I Learned about the true joseph smith, father of the church I grew up in. It is now all on the internet, for everyone to see. It freed me from this cult. It was like a heavy weight being removed from my shoulders. I am so grateful to be free of it. My life is much happier now. I am finally finding peace after believing for 40 years and thinking that I needed to live my life based on a final judgement after death. I am finally moving forward again. I agree with your sentiments. May all people find their separate peace, however they may.
I do think the Apostles and First Presidency has done a LOT of ecumenicism in recent decades, but I've been happy to see recent General Conference addresses pull-back somewhat from the notion that we're just like everyone else. Pres. Nelson did make a very bold statement at the last General Conference: "Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality, but no other organization can and will influence your life after death." While I do think the missionary efforts need some re-imagining in some ways, as well as some of the PR, when it comes to the messaging from the top, our distinctiveness is still made clear. I will agree. We do indeed believe, think and behave differently from people in the rest of Christendom.
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation?
@@valinorean4816 hmm... Thank you! 🙂 I wasn't expecting that comment coming under this particular topic, but - if only time lets me - I would love to address the topic as well. Thanks again!
@@mormonolog You're welcome? Maybe before making a video about it, you can address it right here? I'm surprised you're not responding to the question?..
What is wrong with that explanation? Nothing is wrong with it as far as a hypothesis is concerned, but then you must test it to see if it holds up to scrutiny. 1. Motive: The Romans were against Christianity for the first 200 years. Why would they be the ones to prop up a religion they wanted to destroy? 2. Feasibility: Jesus was seen by multitudes as well as those closest to him. How would an impersonator deceive so many? 3. In the end, the truth will come from the spirit after study, prayer and faith.
@@NoelFallstrom 1. They wanted to promote among the J-ws a movement that preached peace and nonviolent coexistence - this was in the heavy pre-War atmosphere, remember (broadly reminsicent e.g. of Russia going to any scheming lengths trying to absorb Ukraine - or for any other reason). See e.g. 1 Peter 2:13-18 - chef's kiss! Also, John 11:47-48 directly states that the Romans had a motive to create an atmosphere of miracles around him. Note that they did not expect it to "esc-pe the lab" - it was intended for local use only, and at the same time as Nero was terrorizing Christians in Rome, the local Roman procurator was furious that the local Christian leader James was killed in his absence. See the difference? 2. With the state powers thrown at the task, it is possible to materialize a very good doppelganger of any given person (plus makeup, plus the poor lighting conditions of the appearances). Some of Stalin's doubles casually fooled even his closest friends and comrades in broad daylight! Can you name even one time that resurrected Jesus appeared in broad daylight - except on the road to Emmaus, which is precisely when he was not recognized, and he only started to look like Jesus to the travelers in the darkness of the room?
@@valinorean4816 I think the primary reason he isn't responding to your hypothesis off the top of his head, is because the resurrection of Jesus for someone in his particular religious camp has more than the traditional witnesses and attestations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints affirms a minimum of 2 addition testaments to the resurrection of Jesus and His divinity. In order for him to do a full treatment of the anti-Christian polemic of the Gospel of Afranius, he can't do so in short order. I haven't watched too much of his contents, so I don't know where he stands on the two truth claims that undergird those two additional testaments (The Book of Mormon and First Vision), but if he ascribes to what most Latter-Day Saints ascribe to, then I'd not expect him to consider the narrative put forward by Mr. Eskov to be historically accurate. As such, his response would necessarily be a critique, which would require far more than what a comment section can contain.
I Learned about the true joseph smith, father of the church I grew up in. It is now all on the internet, for everyone to see. It freed me from this cult. It was like a heavy weight being removed from my shoulders. I am so grateful to be free of it. My life is much happier now. I am finally finding peace after believing for 40 years and thinking that I needed to live my life based on a final judgement after death. I am finally moving forward again. I agree with your sentiments. May all people find their separate peace, however they may.
@mormonlog but you're not giving this guy a hard time?
I do think the Apostles and First Presidency has done a LOT of ecumenicism in recent decades, but I've been happy to see recent General Conference addresses pull-back somewhat from the notion that we're just like everyone else. Pres. Nelson did make a very bold statement at the last General Conference:
"Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality, but no other organization can and will influence your life after death."
While I do think the missionary efforts need some re-imagining in some ways, as well as some of the PR, when it comes to the messaging from the top, our distinctiveness is still made clear. I will agree. We do indeed believe, think and behave differently from people in the rest of Christendom.
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation?
@@valinorean4816 hmm... Thank you! 🙂 I wasn't expecting that comment coming under this particular topic, but - if only time lets me - I would love to address the topic as well. Thanks again!
@@mormonolog You're welcome? Maybe before making a video about it, you can address it right here? I'm surprised you're not responding to the question?..
What is wrong with that explanation?
Nothing is wrong with it as far as a hypothesis is concerned, but then you must test it to see if it holds up to scrutiny.
1. Motive: The Romans were against Christianity for the first 200 years. Why would they be the ones to prop up a religion they wanted to destroy?
2. Feasibility: Jesus was seen by multitudes as well as those closest to him. How would an impersonator deceive so many?
3. In the end, the truth will come from the spirit after study, prayer and faith.
@@NoelFallstrom 1. They wanted to promote among the J-ws a movement that preached peace and nonviolent coexistence - this was in the heavy pre-War atmosphere, remember (broadly reminsicent e.g. of Russia going to any scheming lengths trying to absorb Ukraine - or for any other reason). See e.g. 1 Peter 2:13-18 - chef's kiss! Also, John 11:47-48 directly states that the Romans had a motive to create an atmosphere of miracles around him. Note that they did not expect it to "esc-pe the lab" - it was intended for local use only, and at the same time as Nero was terrorizing Christians in Rome, the local Roman procurator was furious that the local Christian leader James was killed in his absence. See the difference?
2. With the state powers thrown at the task, it is possible to materialize a very good doppelganger of any given person (plus makeup, plus the poor lighting conditions of the appearances). Some of Stalin's doubles casually fooled even his closest friends and comrades in broad daylight! Can you name even one time that resurrected Jesus appeared in broad daylight - except on the road to Emmaus, which is precisely when he was not recognized, and he only started to look like Jesus to the travelers in the darkness of the room?
@@valinorean4816 I think the primary reason he isn't responding to your hypothesis off the top of his head, is because the resurrection of Jesus for someone in his particular religious camp has more than the traditional witnesses and attestations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints affirms a minimum of 2 addition testaments to the resurrection of Jesus and His divinity. In order for him to do a full treatment of the anti-Christian polemic of the Gospel of Afranius, he can't do so in short order. I haven't watched too much of his contents, so I don't know where he stands on the two truth claims that undergird those two additional testaments (The Book of Mormon and First Vision), but if he ascribes to what most Latter-Day Saints ascribe to, then I'd not expect him to consider the narrative put forward by Mr. Eskov to be historically accurate. As such, his response would necessarily be a critique, which would require far more than what a comment section can contain.