Interestingly, the history of Mormonism makes Mythicism seem more plausible because it is an example of a case where a charismatic leader started a religious movement by telling people he received revelations from a celestial figure. Of course Smith is far from the only person to have pulled this off.
Can’t edit fsr but above I mean ‘more plausible than it might have been otherwise,’ to clarify my meaning.
Not at all. No one, back in those days (other than Caesar and a couple other scholars) took up a pen and wrote their own stuff. they had scribes, secretaries, and disciples to assist them.
John had been a Christian for quite a long time, much longer than he was a Jew.
As a gentile from the land of zion, I really do not see much difference from a guy dictating the word of god while staring at a rock in a hat and Paul having a visions of Jesus. The only plausible claim that Paul’s stories are less suspect is due to a greater distance in time.
Not so fast; we have eyewitnesses!
[QUOTE=The Book of Mormon]
TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES.
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people unto whom this work shall come, that Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated, we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen; and we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
CHRISTIAN WHITMER,
JACOB WHITMER,
PETER WHITMER, JR.,
JOHN WHITMER,
HIRAM PAGE,
JOSEPH SMITH, SR.,
HYRUM SMITH,
SAMUEL H. SMITH.
[/QUOTE]
And I have to agree with Mark Twain:
“And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but ‘hefted’ them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”
What is your view of Paul’s ‘stories’ about his relationship with the Jerusalem sect? Is it your claim that this sect is implausible?
Richard Carrier tries to make a case of Mormonism as supporting Mythicism and places Smith in the role of Paul and Moroni in the role of Jesus.
Looking as a former Mormon, this analogy fails because the key to Mormonism is Smith’s role. He is the one who claimed to have visions of God and Jesus, he found the Golden Plates, etc. but most importantly were his ongoing revelations from God.
Mormonism is very clear on who the charismatic leader was where if Mythicism cannot answer that. Although Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus, he did not found the movement nor was his the central figure in the early movement.
For Mythicism to work, there had to be someone or some people who put it together, like Smith did with the story of the Golden Plates and the visions of God, Jesus and the various angels.
Who did that has never really been answered by those who support Mythicism.
Well, Carrier’s answer is Peter/James/John did it first, then Paul sort of latched on (or possibly was doing his own separate thing in a similar tradition based on similar scriptures). On this theory, one or more of the three were the original charismatic leaders, and when it came to a lot of the gentile churches later on, Paul was the charismatic leader.
So it’s not true it’s “never been answered”–the guy you mentioned (Carrier) offers an answer to the question you asked.
Paul believed that Jesus spoke directly to him in actual words. (2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor. 7:12. Acts 18:9) He did not receive a Gospel from men, but directly from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11)
If you have another claim you need to provide a cite.
I am aware that scribes were used as amanuenses. Your claim that “no one”, (and I will accept this as a bit hyperbolic), wrote their own stuff needs documentary support.
Beyond that, the hypothesis presented was that that the gospel was created by disciples writing down memories, not an author dictating his memoirs and is still removed from a claim that the gospel presents the words of an eyewitness. There are a number of odd statements and references that seem to remove the Gospel from the realm of eyewitness. (For one example, the above mentioned references to “the Jews” by someone who was supposed to be a Jew, himself, when that construction both separated the author from being Jewish while portraying one political faction in that nation as the totality of that nation–a very odd action for a purported participant in the events described .)
Yeah, I know that he claims it, and I should have elaborated that the problem is that he can’t make a case for how it was put it all together in a realistic manner, consistent with what we’ve seen with the other religions which he compares Christianity with, namely Mormonism and Islam.
In both of these religions, you had charismatic leaders who received not only the initial revelation but ongoing divine guidance necessary to deal with the changes which occurred as the religion developed. The prophets become large parts of the story, much more so than Peter/James/John or Paul.
With Mormon history, we have the advantage of it being recent enough to know all of the various subplots, which are myriad. Smith was successful in not only launching his religion, but also protecting it from the various rivals which arose.
Not only do you have to have a foundation narrative, but also a theology and some claim to authority otherwise, it’s impossible to keep a movement together.
It seems to me, that by looking at the example of Mormonism it can be seen how various challenges develop and the necessity of a charismatic leader to keep the followers in place.
What Carrier doesn’t explain is how it is supposed to work. Peter/James/John et al have visions of a guy they call Jesus, who is a mythical being. Somehow they are charismatic enough to gather a large number of followers, they create a whole theology but then they fail to keep the movement cohesive or consistent with their vision, and all within a few decades it has splintered.
I would think that if there had been men of such caliber to create a religion and inspire so many adherents, we would have seen more reflection of this in the accounts.
It actually makes the story much more complex and that much harder to make a case for.
Why did you choose to evade the question?
I chose to avoid your straw-man, which I will still not fall for. Note you also evaded the question I made.
:rolleyes:
Mormonism built on a previous sect, Paul built on a previous sect, it still doesn’t change the reality that both were either mentally ill or lying. How about you either conceded or address the points of my post, or I will just discount you as a non-serious poster.
Look man, I’m a mythicist, please listen to me when I say, “You’re not helping.”
Here goes:
You’re not helping.
Throughout history, in many cultures, it has been a sign neither of deception nor illness that a person might have what he (and others) interpreted as visions of supernatural beings. The question for determining whether someone is mentally ill isn’t just whether their visions have veracity or not, it’s about whether the experience prevents the person from thriving, from interacting constructively with others, from following his or her own purposes, etc.
Paul clearly didn’t have such problems–even if he was hallucinating his Jesus!
Upon what previous sect did Paul build?
Of all the scholars active in the historical Jesus debate, I cannot think of a single one who believes that Paul actually interacted with Jesus on the road to Damascus. rat avatar’s ad hominem attack on Paul is as irrelevant as it is petulant.
You can choose a narrow definition of a phrase but it doesn’t automatically make my point invalid.
You can also commit the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity but it also fails to invalid my argument.
If you can show that these delusional conversations can impart doctrine that extends past the individuals mind you may have a point.
The point that you have your own myths does nothing to prove that the supernatural Jesus is anything but a myth.
It is your job to provide evidence of a supernatural Jesus, my point with the undisputed fact that a large amount of Christian doctrine is based on delusional conversations does show that the Christian Jesus is a myth.
There is no external evidence of his divinity, all we have is evidence that there was a guy named Josh and maybe some people thought he was swell.
Wait… Paul is debating here? It is not possible for my post to be an ad hominem.
Paul’s portion of the gospel is a huge part of the faith, the fact that is is based purely on the voices in his head is very relevant. Especially seeing as there is zero first person evidence of the divinity of Jesus.
Paul’s claims are as dismissible as J Smiths claims about Moroni.