Yes, that's actually what some people believe (that The Apostles had a massive conspiracy to lie about lots of stuff to make Jesus look more awesome).
But about your point: that is probably why Joseph Smith established the 3 Witnesses and 12 Wtinesses. There is something more than just a superficial first hand (or transcribed or second hand or third hand) account.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
If we are asking if somebody can believe in a false ideology enough to die for it, Jim Jones convinced 900 people to kill themselves and their children rather than seek refuge with the authorities and "take it back".
The point against that would be then "why didn't they make themselves look good as well?" Why make themselves out to look outright dumb at certain points when they could have been like "Jesus said it and i knew exactly what he meant. He didn't have to clarify a thing."
I'm not familiar with what he did exactly. Were these witnesses real and did they see what he saw? Were they questioned and what not?
I agree with that point. They could have made themselves look a lot better. But then someone might say that they did that to make it believable. Dunno. It is a faith question. "Did they lie? Did they try to make a name for themselves? Did try to gain power?" Etc. Those each have subjective interpretations/conclusions. In steps the idea of faith. "Was Jesus of Nazareth really a divine person with a mission from God? Was he really resurrected (in one form or another)? Was the spiritual message he preached correct?"
He had people look at the gold plates and sign a witness document confirming their viewing. Some later became opponents of Joseph Smith and that church. Some stayed members. But none denied seeing the gold plates and signing that document.
That would be more the level of requirement we would need for the NT. That and better continuity between the books. Joseph Smith also had the benefit of being 1750 years more recent than the NT and the benefit of more modern law and historical mythology.
No you are definitely not an expert. Neither am I. However, we both are pretty well versed on the topic and research methodology so I would say we aren't quite "laymen", either.
What I am saying is: give yourself more credit. Your point is very much spot on. IIRC, the Roman Empire had a state religion. So it could have come off as, at the very least, smug or offensive.
Romans had no problem with the Hebrew God or Jesus's God on principle, they didn't care if other people worshiped different Gods, and even allowed Roman citizens to take on new Gods when they moved to different parts of the empire. A good example is the Cult of Mithra, where Romans adopted a Zoroastrian angelic figure as a Sun God alongside Apollo. The one requirement was that all people in the empire worship the Roman Gods alongside whoever they might worship. The problem with Jews and Christians was that they insisted on being exclusive.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
What I should say, and honestly I'm getting this mainly from listening to Reza Aslan talk about his new book, is that in Palestine, in the time of Jesus, the leaders of the Jewish temples would be essentially in cahoots with the Roman authorities.
EDIT: it wasn't until the more "Zealatous" rebellions in the aftermath of Jesus' death that we saw any sort of persecution of the Jews, ie: the destruction/genocide of Palestine.
I agree but they probably had issues with other religions that had the idea that "these other religions are wrong, evil, and are sinful to participate in". I am speaking for Oliver North but I think that's what he meant with the "incendiary" portion of his post.
One of the very basic beliefs (if not THE basic belief) is Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation (initially, I typed that as “salivation”…lol). That had to ruffle some Roman jimmies.
Edit - Not only did they insist in their deity exclusivity, they insisted that worshipping the other gods was a horrible sin (punishable by death, at several points).
Lestov16, I learned of an interesting concept that I want to recommend that you check out when you have time (if you aren't already aware of it).
It's called the Anthropic Principle.
In short it's all of the things that had to occur within very strict parameters or constraints in order for humans to exist. It's as if the universe and/or earth is finely-tuned, designed, or created just so that we could live here.
Lestov16 , I have another interesting concept to share with you. It's referred to as the Cosmological Constant.
Again, the basic premise of the Cosmological Constant is that these constants i.e. Planck's Constant, the Boltzman Constant, the Gravitational Constant and others--which even if one had failed to, the universe couldn't exist or support life-- came into existence simultaneously with the universe.
The human cell in all of its complexity, the sophisticated human eye, the heart, the brain, nerves, the earth's atmosphere, plants, multiplied by all of the life that exists and the laws that govern time, space, and matter, mathematics, physics, and the energy, power, intelligence, and wisdom that it took to bring of all this into existence--declares the glory of God.
Jeremiah 10:12
12 He has made the earth by His power,
He has established the world by His wisdom,
And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
Jeremiah 32:17
17 ‘Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
You're not smug unless you post that emoticon that Mairuzu likes.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 31st, 2013 05:27 PM
Your point is very much spot on. IIRC, the Roman Empire had a state religion. So it could have come off as, at the very least, smug or offensive.
?
