for those that have NOT SEEN the risin Christ the resurrection is 100% about faith.
I am debating whether it is about BLIND faith or faith based on historical evidence.
I don't bring up faith based on personal revelation because that never gest us anywhere, LOL !