Hi I was raised Mormon, and we have the Bible and the Record of people in America called the book of mormon,

I'm doing a youtube everyday talking about the Book of Mormon.


If your Interested visit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVcfTvfddE

it really is a cool story

It may be cool, but it's also completely false.

Ĉu la mormonoj nuntempa instruas ilian misiistojn en la Esperanto por trovi pli konvertitoj? Nun la mormonoj povas klarigi ankaŭ en la Esperanto por kio sklaveco estas bona ideo apogita de la mormona biblio, kaj la teorio kiu nigrahomoj estas nigra por la malbeno de Ham.

Vestitor:It may be cool, but it's also completely false.

Yes, but you can say the same about the New Testament. The New Testament was written, in secret, by the Roman aristocracy as an antidote to Judaism. Judaism was a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire, and the Roman aristocracy wanted to neutralize it. The story that they came up with, which comes down to us as the New Testament, was not very original, either, being based very largely on a prior religion called Mithraism.

mkj1887:

Vestitor:It may be cool, but it's also completely false.

Yes, but you can say the same about the New Testament. The New Testament was written, in secret, by the Roman aristocracy as an antidote to Judaism. Judaism was a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire, and the Roman aristocracy wanted to neutralize it. The story that they came up with, which comes down to us as the New Testament, was not very original, either, being based very largely on a prior religion called Mithraism.

Thanks. You saved me the trouble of typing. I agree, the New Testament is also fictional.

mkj1887:

Vestitor:It may be cool, but it's also completely false.

Yes, but you can say the same about the New Testament. The New Testament was written, in secret, by the Roman aristocracy as an antidote to Judaism...

No. Such assertions are popular among keyboard warriors, but have no credibility. The evidence all points to the NT being early. E.G. Nearly all scholars agree Paul, a Jew, penned at least 7 of the letters attributed to him beginning around 50CE, and he quotes sayings about the resurrection of Christ that probably date back to the mid-30's CE. The Gospel of John includes reference to an architectural feature that was destroyed by the Romans C.69-70AD and considered a myth by modern scholars until it was discovered (I think in the C19th, but the exact date isn't relevant). The only evidence is that early Christianity emerged from Judaism and the NT makes most sense when understood that way. The point being that the alleged link between Christianity and Mithraism, or any other mystery cult, is a bigger myth than critics claim for the NT itself.

Well I'm not a keyboard warrior and I'm well-read enough to confidently assert that the New Testament is fiction cobbled together with snippets of obvious fact; the latter being completely irrelevant to the supposed message the New Testament wants to deliver.

That's all I'll say though, because I spent lots of wasted hours on another thread like this on here with a pair of twits who treated the arguments like jazz solos (i.e. pure invention on the fly).

Vestitor:Well I'm not a keyboard warrior and I'm well-read enough to confidently assert that the New Testament is fiction cobbled together with snippets of obvious fact; the latter being completely irrelevant to the supposed message the New Testament wants to deliver.

That's all I'll say though, because I spent lots of wasted hours on another thread like this on here with a pair of twits who treated the arguments like jazz solos (i.e. pure invention on the fly).

Glad you don't want to argue! It's Not why I'm on Lernu (but couldn't let it go unchallenged). (BTW, I didn't mean to accuse *you* of being a keyboard warrior, just that that's where a lot of this stuff comes from.) Totally agree - you can waste your life spending hours on the internet trying to convince complete strangers to change there mind - the worst place to try to accomplish anything like that. Enjoy your day/night, whatever it is in your timezone.

BeardedBloke:

mkj1887:

Vestitor:It may be cool, but it's also completely false.

Yes, but you can say the same about the New Testament. The New Testament was written, in secret, by the Roman aristocracy as an antidote to Judaism...

No. Such assertions are popular among keyboard warriors, but have no credibility. The evidence all points to the NT being early. E.G. Nearly all scholars agree Paul, a Jew, penned at least 7 of the letters attributed to him beginning around 50CE, and he quotes sayings about the resurrection of Christ that probably date back to the mid-30's CE. The Gospel of John includes reference to an architectural feature that was destroyed by the Romans C.69-70AD and considered a myth by modern scholars until it was discovered (I think in the C19th, but the exact date isn't relevant). The only evidence is that early Christianity emerged from Judaism and the NT makes most sense when understood that way. The point being that the alleged link between Christianity and Mithraism, or any other mystery cult, is a bigger myth than critics claim for the NT itself.

I think the roots of your beard have grown up into your brain.

Anyway, bear in mind that a major truth or breakthrough is seldom promulgated without some error in detail. To give just one example, Copernicus had the right idea, but he was mistaken in the details.

And what do you think about keyboard cowards who hide their identity?

mkj1887:I think the roots of your beard have grown up into your brain.

Anyway, bear in mind that a major truth or breakthrough is seldom promulgated without some error in detail. To give just one example, Copernicus had the right idea, but he was mistaken in the details.

And what do you think about keyboard cowards who hide their identity?

Very odd. The roots/follicles do not grow backwards and if they had grown the way you suggest then our bearded friend would have bigger problems than being right or wrong on a speculative matter.

The thing about Copernicus though, being a scientist (or natural philosopher if you like), is that he was not trying to prove a conclusion. If we were to fetch him from history and point out his errors as well as the fact he was on the right track, he may well be overjoyed.

I don't know if this is the same as the 'errors' in so-called sacred or 'revealed' texts. These tend to have intractable errors because the conclusion is fixed and immutable and everything 'evidential' is constructed on it or with it in mind. Pull one brick out and the lot comes down, so they have to stay and ever outlandish, foolish new explanations are given to try and solve the problems.

I'm not pointing the finger at you, but so many people on the internet talk about keyboard warriors or anonymous cowards or whatever. In reality what gets typed into these little boxes is all there is and it should stand or fall based on its merit. The question of a person's official academic credentials or what their real name might be is completely irrelevant.