Weigh it up. Mohammed was lying because he wanted more wives and political power. Joseph Smith was the same. Jesus got merked for his teachings and so did his followers for the first three hundred years.
Couldn’t Jesus have been lying for political power? That is what his fellow Jews and the Romans accused him of. Joseph Smith was “merked” and his followers persecuted for their faith, does that make their beliefs true?
You can’t selectively apply logic to your perspective alone. I’m not denying your beliefs, just the logic that you use to argue their validity.
The reason they call it faith is because it is something you believe in despite not being able to offer any proof. You have faith, not knowledge that what you believe is true. Imo that’s fine, but you can’t have faith in something and then force your beliefs on others, claim them to be definitive truth, or deny other people their own beliefs.
[20] Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. [21] And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” [22] Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” [23] He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” [24] And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. [25] But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. [26] It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [28] even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
John 6:14-15 ESV
[14] When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” [15] Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
Jesus was not looking for political power.
Joseph Smith wasn’t merked for his faith. He was merked for burning down a printing press.
First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.
Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.
Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…
You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.
How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.
Not at least, the latest… If you’re charitable. According to secular scholars, the latest Gospel of John which I quoted was written 60-70 years after Jesus was crucified. That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history. A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
When combined with other contextual sources.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
Weigh it up. Mohammed was lying because he wanted more wives and political power. Joseph Smith was the same. Jesus got merked for his teachings and so did his followers for the first three hundred years.
Couldn’t Jesus have been lying for political power? That is what his fellow Jews and the Romans accused him of. Joseph Smith was “merked” and his followers persecuted for their faith, does that make their beliefs true?
You can’t selectively apply logic to your perspective alone. I’m not denying your beliefs, just the logic that you use to argue their validity.
The reason they call it faith is because it is something you believe in despite not being able to offer any proof. You have faith, not knowledge that what you believe is true. Imo that’s fine, but you can’t have faith in something and then force your beliefs on others, claim them to be definitive truth, or deny other people their own beliefs.
Matthew 20:20-28 ESV
John 6:14-15 ESV
Jesus was not looking for political power.
Joseph Smith wasn’t merked for his faith. He was merked for burning down a printing press.
First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.
Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.
Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…
You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.
How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
Not at least, the latest… If you’re charitable. According to secular scholars, the latest Gospel of John which I quoted was written 60-70 years after Jesus was crucified. That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history. A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
When combined with other contextual sources.
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.