Historicity

[_cosmo junction]

I suppose this matters not if you're OK with your holy scriptures just being myth. Most Christians I've run into, and Mormons, aren't OK with that notion.

What if we called it "parable?"

Aesop's Fables make sense to me too. That doesn't stop them being made-up by a man, however, and not the revealed word of God.

Excellent point - attributing things to "God" simply because we "feel" they are right, whether by "they make sense" or a "witness" ought not to be our standard for determining truth.

But what ought to be? And why do we discuss these things? Is there such a thing as truth? And, if so, why? If we know that we have done something that we know is wrong, where does that sense of "wrong" come from? Our parents? Or is there more to this? Is there an ultimate "right and wrong?"

As far as Jesus fitting the ancient messiah prophecies, the problem is that the two aren't independent. The Jesus cult of personality grew up in an environment where the ancient scriptures and Messiah prophecies were already in existence, and known. It stands to reason that those who created the theology of the Jesus cult would mould their theology to fit the existing scriptures and prophecies.

It isn't hard at all. You don't have to mold Jesus. You just have to mold his history. As far as I know, every history we have in the Bible says almost nothing about Jesus between his infancy and the time he turned 30, other than that thing with him teaching in the temple when he was a lad. And then, to top it off, every history we have in the Bible was actually written decades after his death, by people who weren't even there. Basically, the Gospels writers had almost a carte blanche to write whatever they wanted about Jesus. Their target audience would have had little way of verifying any of it.

Ok, let's say there wasn't any Jesus, and they tried to fit the mold of how the Messiah would fit the role he apparently would fit. How did they go about doing this?

What mold should Jesus fit, what should the Messiah be? What evidences would mark him as the Messiah, according to what is written - and furthermore, why should we even decide there should be a Messiah? What exactly is a Messiah? What would a Messiah do? What relationship does a Messiah have to atonement? Better yet, what is atonement? Does a Messiah have anything to do with an atonement? Is there really a historical example of an atonement and should there be a person associated with such?

Given how the history writers were able to write whatever they want, it's the history of Jesus, not Jesus himself, that could be molded to fit the Old Testament teachings and prophecies. For each and every thing you read in the New Testament, which you claim Jesus did in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, I can counter that we don't even know if Jesus did that thing at all, except that some guy decades later, who wasn't even there, says he did.

Sure, they could have written anything they wanted, but to "mold" Jesus into the prefitted understanding of a sacrifice to atone for sins really only fits once in history, under the Temple and, well, you might say the "merdian of time," no?

In other words, rather than Jesus just being some local guru who was executed by the Romans for something he did, his death is moulded to fit the Messiah prophecies and suddenly he's being sacrificed as the Lamb of God. An evolution in this direction would be perfectly natural in a Jewish/Israelite religious milieu with its emphasis on animal sacrifice as propitiation for sins, the Messiah prophecies, etc. Are you able to see where I'm going with this? The entire theology of the Jesus cult evolved over time after Jesus' death, but did so in an environment where a pre-existing theology already existed, a theology into which the Jesus theology could be welded and combined.

I don't think it would be so easy, I mean, "my hands and feet have been pierced" and "they shall look upon him whom they have pierced" would seem a bit hard to replicate - though I suppose you could say that after a man who preached peace and love from God to man getting killed through this manner might fit the bill. Yeah, I guess they could have retroactively decided that this man who preached forgiveness as the penultimate to obedience to the law to love probably would have eventually been killed by his opponents.

But I think it was predetermined, simply based on the sacrificial system and what it was supposed to accomplish. The Messiah clearly fulfilled, in my mind, these prophecies.

It's irrelevant in my hypothesis. Jesus doesn't even have to have existed at all, much less really have been executed by the Romans for whatever reason, and still a "history" of him could have been written, decades after the alleged incident is to have taken place, and that history can claim anything it wants to.

I can understand this point of view, but it doesn't explain the accounts of what happened. Sure, they could have fabricated the whole thing, but we're talking about centuries of external evidence supporting the written record and eventual fulfillment on the cross of what was predicted beforehand. I don't see how they could have faked fulfilling this, as opposed to the Book of Mormon, where I can see how the peoples were "written into" the history.

In that same way, the theology and "history" of Jesus could have been invented by the founders of the Christ cult to dovetail nicely with the existing scripture of the time, the Old Testament. They certainly would have known the prophecies, and could have invented the bits about Jesus specifically to mesh with them and "fulfill" them.

I don't see this as the same as Scientology, sorry. There simply aren't the same fulfillments of prophecy. Even in the Book of Mormon, the "prophecies" appear contrived, but I don't get the same sense from the Bible, which spells out certain requirements and reasons for a Messianic sacrifice to occur.

Jesus as the lamb of God. No bone being broken. His executioners casting lots for his raiment. Just look up any number of things which Christians and Mormons alike hold out as ways in which the description of Jesus in the New Testament fulfills some Old Testament prophecy or other, and then remember that all of those things could be pure inventions of the early Christians, designed to enhance and grow the Jesus story and theology, and give it more credibility.

Actually, I see the Temple, the Tabernacle, the sacrificial system, the Priesthood and many more evidences in the Old Testament writngs that show that Jesus would be the Messiah promised, who would fit the bill of an atoning sacrifice for mankind. I can understand your examples of people trying to "force" those fulfillments, but there are so many that I think it is harder to see them as contrived than to accept them as real fulfillments of predicted events.

Sethbag, you have said some things on these boards that are amazing to me, and reflect what I believe are deep-seated roots of honesty and integrity.

I truly enjoy your posts and look forward to many more.

[_Sethbag]

What if we called it "parable?"

That's fine by me. How about you? Personally, I don't know many Christians, or TBMs for that matter, who would be OK calling the Bible just a big parable. Most Christians and Mormons both teach that the Bible is a real history of people who really did the things described in it. The switch from that to parable is catastrophic, really.

Excellent point - attributing things to "God" simply because we "feel" they are right, whether by "they make sense" or a "witness" ought not to be our standard for determining truth.

And yet that's something probably 80-95% of true-believing Mormons, and other Christians all do.

But what ought to be? And why do we discuss these things? Is there such a thing as truth? And, if so, why? If we know that we have done something that we know is wrong, where does that sense of "wrong" come from? Our parents? Or is there more to this? Is there an ultimate "right and wrong?"

Those are certainly interesting questions, however I must defer them to some other conversation, pointing out that whether I could give answers that would satisfy you to any of these questions, or not, it would not bear one whit on the historicity of the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other religion. One might as well argue that if one couldn't offer up a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the concept of right and wrong, that must just mean that Islam is really true. Or why not Hinduism? Or African Juju up the Mountain?

Why, if naturalistic explanations for concepts like right and wrong aren't satisfactory, are these other religions not assumed to be the default answer? Note: I'm not saying you're saying that Christianity is the default answer, but a lot of Christians in a conversation like this would, and have asserted this very thing. It's like if one can find some seemingly problematic factoid relating to organic evolution, that must somehow prove that the Biblical account of Creation was right after all. Really? Why not the Hindu explanation? Why not, if there's something evolutionary biologists can't explain, why not fall back on the notion of this earth being held up on the backs of turtles all the way down?

Ok, let's say there wasn't any Jesus, and they tried to fit the mold of how the Messiah would fit the role he apparently would fit. How did they go about doing this?

What mold should Jesus fit, what should the Messiah be? What evidences would mark him as the Messiah, according to what is written - and furthermore, why should we even decide there should be a Messiah? What exactly is a Messiah? What would a Messiah do? What relationship does a Messiah have to atonement? Better yet, what is atonement? Does a Messiah have anything to do with an atonement? Is there really a historical example of an atonement and should there be a person associated with such?

Here's a good question for you to chew on. Why did I turn out with precisely the DNA that I did? With all the combinations possible with my two parents' own genes, how come I happened to turn out with the very DNA that I have? And the best answer is, really, why not? I mean, it had to be some combination, and it happened to be this one. It could as easily have been another one, and I could have been my brother instead, or some hypothetical child of my parents who never did exist, and never will, for the sole reason that they never had him?

You should read Bart Ehrman's books, if you haven't already. I've got one that I unfortunately haven't got handy at the moment because my closet apostate sister-in-law has it, talking about how in the early days of Christianity, there were actually quite a few competing versions of the Christ theology. The one we have today just happens to be the one that won out in the battle for mindshare and influence in the early centuries of Christianity. This "winning" theology then wrote the other versions essentially out of existence, as if this version we have today were only ever the one and only, "real" version. It's pretty interesting.

More to the point, with your question, there are probably an infinite number of different Messiah/Christ narratives that could have been invented and made to fit the Old Testament theology and prophecies. We happen to have this one. If some others in the early days of Christianity had won out, we might well have had another.

Sure, they could have written anything they wanted, but to "mold" Jesus into the prefitted understanding of a sacrifice to atone for sins really only fits once in history, under the Temple and, well, you might say the "meridian of time," no?

Not really. Those are all constraints you see because of the Christ theology that we have. If a different Christianity had emerged from the early centuries of Christianity you would have been looking at all of this with a different set of constraints in mind and asking how in the heck someone could make up something that fit them. You're effectively looking at the Old Testament with the assumption that it is the spiritual prelude to modern Christianity and looking for confirmation of that, and you (and others) are clever enough to find it. I'm betting you could find confirmation of different scenarios if they had come up instead. Hey, the Reverend Moon teaches that he himself is another Messiah, and manages to justify that somehow through the Bible. Within the Biblical paradigm that he and his followers understand, his explanations are all probably completely rational and in perfect harmony with scripture.

I can understand this point of view, but it doesn't explain the accounts of what happened. Sure, they could have fabricated the whole thing, but we're talking about centuries of external evidence supporting the written record and eventual fulfillment on the cross of what was predicted beforehand. I don't see how they could have faked fulfilling this, as opposed to the Book of Mormon, where I can see how the peoples were "written into" the history.

All of this is obvious because you're looking at the Old Testament with the preconceived notion that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of Old Testament theology and prophecy. 13 million Jews would beg to differ with you that it's all so obvious.

I don't see this as the same as Scientology, sorry. There simply aren't the same fulfillments of prophecy. Even in the Book of Mormon, the "prophecies" appear contrived, but I don't get the same sense from the Bible, which spells out certain requirements and reasons for a Messianic sacrifice to occur.

Scientology is one false belief system, Christianity is another. Christianity is more readily accepted because it's older, riper, and has had more scripture written for it, and has evolved for a very long time. I'm not directly comparing the two.

Anyhow, regarding just how obvious it is that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament requirements and reasons for a Messianic sacrifice, I would just refer you again to the fact that 13 million Jews would beg to differ. The fact that it's so obvious to you that they're wrong is really just due to the fact that you weren't born Jewish.

Actually, I see the Temple, the Tabernacle, the sacrificial system, the Priesthood and many more evidences in the Old Testament writngs that show that Jesus would be the Messiah promised, who would fit the bill of an atoning sacrifice for mankind. I can understand your examples of people trying to "force" those fulfillments, but there are so many that I think it is harder to see them as contrived than to accept them as real fulfillments of predicted events.

13 million Jews don't see things as nearly as clear-cut as you do in this matter.

Sethbag, you have said some things on these boards that are amazing to me, and reflect what I believe are deep-seated roots of honesty and integrity.

Thanks man! What's really gotten me in trouble, from the LDS perspective, is the innate requirement I have to know what it is that I believe, and to know why it is that I believe it, and to know deep down, in my heart of hearts, that believing it is rational and well-supported. Because of this I've been thinking about and chewing over my beliefs and justifications for belief for many, many years (since I was a kid, really), and it's amazing to me now, looking back, that it took me so long to figure out that Mormonism wasn't really all that and a bag of chips, like I'd thought it was. I guess my parents did a really great job raising me up in the faith.

I truly enjoy your posts and look forward to many more.

Beware, for you might just get what you ask for. I have a very bad habit of writing way more than I ought to in my responses. I'd be surprised if ten people in the world manage to wade through all my "wall of text" responses. I really need to learn the fine art of being more succinct, and let fewer words say more.

[_cosmo junction]

What if we called it "parable?"

That's fine by me. How about you? Personally, I don't know many Christians, or TBMs for that matter, who would be OK calling the Bible just a big parable. Most Christians and Mormons both teach that the Bible is a real history of people who really did the things described in it. The switch from that to parable is catastrophic, really.

Thanks for the response, Seth - I thought this thread was just going to slip on to page two obscurity, which might be where it belongs anyway, given the scattershot ramblings of my last post. These questions over the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the implications of that methodology when applied to the Bible are just as challenging for me, even as a never-Mo, as they are for anyone else. I think it is good to talk about it, to challenge the way we look at things and rethink them and re-evaluate them based on new evidences, to step outside of our comfort zones.

That written, I don't mean the whole of the Bible as a parable, but parts of it, to me anyway, may have roots in "parable." Particularly the parts about the worldwide flood and the Adam and Eve creation story.

I don't know how acceptable that is in mainstream Christianity, but given evidence from science, it is hard, for me anyway, to see those stories as anything other than parable, or myth, if you prefer to call it that. I do believe there was a man named Abraham who was a real person, though outside of a few manuscripts written apparently long after he lived, there is no hard evidence that he did. This approach, I admit, is not much different than a TBM's view of Shiz or Coriantumr, and frankly I can relate to those challenges faced by TBM's who struggle with this type of "faith-based" thinking.

To call the whole of the Bible, yes, would be catastrophic, and from that point of view, I can relate to the views of some LDS in maintaining a testimony that the "Church is true" while rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The difference is there are demonstrably historic evidences that some of the events written in the Bible actually happened, that there were such places and people as Cyrus and Nebuchanezzar, there is evidence that there was a temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed. I personally don't see the claims like "sheum" and "NHM" as convincing, but I understand the effort to look for those things as historical evidence.

When applying this outlook of historical evidence lending to truth claims, the challenge, at least biblically speaking, would be in determining what parts are parable and what parts are historical, and whether evidentiary history can, or even should, be applied to this outlook, this "paradigm."

If a different Christianity had emerged from the early centuries of Christianity you would have been looking at all of this with a different set of constraints in mind and asking how in the heck someone could make up something that fit them.

I'm not so sure of that - I rejected Catholicism over many issues after studying the history of how some of the doctrines came about, issues over transubstantiation, the liturgy of priests performing the mass and other things. Part of the appeal of Joseph's First Vision, to me anyway, has to do with the question, "which of these sects is true?" I've asked the same question - though I was never directed to join the LDS church after asking, never got a "burning bosom" or any other type of spiritual confirmation that it was true.

I think it's a good question, though I think an expansion of the question should be a consideration of what a "church" really is. But I'm straying from the intent of my original post.

You're effectively looking at the Old Testament with the assumption that it is the spiritual prelude to modern Christianity and looking for confirmation of that, and you (and others) are clever enough to find it. I'm betting you could find confirmation of different scenarios if they had come up instead.

I was just talking to a friend of mine at work about this, confirmation bias, which is part of the reason I decided to start posting here, because you guys have been saying some things that are very interesting and challenging to me, challenging my world view.

All of this is obvious because you're looking at the Old Testament with the preconceived notion that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of Old Testament theology and prophecy. 13 million Jews would beg to differ with you that it's all so obvious.

Touche! Though I think there are Jews who believe that a Messiah is to come, and look for a "conquering Messiah" rather than the suffering servant described in Isaiah and Zechariah. I can see thier point - the "proof-texts" are compelling. But can the Messiah be "both?" A suffering servant and a conquering Messiah at the same time? One interpretation may be that there is a spiritual conquering that was accomplished through his suffering, and a throne set up in the hearts of people with that Messiah sitting upon it.

Thanks man! What's really gotten me in trouble, from the LDS perspective, is the innate requirement I have to know what it is that I believe, and to know why it is that I believe it, and to know deep down, in my heart of hearts, that believing it is rational and well-supported. Because of this I've been thinking about and chewing over my beliefs and justifications for belief for many, many years (since I was a kid, really), and it's amazing to me now, looking back, that it took me so long to figure out that Mormonism wasn't really all that and a bag of chips, like I'd thought it was.

Me too, man, me too. Just substitute "Catholicism" for "Mormonism" and we're not much different. There aren't a lot of "ex-Cath" message boards out there, though.

My sister hauled me in front of a priest about ten years ago when I started talking about some of things, so we don't talk about religion so much any more. I can relate to a lot of the ex-Mo family issues, though I won't claim to know exactly how any of you feel, as there are probably some big differences associated with being in a Mormon family, missing weddings, families forever and similar things must be particularly difficult for you to deal with.

Beware, for you might just get what you ask for. I have a very bad habit of writing way more than I ought to in my responses. I'd be surprised if ten people in the world manage to wade through all my "wall of text" responses. I really need to learn the fine art of being more succinct, and let fewer words say more.

Well you certainly make me think about things, Seth, and I thank you for it.

[_Sethbag]

I can't believe I'm still up and about to post again at 4:37 AM my time. My only defense is that I spent the last several hours actually getting some work done that I needed to have done before I talk to my boss tomorrow, so it's not like I spent all my sleeptime surfing the web.

You said, in your previous response:

Touche! Though I think there are Jews who believe that a Messiah is to come, and look for a "conquering Messiah" rather than the suffering servant described in Isaiah and Zechariah. I can see their point - the "proof-texts" are compelling. But can the Messiah be "both?" A suffering servant and a conquering Messiah at the same time? One interpretation may be that there is a spiritual conquering that was accomplished through his suffering, and a throne set up in the hearts of people with that Messiah sitting upon it.

Is it possible that the whole "suffering servant as spiritual messiah" paradigm isn't nearly as obvious in the Old Testament texts as the Christians, with their belief in Jesus as it is, seem to think it is?

Christians seem to think they can just point at the Old Testament and it's just plain obvious that the Messiah would be someone just like Jesus Christ. Well, as I said before, 13 million Jews don't think that's obvious at all. If it's so obvious, how could all those Jews have missed it for the last 2000 years?

Perhaps the Christian Messiah paradigm is actually only obviously manifest in the Old Testament if one looks at the Old Testament through the lens of Christianity. Which brings up the question I alluded to earlier: if Christianity had shaken out somewhat different in the early centuries, and some other, competing Christian theology had won out rather than the one we ended up with, would it have been as "obviously" underpinned by the Old Testament as the one that is so obvious to today's Christians? My guess is probably yes, and we'd be thinking it's just as obvious as the one we now call obvious.

[_cosmo junction]

Is it possible that the whole "suffering servant as spiritual messiah" paradigm isn't nearly as obvious in the Old Testament texts as the Christians, with their belief in Jesus as it is, seem to think it is?

Absolutely, Seth. Having talked to many people about these things, I'm well aware of how this paradigm isn't obvious to others. I realize that I look at these things from a point of view that has been developed experientially and affected by information as filtered by my own bias. But for some reason I enjoy challenging my own view of things, and having others challenge it as well. I can't remember who said it, but I agree that "an unexamined faith is not worth having."

Dr. Steuss said:

‘Tis a hard road to travel. Doubt one day, believe the next, doubt one day, believe the next… all the while getting down on yourself because you recognize the inconsistencies within your beliefs and your lack of intellectual honesty.

I can relate.

[_guy sajer]

If one is a scientist, lack of evidence doesn't cancel anything.

Um, not true. You've heard of the little thing called "hypothesis testing?" If lack of evidence didn't cancel anything, then there's no way science could progress, as it would not be able to narrow things down to the find the answer to anything.

Stated simply, if I do an epirical test, and I find no evidence to support my hypothesis, then I reject my hypothesis (or stated more technically, I fail to reject the null hypothesis), and I move on to a new hypothesis.

This statement shows that you are completely ignorant of the scientific process.

Not surprising for someone who thinks that there's no evidence against the Book of Mormon and strong evidence for it. You evidently understand the word "evidence" differently than would, say, a scientist.