>>18465673
Not really different from Christianity itself. Some guy named Peter claimed to have visions of an angle (Jesus) giving him the TRUE version of Judaism, which had been lost.
Then Paul comes along and says the same, updating Peter's revelation with new addendums. Then it became codified and turned into a hierarchy and system and revelation was shut down.
Why did anyone believe Peter or Paul? It's the same with Smith, people genuinely thought he was talking to an angel and believed his claims. And once it was a religion they were just part of his flock.

File: images(25).jpg (45 KB, 518x592)

45 KB JPG

He looks angelic

File: Screenshot_20260507_19111(...).jpg (388 KB, 1079x968)

388 KB JPG

>>18465681
You're confused. Peter did not claim to have visions of the true version of Judaism, he was a direct disciple of Jesus and was given that name by him, his original name was Simon. Paul did claim to see a vision, but Ananias of Damascus confirmed it with his own vision. Paul wrote the earliest Christian writings we have today and was active at the same time as Peter.

The differences between Peter and Paul and Joseph Smith are that they were contemporaries of Jesus and didn't have insane and egregious abuses, sins and hypocrisies taking place while they were in their positions. The worst thing we know about Peter doing after Jesus' death was the Galatians incident. Paul said controversial things, but he was very open about where he stood and was willing to hold his own (Peter, an apostle and a fellow Jew) accountable for that incident. Joseph was breaking his own rules, created a fake bank, leading violence, "marrying" other women through manipulation and ultimatums (including teenaged foster daughters) while trying to hide it from his first wife, even conducting fake ceremonies between the wives and men and publicly denying polygamy,

If I'm a Greek slave living in the first century CE, it makes sense to take Paul or Peter seriously. They made supernatural claims, but they were honorable men with clear devotion to their cause. Why would anyone take Smith seriously when he was so blatantly problematic?

>>18465712
>You're confused. Peter did not claim to have visions of the true version of Judaism, he was a direct disciple of Jesus and was given that name by him, his original name was Simon
Firstly, his real name was Cephas, according to Paul, I just used Peter as a colloquialism. Secondly, he was an APOSTLE of Jesus, and never met him on Earth. Indeed, when Paul discussed how they differed, and was defending himself from accusations by opponents, he NEVER mentions Cephas ever walking around with Jesus. And doesn't even seem AWARE it's even possible.
"Disciple" comes from the much later Gospel of Mark (all other Gospels being redactions on that one).
So given that Paul is only aware of visions being the way to meet Jesus, it is safe to assume that because no one ever challenged him with the contrary, that it simply wasn't the case. Ipso facto, Cephas got visions of Jesus the same way Paul did.

This is not unlike how Smith claimed to found Mormonism, visions from an angel. This is also the way Mohammed founded Islam. Cephas had his own visions that update Judaism with new information, and founded a Jewish cult that would become Christianity.

>The differences between Peter and Paul and Joseph Smith are that they were contemporaries of Jesus and didn't have insane and egregious abuses, sins and hypocrisies taking place while they were in their positions
I didn't say it was identical, just that it is not something novel that Smith could just say "I met an angel who said XYZ" and people believed him. In the right place and right time, that testimony has great weight.

>>18465681
We didn't have journalism back then.

>>18465726
So you're not fully confused about the record, you're just infected with schizo DaVinci Code tier delusions, alright

Paul directly references the physical death of Jesus by crucifixion, his resurrection, and the witnesses that saw it, saying most were still alive at the time. He references him being born of a woman and being a Jew. He refers to the institution of the Lord's Supper. Your interpretation sounds like someone trying to be critical scholar while not being able to rationally conceptualize hypothetical events

>>18465745
>Paul directly references the physical death of Jesus by crucifixion
Correct, but he also says directly that no one was there to witness it because it is ONLY known about via codes in Scriptures
>his resurrection
Correct, because he met Jesus after he rose from the dead, having been killed by Satan and his demons(Paul directly says this too)
>the witnesses that saw it
This is referencing the 500 I assume? That was in the Creed, and only takes place AFTER Jesus resurrected. Aka, it was a vision. In the same Creed Paul says that we only know Jesus died AT ALL thanks to the Scriptures.
> He references him being born of a woman
The women in Galatians 4 are allegorical, and Paul says this a few passages later. I mean he LITERALLY says the TWO women are allegories. Jesus being "born of a woman" is invoked to say he was "born under the Law", that is to say, born to be bound by death and sin.
Galatians 4 is an extended allegory for how and WHY adoption into God's family via Jesus works. It contains zero references to Mary, or James(which is weird if he is Jesus's blood relative and Paul met him), or anything else from the Gospels. Go ahead, reread it.
>being a Jew
Correct again, the body of Jesus was a Jewish one, and it HAD to be to fulfill Jewish prophecy. But guess what? Bodies, and land and stones and dirt, all exist in "heavens". Yes, you read that right, and Paul talks about this in his epistles. So Jesus took on a body of Jewish flesh, constructed from the seed of David as per OT prophecy, to be killed in the region near the moon by Satan. This is all in Paul's epistles.
>He refers to the institution of the Lord's Supper
Glad you know now to call it the LAST Supper. But guess how he learns about this? That's right, a VISION, where Jesus isn't actually talking to guys sitting next to him, but instead to the READER. Seriously, go back and reread it carefully. You'll see what I mean.

>>18465754
Paul says the Jews killed Jesus in 1 Thessalonians. And I don't think the two women Paul refers to allegorically later in Gal 4 (Hagar and Sarah) are directly related to the woman he references earlier with Jesus.

Your whole framework is very unintuitive. Are you apart of some sect or something? Or it this just the power of conspiratorial thinking?

>>18465766
It's actually a common postmodernist position, I'm surprised you've never encountered his ilk before.

>>18465673
Mormons do exist, you know, you can ask them.

>>18465766
>Paul says the Jews killed Jesus in 1 Thessalonians
Firstly, 1st Thessalonians is not Pauline. It even directly contradicts Paul (who says the "archons of this aeon" killed Jesus). Secondly, it's literally untrue. The Romans DIRECTLY killed Jesus, and the "blood curse" isn't even from 1st Thessalonians, that's from Matthew, and even in Matthew "the Jews" weren't the crowd, it's just a general crowd of people. And finally, "the Jews" didn't kill Jesus even IN the Gospels, the Sanhedrin were the cause of his trial and execution.
And finally, NONE of that is what Paul wrote or even seems to be aware of.
>I don't think the two women Paul refers to allegorically later in Gal 4
I'd like to know why you think that?
>>18465770
I'm just talking about what's literally in the text and what Paul actually wrote, since this thread is about the FOUNDERS of a new religion. Not late additions.

>>18465770
What's post-modernist about Jesus mythicism?

>>18465673
charisma is pretty much all you need to get people to believe you, just saying the right thing at the right time with confidence will get enough people to follow you, either because they know they can get a cut or because they really believe, and from there you just need to control it for a few generations and you got a self sustaining plot