What makes Joseph Smith any less credible than Muhammad or Paul?

Question

Does the absence of responses from believers indicate their doubts in their beliefs?

Answer 1

Absolutely nothing. Their claims all revolve around relevation to a single person or a minute group of people. These claims are, by definition (and cynics would say by design), impossible to verify or otherwise explore.

If you are interested in learning more about various historical revelation stories and their relative logical strengths, I suggest you read about the Kuzari principle, which can be found described here:

http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm

Answer 2

Nothing.


However, that does not make Mr Smith credible. Because he lived in an age with much more scientific reasoning and much better record keeping it is a lot easier to critique what he said and did.

Comparing this for Paul, from a time when prophets and messiahs and gods were a dime a dozen. Also since the christian church he set up in the Roman Empire became dominant any writings that were non-Pauline were suppressed. Look at the gospels of Thomas, Judas, etc. Look what chappened at the council iof Nicea.

Answer 3

*Is Catholic*

With Joseph Smith, it is easy. You cannot fit the Book of Mormon on 2 Gold Plates, especially if you are using hieroglyphics. Convenient that he lost them too. That is enough to make you the least credible.

Joseph Smith and Muhammad have the exact same argument. "Everyone else got it wrong but "I" have it right!" You cannot claim that the complete historical record of religion is wrong but some how God gave you the truth. That is not a rational argument, it is delusion. You cannot prove that claim either.

With St. Paul, that is another story. St. Paul doesn't claim that he is right and others are wrong. St. Paul claims that the historical record of the Jews is right and that Jesus fulfills the promises in the historical record. St. Paul's arguments are thus more credible because he ties himself to a verifiable historical record. The question with St. Paul is were the prophecies of the historical record of Judaism fulfilled by Jesus?

---
PS if you ask about Moses, Moses never claimed to have it right. He showed up one day saying, your God whom you worship told me this. And Abraham, he was worshiping the God of his Fathers, God didn’t show up one day and say Im the real God they all have it wrong, let me tell you how it is.

Answer 4

i think what you're asking is "Why might want to extra adult adult males and women human beings adjust to Muhammad then Joseph Smith?" Your sentence production may properly be very poor. have you ever taken an English attractiveness? The capacity this question is written it variety of feels to be saying that Muslims evaluate in Muhammad more beneficial than they provide idea to in Joseph Smith. See what I recommend? All human beings that were imagined to be prophets have also been imagined to make outlandish statments. So. what's your component?

Answer 5

Nothing at all. None of them are credible. Only the cults started by Mohammad and by Paul have lasted longer.

Answer 6

More credible...first of all, there's quite a bit of evidence he really existed.

Answer 7

Absolutely nothing. All have zero credibility.

Answer 8

Nothing.

That's why I'm not buying into any of those religions.