Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Was Jesus the Joseph Smith of his day


DarkBishop

Recommended Posts

Greetings all,

 

I apologise if I'm making a duplicate post here. But I didn't see one. So here goes.

        I've been giving this some serious thought since my deconversion. I don't doubt that Jesus existed. In fact I've been reading a few articles on the subject and it seems there are a lot of scholars both Christian and non-Christian that have found evidence that Jesus was here. I'll give a couple of links so you can read what I read.

 

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

I know there are probably members here that deny his existence. But I haven't seen enough evidence to support that for myself.

       Here are my thoughts on the subject. I came across several different religions during my christian walk who also claimed Christ and we're just as zealous about converting others as I was. When I was confronted by them I would usually study out their beliefs, who started the church, how the church worked, etc.

       One of the most interesting denominations I came across were the latter day saints/mormons. Started by Joseph Smith who claimed to have recieved two golden tablets from an angel. It was on the supposed Interpretation of these tablets (which were never really proven to exist), his prophecies, and the prophecies of all the prophets to follow him, formed the Latter Day Saints.

     Another was the seventh day adventist who basically broke off from a cult known as the millerites, led by a man named William miller who had predicted the second advent (or coming) of Jesus. Of course that day didn't come so there was what they called (the great disappointment) It was during this time that a young woman named Ellen White started having prophetic dreams. (She also had recieved a severe head injury prior to this) It was her prophecies that led to the creation and doctrine of the SDA church. 

      After my deconversion I've been looking at Jesus with new eyes. I see the same traits in Jesus that I saw in the creators of these and other more modern religions. 

 

1. They all built their beliefs upon an already accepted theology. Jesus interpreted old testament scripture  for the basis of his teachings. In fact if you read all the books of the new testament they all relate back to scripture. They didn't have the new testament to draw from. Because what they wrote made the new testament. All of their teachings supporting the story of Jesus came from what the Jews already had. The old testament.

      In this respect Ellen white is more like Jesus because she didn't make up new laws and new rules from two nonexistent golden tablets. She only twisted various scripture to support her prophecy. By then tho she was able to use both testaments to base her beliefs. The twist with her was she included the teachings of William miller. Her prophecy was that that day was the day Jesus went into the "Most Holy Place" to cleanse the sanctuary (apparently the most holy place either isn't very holy or has a lot of dust) and to marry the new Jerusalem. Now they are still looking for his second coming. (Hence the name adventist) http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gc/gc28.htm

2. They all used prophecy to convince their followers. Jesus built on the former prophecies of the bible to validate himself as the son of God. Then began giving his own future prophecies. It looks like Jesus' best twist to the scriptures was that of Hell and himself. After convincing his followers that he was the Son of God then He began teaching of an everlasting punishment called Hell. (Which in the old testament just meant the grave) and that no one would avoid this punishment unless they believed in him. He realised the power of the fear card. This opened the door for others to use it in the future. (Side note: Vlad Dracul used the same concept of fear tactics to keep his nation under control and to keep his enemies at bay. To this day there are still legends revolving around his legacy)

      Joseph Smith and Ellen White used these future prophecies as well. Some they made come true. Others were vague and we're interpreted to have been fulfilled. Much like many of Jesus prophecies. And others have yet to have been fulfilled or were just ridiculous. (The latter day saints have a lot of those)

      Take this prophecy of Jesus. 

Luke 17:26-30King James Version (KJV)

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

     I would be willing to bet that I'm not the only ex-evangelist in here that used this scripture and current news at the time about homosexuals to support the nearness of Christs second coming. But really this is a vague scripture. Vague prophecies can be interpreted many ways.  https://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/02/23/homosexuality-and-the-great-falling-away/ this website goes into some detail on this prophecy and that of the great falling away which has happened multiple times since Christ. The original churches could have said that about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church could say that about the break up they went through that resulted in the formations of the protestant churches.  And now christians are saying that about  people like us.

 

 

3. Jesus and parlor tricks? 

      I'm looking at the supposed "miracles of Jesus" for one we need to account for embellishments. We also need to realise the mentality of the people at large. They were simple minded and didn't have thousands of years of research to look at. Probably most couldn't read anyway. They relied on the educated and powerful to teach them. Also they weren't like us who grew up with magicians on TV and crooked religious con artist staging miracles. Such as this guy. Peter popoff. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/exposing_the_faith-healers

      I can see how a lot of Jesus' miracles could have been staged. We've all seen the movies and shows where the faith healer brings up someone in a wheelchair, supposedly paralyzed for years. Then he lays hands on him and gradually he raises from his chair, takes a few weak steps, and next thing ya know he's jumping and running across stage. And the crowd goes wild! Ready and willing to donate to such a God filled man. 

      In Jesus' time a few miracles like this would have granted him a fair amount of fame and recognition.  Not to mention as the word spread the story would get bigger and bigger. 

4. They all left it open for others to take over after them. After Jesus was gone, dead, or whatever. The 11 disciples that were left to add another and become Apostles. These are the ones that really built the church affirming that Jesus had been resurrected. Saying that he had been seen by more than 500 people before his ascension. (Tho I don't believe I ever read a testimony of any of those 500 other than the apostles) 500 people back then would have been a massive amount of people.

      After Joseph Smith there were many prophets in the LDS church. In fact they keep a prophet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints 

 

I'm sure I can keep drawing more points on these parallels but I'm running out of time to type. And id like to see if anyone else has seen like methods used in modern movements. my conclusion if Christ was in fact the founder of the Christian movement that just as Muhammed, William Miller, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, David Koresh, and Warren Jeff (who still leads his cult from prison) were monumental founders and leaders of their respective beliefs, so was Jesus to the Christian Church. 

       In light of all this I would go as far as to say that all major religions are only very large cults, having the same basic foundations as our more modern day religious movements. This has been pointed out already in other threads but it really is amazing that the largest religious institutions in the world are all continuations of the old testament in some form. 

 

Best Regards,

              Dark Bishop

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Just to balance the scales you might give Dr. Robert M. Price a try. Price has PHD's in both the OT& NT.

 

First of all there are reasons why some scholars, such as Dr. Bart Ehrman, profess to believe Jesus was a real person. That position seems to be tied to funding & job security, but some do believe it to.

 

Price has 2 books that might interst you. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man & The Christ Myth & It's Problems.

 

If the gospel story, there is only one with 4 versions, origin is actually Jewish midrash as some scholars believe. Then it is likely Jesus is a literary figure. Price also believes Paul was a literary figure too. In his book The Human Bible NT he presents historical evidence that Marcion & his followers wrote the epistles under the name of Paul. He also believes Marcion was the one who actually created Christianity. 

 

Historical evidence also suggest Polycarp wrote the pastoral letters to undermine Marcion, his bitter enemy, in an attempt to challenge & modify Marcion's teaching on grace. Polycarb was instrumental in helping to establish Orthdoxy, later the Catholic Church, as what would eventually become Christianity. 

 

Once you you wander into the weeds there is a lot of underlying & interesting historical information relative to Christianity & the Bible. You won't hear about this stuff in church that's for sure. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Robert Price has a podcast, The Bible Geek, that I started listening to just recently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I had to do a lil more research before replying. But from what I'm reading of both Marion and polycarp. Neither of them denied the apostles. Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipeans seems to be reminding them of the time Paul spent with them. 

 

"These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because you have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom (cf. 2 Peter 3:15) of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth (Ephesians 1:13) in the presence of those who were then alive (cf. Acts 16:13). And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter (Philippians), which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith"

 

From what I'm seeing the four gospels and the epistles of the apostles were already written during his time. He makes reference to them in his letter. Here is the letter translated:

 

http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarpletter.htm

 

everything I've read so far says this letter is his only surviving work. 

 

It looks like Marcion did rewrite the four gospels but omitted any scripture that didn't fit with his views that the God of the old testament and god the father of Jesus were two different Dieties. 

 

Theologian Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930), in agreement with the traditional account of Marcion as revisionist, discussed the reasons for his alterations to Luke. According to Harnack, Marcion believed there could be only one true gospel, all others being fabrications by pro-Jewish elements, determined to sustain worship of Yahweh. Furthermore, he believed that the true gospel was given directly to Paul the Apostle by Christ himself, but was later corrupted by those same elements who also corrupted the Pauline epistles. Marcion saw the attribution of this gospel to Luke the Evangelist as another fabrication. He therefore began what he saw as a restoration of the original gospel as given to Paul.[5]

 

It seems that if the accepted belief that marcion started writing his new testament to suit his beliefs then he was one of the first, if not the first to split the church. 

 

either way it appears that both writers revere the apostle Paul. Which leads me to believe they knew him to some capacity. It is also believed that polycarp was a deciple of John. In the first link I gave you it covers the testimony of Josephus the Jewish historian who wrote his account of the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus (who is called messiah) 

 

so for me it stands to reason if James was real, Paul was real, John was real, then there may be a good possibility that Jesus was real. And if Jesus was real then he was probably the mastermind of the whole movement that basically took over the world. 

 

DB

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found it helpful to find out if the author I'm reading is an apologist or an actual historian. Robert M. Price is a historian. Just for the heck of it, it might be worth your time to review a few of his books. I'm not saying you'll change your mind, nor should you, but I think it's always good to get different points of view & find out why they differ assuming they do. 

 

There is another school of thought that the Romans created the original gospel, with the assistance of some Jews. The Jews were a constant headache for the Romans because of their numerous rebellions, so they wanted a pacifist messiah that taught the ruling authority must be respected. Interesting theory. 

 

I take authors that have a clear agenda with a grain of salt. N.T. wright, for example, is an apologist so his agenda is to defend the faith. Job security & earning a paycheck is always another issue that has to be considered when reading a religious scholar. 

 

If the boss has an agenda then one would assume that might influence the authors ultimate conclusion & the way the information is interpreted. Peer pressure is also factor that has to be considered, along with societal norms. It is unlikely that we will ever know for certain what the true story was, but their is sufficient circumstantial evidence to draw some educated theories. 

 

I suppose ultimately each each of us has to decide whether being a believer makes sense or not. We will always find ways to justify our decision. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying. What I try to do is draw from multiple resources. I usually hit Wikipedia and a few other separate articles. If they are obvious fundamentals I will move on to the next. But there are also the opposite. Obvious writers with an agenda to disprove a certain belief which is just as bias. It looks like Price falls into that category. I also like to see objective accounts from men of the opposing faith like that of Josephus. Because even tho as a Jew he with a very negative outlook toward christianity. He still recognised and identified James as the brother Jesus. (And since both were common names he further identified his brother as the one they called messiah. ) for me that is pretty compelling.

 

Either way my deconversion doesn't hinge on whether or not Christ actually existed. And your right we will probably never know for sure. And as far as to the topic of the conversation we are somewhat off topic. 

 

But I will play along with you if you play along with me. If marcion and polycarp are the originators of the religion. Do you see a connection with them and the more modern religious movements in the past couple of hundred years.? 

 

Likewise can you also see like parallels if (Hypothetically speaking) Jesus and/or the apostles invented the religion. Because either way at some point someone did invent a new religion out of an old theology.

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are honest with ourselves we all have a bias because something we encountered in our life resonated deeply with us. In my case of all the interpretations & theories about othe origins of the Bible & the Christian Faith I eventually embraced the ones that made the most sense & were therefore the most believable.

 

Some of the factors that I considered. 

 

1. The gospel story is similar to a number of other ancient myths that preceded it by hundreds to thousands of years.

2. Dying & rising demigods were common figures in many of these myths.

3. I"m convinced, based on what I've read, that the gospel story originated as Jewish midrash. The similarities between Jesus & Moses as savior are obvious. Moses wandered in the desert 40 years Jesus wandered in the desert 40 days. The numbers 7 & 40 reoccur numerous times in Bible stories.

4. The story existed in oral form for unknown decades before it took written from. The idea that God spoke to a prophet & the prophet immediately wrote down what God said is absurd. Very few people could read or write thus the need for oral communication & story telling.

5. The Bible is filled with contradictions & inconsistencies. The so called plan of salvation is ambiguous at best. 

6. There is only one gospel story with 4 versions that differ in some significant ways. Jesus doesn't even die on the same day. The virgin birth story & resurrection were not part of the original gospel story. The genealogy of Jesus has 2 versions & neither one of them is correct. 

7. Jesus trial & execution simply could not have happened the way the gospels tell it. And the Romans have no record of such an incident. 

8. Dr. Bart Ehrman notes the Bible has been edited, redacted, & rewritten more times than there are even words in it. When the church was evolving each Pope made changes in the Bible to fit the evolving beliefs & traditions of the emerging Christian Faith. The doctrine of substatutionary atonement, for example, took nearly 1500 years to develope and become accepted as tradition. The idea of a trinity also took time to evolve as well. These were all ideas that humans came up with.

Those are just a few things that come to mind.

9. It would be accurate to refer to Christianity as Christian Mythology and many scholars do.

10. Paul, assuming he actually existed, doesn't seem to be aware of an earthly Jesus. Paul's Jesus is a spiritual being.

11. The story of Paul in Acts is pure fiction. The Romans were the only ones who could arrest anyone or execute them, thus the need for the Jews to get the Romans to execute Jesus. Even if Paul somehow managed to get an arrest warrant for Xians Damascus wasn't in the same legal jurisdiction so such a warrant would be invalid. 

12. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John were added later by the Catholic Church to give the stories the appearance of Authenticity. The Gospel of John is clearly Gnostic & that is understandable since the Gnostic's were more numerous & influential than the orthodox, later known as the Catholic Church, that only survived because Constantine adopted Xianity as the official state religion. 

 

Those are just a few thoughts & problems with the Bible that come to my mind at the moment. This is a very complex subject that takes a great deal of effort & time to investigate, study, & research. And the data is obviously subject to different interpretations based on the readers bias & potential agenda. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've made a lot of good statements. And I would like to read the studies you've read. I see you mentioned Dr, ehrman. And Robert price who I will hopefully get to buy the books you mentioned on kindle so I can read them. But other than that can you give some links and references so I can study this out myself? Forgive me if I'm not to apt to take someone at their word. I did that for to long as a Christian.

 

Thanks DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reading Bart Ehrman & Price will keep you busy for quite awhile. Dr. Karen Armstrong's book A History of God is informative. Dr. Elaine Pagels has some interesting books about Gnostic's & The Dead Sea Scrolls, & other interesting topics, I also like Earl Doherty. I liked his book The Jesus Puzzle. He takes the position Jesus was a myrhical figure. He does not have a PHD but his research is recognized as excellent by Price, Enrman, & others, Richard Carrier of course & Richard Dawkins just to name a few of the most popular authors. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Yes, Bishop, reading the views of Jesus mythicists is informative and it's worthwhile to be familiar with the arguments on both the historicist and mythicist sides.

 

But I see what you're saying. I'm the token former SDA around here so yes, I confirm your thoughts on EGW being a duplicate or Jesus copy cat as well as Joseph Smith. In fact, EGW once stood before a congregation and declared, completely mimicking the NT, that some of the people sitting in that room would die but others would be alive at the second coming. This was in the late 1800's. She took the false prophecy attributed to Jesus about some not tasting death and completely ripped it off, to the point of committing a false prophecy herself with the copy cat claim. I was actually going over this section of the book, "White Washed: Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G White," with an SDA friend of mine who's doubted things and wants to know more about the opposition. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awesome that you broke free of the SDA church and are trying to help a friend out as well. From the ones I dealt with they are a very faithful bunch. My home town where I grew up had an SDA headquarters there, they ran the hospital, my orthodontist, dentist, and most the other doctors in the area are SDA. So I know quite a few. As far as I could tell tho. They were all real friendly and good people.

 

Did they go over any of William miller's teaching when you were in church?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

You've made a lot of good statements. And I would like to read the studies you've read. I see you mentioned Dr, ehrman. And Robert price who I will hopefully get to buy the books you mentioned on kindle so I can read them. But other than that can you give some links and references so I can study this out myself? Forgive me if I'm not to apt to take someone at their word. I did that for to long as a Christian.

 

Thanks DB

 

Having read many of your posts, I think you will get much benefit from reading some of Bart Ehrman's work, which is extensive.  I would suggest you start with a few of his books, possibly (in no particular order) :

 

1)  God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer.

 

2)  Forged:  Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

 

3)  Misquoting Jesus:  The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Having read many of your posts, I think you will get much benefit from reading some of Bart Ehrman's work, which is extensive.  I would suggest you start with a few of his books, possibly (in no particular order) :

 

1)  God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer.

 

2)  Forged:  Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

 

3)  Misquoting Jesus:  The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

Thanks for the suggestions Del,

        I decided to go with the book Forgery and counter Forgery by Ehrman. From the descriptions it looked to be a combination of Forged and Misquoting Jesus. Also it's twice as long. Figured it would be the bigger bang for my buck. I will let you know how how I like it.

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
13 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

That's awesome that you broke free of the SDA church and are trying to help a friend out as well. From the ones I dealt with they are a very faithful bunch. My home town where I grew up had an SDA headquarters there, they ran the hospital, my orthodontist, dentist, and most the other doctors in the area are SDA. So I know quite a few. As far as I could tell tho. They were all real friendly and good people.

 

Did they go over any of William miller's teaching when you were in church?

 

Yes, I'm generations deep SDA. They present Miller as some one who was almost there, but not quite. We're not raised naive to the Great Disappointment of 1844 but we are raised some what naive to the fact that there were two different failed prophecies, first in 1843 and then again in 1844. I don't remember that being pointed out as a kid. If you're interested in the counter SDA culture here's an informative video which outlines the works of several former SDA pastors who realized the BS and split from the church: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.