Even though posters don't seem to change their minds - which is totally fine.

When I was growing up in such a tight-knit community of Mormonism there were TWO Jesi.

Mormon Jesus - who was totally true.

And Regular Christian Jesus - who didn't make any sense and was silly.

When I went on my mission to Germany and heard the German people have varying ideas about Jesus, it blew my mind. And some of them sounded insane.

I was interested in early Christianity - was interested in the Mormon claims that the church is the church that Christ built up when he wasn't shoryukening evil spirits out of people.

I went to Hugh Nibley. That didn't make any sense. And he used terms like "Gnostics" that he never fully explained, and I had never encountered before.

So, I did MORE research.

And suddenly a plethora of Jesi came at me like they had been stuffed into a birthday pinata.

Jesus was god.

Jesus was the western version of Buddah.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.

Jesus was myth.

But there were also all of these sects that couldn't agree on him. And even the four "canonized" gospels don't agree on him either.

It was so great for me to just see how many ideas were out there. And the more I studied about early Christianity, the more I realized that Mormonism doesn't have the first clue about their own claim.

And that was a step towards my exit out of Mormonism.

Even though I may not persuade a single person to my side of the argument, I think it's really important for lurkers to see that there is an argument. When you grow up so entrenched in Mormonism - that single idea becomes so pervasive - but being able to share the debate allows for people to think.

It's not just an automatic.

The end.

I LOVE this post! Even though I am a deeply committed Xian, listening to the point of view of an atheist is fine with me. Even if an atheist doesn't respect my right to believe their opinion is of value to me as a human on his or her own path.

That's a mis-characterization of Atheists.

Atheists respect your "right" to believe anything you want, as Atheists are usually ardent supporters of civil rights.

What atheists might not "respect" is your decision to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But then if course that is THEIR right. Right?

Know that must be true somewhere. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to the ones I've met lately. Thanks for your input though.

And on second thought thanks for slamming my personal experience.

You're welcome!

Shall I call you a Whambulance now?

Sorry but don't know that term. Why not start another thread? Or are you just ridiculing me and my beliefs?

Wait. Didn't you just say...

" Even if an atheist doesn't respect my right to believe their opinion is of value to me as a human on his or her own path."

I'm an atheist.

So what's your point, Siobhan?

Is my opinion of value to you, or not?

Was your first post just a bunch of hot air?

Cuz you seem to be whining a lot about me expressing my opinion.

You have obviously been so hurt by the Mormon Church you cannot express your opinion with any coherence. I'm sorry that religion has hurt you so. Had you read what I said to begin with you would have seen that I was referring to many atheists who expect me to believe in their own personal interpretation of atheism to the point that it might as well be another religion.And actually,after these few exchanges your opinion of me and to me is worthless. Have a nice day telling everyone about the Christian who was mean and persecuted you today.

siobhan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have obviously been so hurt by the Mormon
> Church you cannot express your opinion with any
> coherence.

***You should reread your posts before you start talking about coherence.

I'm sorry that religion has hurt you
> so.

***who said anything about that?
And, something tells me that you're not so much "sorry", but merely passive aggressive.


Had you read what I said to begin with you
> would have seen that I was referring to many
> atheists who expect me to believe in their own
> personal interpretation of atheism to the point
> that it might as well be another religion.

***I think that the fact that I quoted you back to yourself shows that I've read your posts.


And
> actually,after these few exchanges your opinion of
> me and to me is worthless.

***There's that whining thing again...

Have a nice day telling
> everyone about the Christian who was mean and
> persecuted you today.

*** Gurl, you're gonna have to do a lot better than that if I'm going to be "telling everyone" about our little talk.

And stop projecting your persecution complex on me.

But seriously Siobhan, I have nothing against you. I believe that you have the right to believe any nonsense that you want. But there is nothing wrong with me criticizing your beliefs if I disagree. My whole argument with you was to demonstrate this.

You have a right to your beliefs.
You do not have a right for your beliefs to be respected by others.
I hope you come to understand that. You might get your feelings hurt less if you do.
In any case, it's not personal. I have no problem with you. We're just discussing.

Next time you go convertin' try leaving off the 'gurl ' you won't come off as the mean queen you are exposing yourself to be. Do you waiterbait too?

The Library is now open!

You know it, Hunty!

No, but I do masturbate.

Does that count?

I find it entertaining. I grab my popcorn and a drink and laugh my ass off.

How's the popcorn, Fidget? :D

Fuckin amazing! lmao

First you leave the one true church and then next thing you're seeing the importance of ALL viewpoints and angles. What a slippery slope. Deep down you KNOW that fact and reason are the tools of the devil. Be very careful my friend. This considering other viewpoints is dangerous and will surely lead to contentment and happiness.

I'm reading the postings with great interest. I've never delved deeply into the study of Jesus, so this has been educational. I'm familiar with the many problems and controversies regarding the bible, but have neve delved deeply into that either.

Oh, but the Raptor Jesus is historical. Wait, hysterical. :)

Whether or not Jesus is historical, when it comes to following the example of all the purported God's out there, Jesus of the New Testament (not the Mormon Jesus) is amazing. He stood up to authority, legalism, organized religion, and shunning people who are different. He hung out with the poor, the 'sinners' and other people shunned because they were ill. He healed, blessed, loved, wept, was compassionate, merciful, and was never afraid to take on the powerful to encourage the weak to stand up for themselves. For Jesus, all things were founded in love and compassion. Can't go wrong in following the New Testament Jesus.

It's the dogmatic and institutionalized Christianity that is silly to me. Not Jesus of Nazareth, whether historical or not.

Yes I love the historical Jesus debate too. Originally, as a TBM, it was the obvious difference between Mormon Jesus and Bible Jesus that got me a thinkin' and it was a slippery slope indeed to wondering just who was this guy really...with time I started to entertain the possibility that he was fictional altogether. Wow what a new world that was, reading the great thinkers who had been debating this issue for years was an eye opener.

To a TBM it is scary to open your brain to the possibility that Jesus never was there the whole time you were praying to or through him. Now it doesn't bother me at all, but when I first came to the realization that the whole thing was probably just smoke and mirrors it was kind of scary.

Of course, sitting in Sunday School as a TBM you will never be able to have a decent conversation about historical Jesus. So sad, too bad.

Of all of us in Sunday School shouting at each other over this.

One of us getting up and yelling, "I TOLD YOU TO READ!!!!"

....brought a tear to my eye.

On my way out of the church, I read "King Jesus" and parts of the "Nazarene Gospel Restored" by Robert Graves. I had earlier read "I, Claudius" from him and enjoyed it. "King Jesus" was the first time I had thought of Jesus in the cultural and political setting of his time and not of the picture postcard Jesus of church lessons. I later attended sessions of the Jesus Seminar that expanded on the themes of historical and cultural settings for sifting the text of the New Testament. (They were a little dismissive of Graves, "He's done all the easy stuff..") Then came the Nag Hammadi texts. By then I was completely done with the church. I highly recommend "King Jesus." Graves provides some interesting alternatives to understanding stories like the loaves and fishes, or turning water into wine.

While I believe that Jesus was a real person and great religious teacher, I accept that I will probably never fully understand his message and certainly could never hold others to my interpretation of it, as I cannot be a first century Jew. Without that frame of reference, he will always be beyond my comprehension. As far as I can tell, there is no representation of Jesus in word or image that conveys his true identity. Consequently, every generation alters his image to better fit its own times and predilections. "What Would Jesus Do" thinking is an example of this type of arrogance. Unless you've lived in first century Judea, you probably have no idea what Jesus would do.

Amen! Wait - in the name is Jesus Christ, amen. Hahahaha

I totally agree with you and your last paragraph mirrors my views exactly.

The thing that has always been bewildering to me on this issue is that the Christian view of "Jesus" (assuming that such a SINGLE person ever lived), almost always totally ignores both the historical context of that Roman-ruled geographical area in that time, plus, also, the Jewish cultural and religious context that Jesus---if "he" DID live---lived within, and was supposedly an exponent of, his ENTIRE LIFETIME!!!

If you just take the story at face value, Jesus was a JEWISH reformer...in a land then owned and controlled by foreigners (who were plenty brutal in their rule)...talking to JEWS...about JEWISH concerns and JEWISH values.

Yet, other than a very brief, almost glancing acknowledgement that Jesus was, somehow...in SOME way...a Jew, the Jewish context that "this man" (again: if there WAS such a man) lived his life totally within is COMPLETELY ignored!!!

This isn't always true, of course. I've read some really interesting analyses of Jesus and his life and his teachings, which DID include the Jewish context that he was born into, lived his life within, and died within...but these are almost always books and studies written by extremely educated (and mostly progressive) Christian scholars for OTHER Christian scholars. Up to now anyway, this has not been the stuff of Christian pop literature.

I think it is enormously unsettling that children born into Christian families can be raised in Christian denominations, grow up going to Sunday school and summer Bible school and Christian camps, and wind up as adults never knowing ANYTHING about Judaism! Seems to me that there should be age-appropriate "Jewish 101" classes, or some kind of enrichment activities (like enactments of Passover seders or Purim celebrations, or visits to a local synagogue), at all levels of child and young adult development, so Christian kids acquired SOME knowledge of the life Jesus actually lived...but instead, there is this beautifully Disney-colored---SUPPOSEDLY "ancient Israel"---neverneverland that not only NEVER existed, but offers no understanding of Jesus AT ALL.

The Jesus taught by most Christian denominations, to at least most of their adherents, most certainly never, ever existed (even if there WAS a "single man" "Jesus"). It is as false a characterization and history as a Disney cartoon version of Yankee Doodle Dandy.

Okay...my rant for the day is over ;).

Time for me to get to work!!!

:D :D :D

If Lehi and his little group had existed and left behind a history, the writings would reflect the devotion to the holidays and devotions of 5th century BC Hebrews. There isn't any cultural reference to that world in the BOM.

Maybe that's why there is no "Jewish 101" for Mormons. (Or other Christians. Why give members the knowledge to question their beliefs.)

(I do have to say that when I attended my first Mass, I had the distinct impression of experiencing something far older than any of my cultural references. I never had that feeling in the LDS temple or service.)

One of the things I found very interesting in my studies was that the Pharisees truly believed that they were in the right for shutting Jesus up.

One reason would be that Jesus was considered to be a magician, and that the magic he used to cast out devils actually invited MORE demonic spirits into Earthrelm.

They did not like the cut of his jib - they already felt surrounded by evil, and this man along with many others just like him - were making a world an even more evil infested place.

This is REALLY confusing to me. Contemporary Jews (with MAYBE some of the usual, rightwing, nutters excluded) do NOT believe in demons/devils/bad spirits/Satan...and (as a sort of related side issue) generally have VERY little interest in what happens after death. (There is NO heaven/hell, or heaven/purgatory/hell, paradigm in Judaism.) So everything that has to do with demons/devils/bad spirits/Satan is not only jarring because it has no Jewish context that [contemporary, anyway] Jews are familiar with, it sounds like the blood libels of centuries past, where Jews were being accused of things invented and believed in by Christians.



Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the things I found very interesting in my
> studies was that the Pharisees truly believed that
> they were in the right for shutting Jesus up.

Uh, yeah...the Romans were brutal enough on their BEST days, and they certainly were in the running for "most brutal behavior in history" lists when they were pissed. The secular histories of Roman brutalities and atrocities is horrendous...and troublemakers running around, collecting followers, and amping up the frustrations of the Jewish people would be unnerving to any political forces at that time. (And though the "fight" was done THROUGH "religion"--as that word is understood now, have no doubt that the ancient Pharisees--just as the ultra-Orthodox in Israel right at this very MINUTE--were using "religion" to fight a totally POLITICAL struggle.) We see these exact same dynamics happening in our American political struggles RIGHT NOW--look at any day's news coverage of politics in any general US newspaper anywhere for verification of what I am saying here.

>
> One reason would be that Jesus was considered to
> be a magician, and that the magic he used to cast
> out devils actually invited MORE demonic spirits
> into Earthrelm.

Again: "magician," "magic," "devils," "demonic spirits" are SO outside of ANYTHING in contemporary Judaism that I don't even know how to adequately address this. There might be SOME possibility that two thousand years ago there was some kind of belief along these lines, but if so, I have never heard of it or read of it--and I'm pretty sure it would have come up SOMEWHERE if it HAD existed back then.


> They did not like the cut of his jib - they
> already felt surrounded by evil, and this man
> along with many others just like him - were making
> a world an even more evil infested place.

Jews do not believe in "evil" in the sense the word is being used here. They are aware that people can do (and often actually do) evil things, but this doesn't mean that there is a "thing" "named" evil. And even the ancient Pharisees (or any other Jews) did not believe that Palestine was an "evil infested place"--it was a place under foreign domination, and the foreign dominators were very self-centered and (most often) NOT very nice people (even--or maybe especially--among themselves). All of which had NOTHING to do with a person who may or may not have lived and whose name, if such a person existed, was definitely NOT Jesus! ;)

Underneath all of the above is the fact that every Jew today is a Pharisee. The political fight back then between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, etc. was WON by the Pharisees. It is easier to "see" this today by looking at your local Chabad rabbi, who is probably PRETTY close to what Pharisees were back then...but today, the Chabadniks and their religious kin are a small and very highly marginalized group that, by today's standards, are cultlike in every way.

But two thousand years ago, when the Pharisees WON that Jewish "civil war," the Pharisees LIBERALIZED Judaism by decentralizing it. Instead of one temple (which the Romans destroyed, and for which I am, personally, very grateful), every local area had its own synagogue where people gathered to say the community prayers (some prayers, like the prayer for the dead, can ONLY be said if there is a quota of Jews to say it together), and which became centers of Jewish community culture.

I wouldn't have it any other way, nor would more than 99% of Jews today have it any other way. (The people who want to rebuild the temple are a tiny, tiny, TINY splinter group of far less than 1% of the Jewish people worldwide.) Which means that 99%+ of Jews today are PHARISEES.

And yet we are, in most places anyway, among the most liberal and progressive of human groups (that's why we're always, historically and everywhere, getting into trouble for being rabble rousers--we're "making the world a better place" as a direct expression of our core beliefs).

And nobody believes in devils or magic or whatever...and it is VERY hard to believe that two thousand years ago this was a motivating factor in a political group--the Pharisees--who then, instantly, became among the most progressive and liberal people on the planet, a defining feature which has lasted over two thousand years now.

It just doesn't make logical sense to believe that Pharisees back then were motivated by beliefs in evil, demons, etc. at all...especially since this is SO outside of the norms of, say, post-Medieval Judaism.

The Pharisees were politicians, fighting for a (more-or-less) just political cause that actually was progressive in its outcome (though I don't believe for a minute that any of them back then were, personally, progressives), and despite being dominated by a brutal group of foreign interlopers.

Contemporary Judaism isn't Pharisaic Judaism from the first century.

During that period of time there was an amazing admixture of Middle East folklore within Jerusalem, from Arabian Djinn to Persian Daevas, to various Semitic ideas of fallen angels and wandering spirits.

From the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia under "Demons":

"But there was danger lest the exorcism practised by Gentiles and Jews alike should engender the spirit of impurity underlying all magic, the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate magic being anything but sharply drawn...

"It was, therefore, not hostility which prompted the Pharisees to accuse Jesus and his disciples of "casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils.". The more devils cast out, the more appeared. The cure offered to an age in constant dread of demons only aggravated the disease."

"Pharisaism diagnosed the disease of the age differently, and therefore insisted that the observance of the Law was the best prophylactic against demons."

I hope this helps your understanding, Tevai.

And as you are well aware of - also has factions with various thoughts, teachings, philosophies.

Kabbalah would be something modern that would be a blend of Judaism, Mysticism, Astrology, New Age ideals.

Judaism may not want to accept Kabbalah as being purely Jewish - but it's a modern faction that deals with spirits and demons.

You can also look into names like, Mastema, and Asmodeaus as some ancient sects of Judaism who believed in hierarchies of demons.

I'm inclined to say "You're all right."
Judaism today is not identical to Pharisaic, BUT it is descended from that tradition instead of Sadducees, Essenes, etc.
Judaism has practically no emphasis on the afterlife, demons, etc., BUT there is some talk which can be found here and there such as in the Kabbalah-- which is about 800 years old with another millenium or more precursor in Jewish mysticism. Talk of demons is also here and there in the Talmud, but what doesn't that text talk about at some point?
I'd ask please don't confuse the tradition of Kabbalah stemming from the 12th century's Zohar with its modern rip-offs such as the Kabbalah Center (yuck), BUT... it's obviously really easy to do.

There's even a recent Christian preacher who got into a lot of trouble for saying that "hell didn't exist."

So, the abandonment of devils has come and gone quite a lot throughout human history.

I have to agree with you. Christianity without the to foundation of Jewish law is incomplete. Drives me nutz to read rants here about the awful Hebrew God & slavery; some people conveniently skip over the year of Jubilee.
In the context of the times, very critical, I think the evidence for an historical Jesus is quite sufficient. That's a left brain decision.

To mormons, Jesus was a guy that JS met up with in the woods. Jesus had brought his dad along with him. They chatted for a bit, and the rest has been misery for ever after.

Raptor Jesus: "And the more I studied about early Christianity, the more I realized that Mormonism doesn't have the first clue about their own claim."

Could you explain more about this? I am fascinated by this subject also and am trying to figure out what to do with Jesus now that I am an ex-mormon. For a while I was atheist/agnostic leaning, and have read several books debunking christianity. But as always, I'm much more interested in debunking mormonism!

So expound on your statement, please.

This one is funny because of the title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

It's a brief synopsis of all the differing sects of Christianity before the Catholic church "won" and called them all heretics.

You should note though, that they had wide variety of ideas both about Jesus, and how a "church" should be run.

It's an ok springboard.

When I mentioned Hugh Nibley - what he did was - he took the ideas from all of these sects that looked the most "Mormony" to him in order to argue that there must have been some church that Jesus first started that had all those ideas, was a proto-Mormonism, and then fell into apostasy.

It doesn't fly.

I never had the same feeling. The same Jeebus that I see Christians worship now is the Jeebus that I was really into when I was Mormon. Yes,there was some differing mythology, but it made little difference in the messages I was trying to live my life by.

It really comes down to this: Some people believe that Santa has green pants and some people believe he has red pants. The major parts of the Santa myth are all the same. It doesn't really matter though because the thing we should really be worried about is that people believe in Santa.

look up the word Issas on the internet

I like it because every now and then I feel the urge to be an anonymous prick on the internet...

Agreed!!

(see my posts above)

I tip my hat to you, Sir!

That made me chuckle. :)

A chuckle a day keeps loud laughter away.

Since leaving Mormonism I have an unquenchable thirst to study all religions. I'm not seeking a new one for myself, I'm simply fascinated with how all these myths came to be, and what causes people to take them up. Of course, I'm an atheist now. And I think Christ is a myth.