I would submit it is not of great importance.

More important than whether or not Jesus, as purported, existed would be the merit of his preachings which are deeply flawed.

One could suggest that "turn the other cheek" is the central tenet of Christianity, or at least of many strains of it.

When the other cheek is turned, an injustice is created as well as an opportunity for an aggressor to be emboldened.

This creates, which is the problem for most religions, opportunity where the powerful may exploit the followers.

Peace exists only when justice exists.

I think it matters.

Many millions of people today "believe" in the "teachings of jesus" because they "believe" he was a real person who really existed, really said the things in the bible, really did miracles, really was the magical son of god, and really resurrected.

Accepting the reality of "jesus," they often uncritically accept the "teachings." It doesn't matter WHAT he taught, it has to be right, because he's the magical-working magically-born son of god, so anything he says is right.

If such people accepted that there's really no evidence of the reality of the gospel stories, which opens up the possibility of it being just a bunch of stuff ignorant people of the time made up, some progress towards ditching the "flawed teachings" might be made.

A parallel to mormonism: once you learn all the nasty things Joseph Smith did, and find out that evidence shows he made up much of many of his claims about angels, translations, etc., you can stop blindly accepting his teachings as the revealed "word of god," and accept that they're just stuff a man made up. Similarly, if you can give up the notion that an actual son of god resurrected jesus made the proclamations in the bible, you can stop blindly accepting his teachings as the revealed word of god. And in both cases, start thinking instead.

:)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it matters.
>
> Many millions of people today "believe" in the
> "teachings of jesus" because they "believe" he was
> a real person who really existed, really said the
> things in the bible, really did miracles, really
> was the magical son of god, and really
> resurrected.
>
> Accepting the reality of "jesus," they often
> uncritically accept the "teachings." It doesn't
> matter WHAT he taught, it has to be right, because
> he's the magical-working magically-born son of
> god, so anything he says is right.
>
> If such people accepted that there's really no
> evidence of the reality of the gospel stories,
> which opens up the possibility of it being just a
> bunch of stuff ignorant people of the time made
> up, some progress towards ditching the "flawed
> teachings" might be made.

I don't know--I don't think it matters to believers. For starters, the absence of historical evidence up to this point hasn't swayed their belief. Plus, even if we found something incontrovertible tomorrow--like a Roman tablet cataloging the court records of Pilate's government that mentioned "Jesus of Nazareth, crucified"--the Gospel accounts of a virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection would still be a matter solely of belief or disbelief; the historical reality of a man named Jesus wouldn't really have any bearing on the faithful or Christian doctrine (i.e. they would still believe in the same Jesus they believe in now).

I totally agree. The whole Historic Jesus is a lot different than the Theological Jesus.

The Gospel of Mark is the "oldest" gospel in the Bible; however "Q" was probably around to the communities during the time since Matthew and Luke refer to it. Yet, the real "Mark Gospel" ended after the women found the empty tomb. All of the rest of the 40 days after visitation by Jesus was made up and added later. The Gospel of John was created to fill in other stories not cited and what the Christians thought was missing.

Now the Historic Jesus--We have proof that Paul existed and he knew Peter and Peter knew Jesus. Yet, the Real Jesus was nothing more than a strident follower of John the Baptist and just took his ways and teachings and carried on his zealot messages. Yet things like mass murder of infants at Jesus' birth, stars over stables, etc... was probably all made up.

dydimus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now the Historic Jesus--We have proof that Paul
> existed and he knew Peter and Peter knew Jesus.

Um, no we don't. There's no "proof" for any of those.
We have letters from "Paul" (but no originals)" and it's very likely he existed.
Nothing other than the very late, non-eyewitness, anonymously authored "acts of the apostles" shows "Paul" knew "Peter." Or that "Peter" knew jesus.

Referring to the two recent threads regarding the reality of Jesus and Socrates, it doesn't seem a controversial notion to propose that debate over Socrates' existence is far more academic than debate over the existence of the person many consider to be the savior of the entire human race.

Re. post of ificouldhietokolob ( ): "I think it matters...
Many millions of people today 'believe' in the 'teachings of jesus' because....they 'believe' he was a real person who really existed....really did miracles, really was the magical son of god, and really resurrected", (etc.).
-----

I also think it matters, and have done a lot of studying and thinking regarding both the BofM (which, in my opinion, is nonsense, and has no provenance to show otherwise); and the Christian Bible's teachings re. the divinity of Jesus.

Happily, far greater minds than those of "ificouldhietokolob's" and mine have studied this issue. Personally, I think 'kolob's position is far off base due to his seeming personal bias towards "not believing", and therefore, his tendency to brush-off evidences which strongly indicate otherwise.
----

Below I offer a couple of reasons why I believe Jesus is who the bible says he is:

1) The great Jewish historian, Josephus, records Jesus as having really lived.

2) Provenance: The Christian Bible's provenance strongly supports the historical information contained therein as reliable.

The Bible's provenance is revealed in the New and Old Testament. The N.T. contains the fulfillment of the prophecies made in the Old Testament re. the coming of a Savior--even though the O.T. was written some 400 years prior to the appearance of events recorded in the N.T.

Similarly, the O.T. verifies the validity of the doctrines in N.T., as it prophesied/predicted these events.

Hence, these "two witnesses" (the O.T. and N.T.) verify the viability of each other, via the path of provenance. And, provenance shows the beginning of things through verifiable, supporting, sources.

----

Re. The Book of Mormon: Contrary to the Bible, the BofM has no provenance whatsoever which supports its beginning, its self, and the claims made about it. Besides, its plagiarism from the Bible is obvious.

so basically... "Jesus is who the bible says he is" because... the bible

strong circular argument you've got there

(i'm sure others will explain #1 to you)

Every one of these points was addressed in the other thread. Perhaps because it was long you didn't read it? People who claim either the positive or the negative do so from a position of "belief". The actual evidence is inconclusive, otherwise there would be no debate.

The bible verifying Jesus is about as good as the book of Mormon predicting the Prophet Joseph Smith would restore the true gospel.

I like my evidence uncontaminated--and my hearsay a bit more imaginative.

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also think it matters, and have done a lot of
> studying and thinking regarding both the BofM
> (which, in my opinion, is nonsense, and has no
> provenance to show otherwise); and the Christian
> Bible's teachings re. the divinity of Jesus.
>
> Happily, far greater minds than those of
> "ificouldhietokolob's" and mine have studied this
> issue. Personally, I think 'kolob's position is
> far off base due to his seeming personal bias
> towards "not believing", and therefore, his
> tendency to brush-off evidences which strongly
> indicate otherwise.

Keep studying and thinking. You haven't quite understood facts or evidence yet.

> 1) The great Jewish historian, Josephus, records
> Jesus as having really lived.

No, actually, he doesn't. And even if he did, he was not born when supposed jesus supposedly lived, so at best he could offer hearsay. The thing is, he doesn't even offer that -- what's attributed to him is a later christian fraud.

> 2) Provenance: The Christian Bible's provenance
> strongly supports the historical information
> contained therein as reliable.

You know, you've repeated that phrase numerous times, yet never explained it. As it is, it's meaningless. Do you even know what the "provenance" of the NT books are? Hint: nobody really does, since no originals of any NT books (or any other bible book) exists.

> The Bible's provenance is revealed in the New
> and Old Testament. The N.T. contains the
> fulfillment of the prophecies made in the Old
> Testament re. the coming of a Savior--even though
> the O.T. was written some 400 years prior to the
> appearance of events recorded in the N.T.

Yeah, no "bias" there, huh? Never mind that *none* of the already vague OT "prophecies" fit, and that unknown, anonymous NT authors incorrectly quoted OT verses to try and MAKE them fit...
You should note that if supposed jesus supposedly fulfilled all the OT messiah prophecies, the Jews would welcome the jesus story with open arms. They don't. Know why? Because none of the "prophecies" fit. Try reading them.

> Similarly, the O.T. verifies the validity of the
> doctrines in N.T., as it prophesied/predicted
> these events.

The OT is largely a proven-false collection of ignorant myths, collected and piled together in an attempt to make up a mythic history for Hebrews returning from the Babylonian captivity. And I haven't got a clue what your sentence above actually means.

> Hence, these "two witnesses" (the O.T. and N.T.)
> verify the viability of each other, via the path
> of provenance. And, provenance shows the
> beginning of things through verifiable,
> supporting, sources.

They don't, the "provenance" stuff is still meaningless, and you appear to need a great deal more study in facts instead of mythology.

If you're going to try and make a reasonable argument, it's probably a good idea to actually know what you're talking about. So far you haven't done so.
Keep studying and thinking, you've got a long way to go.

Does it matter?

It certainly was of no importance to the supposed Jesus. One quick "drop-in" in six thousand years not counting his visit to Joseph Smith and that image in the window of Jose Garcia's house in Pacoima. He doesn't seem real interested. Y'know what I mean?

Jesus did nothing to insure his legacy would continue except reportedly tell his buddies, "Hey, tell everyone about me. Hosanna!"

He ignored the vast majority of the world feeling no need whatsoever to give the other thirty billion the Good News. He just pinpointed one tiny dot on the map, dropped in, dropped off a few parables and made a very grand exit--for which I am grateful because if not, we would not have ever had the pleasure of Weber and Rice's Jesus Christ Superstar which I must say I thoroughly enjoyed. Although I am even more grateful for EVITA . . . not the one with Madonna though.

yes it matters because truth matters and claiming an existence for jesus is not truthful.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes it matters because truth matters and claiming
> an existence for jesus is not truthful.

Truth matters.

But "facts" are not the only things that are true. There is the "values" side of Hume's facts/values distinction that is also true. --Unless, that is, you subscribe to the thoroughly discredited Logical Postivism Movement.

gheco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would submit it is not of great importance.
>
> More important than whether or not Jesus, as
> purported, existed would be the merit of his
> preachings which are deeply flawed.
>
> One could suggest that "turn the other cheek" is
> the central tenet of Christianity, or at least of
> many strains of it.
>
> When the other cheek is turned, an injustice is
> created as well as an opportunity for an aggressor
> to be emboldened.
>
> This creates, which is the problem for most
> religions, opportunity where the powerful may
> exploit the followers.
>
> Peace exists only when justice exists.

My conclusion is that it does not matter much.
But I've witnessed prolonged peace in realms
where no attempts were made to impose justice.

And I've witnessed turmoil and suffering in
situations in which some respected legal code
was administered to the maximum possible extent.

.

The only time it occurs to me to defend the
mentioned "does it really matter"proposition
are in those rare instances in which a
critic announces (with an air of authority)
that "there never was no damn Jesus..."

In those instances it seems important, to me,
for thinking people to reflect a bit upon the
various historical possibilities.

What I would argue, is that the Gospels'
Jesus persona is obviously an impossibility,
a composite of unrelated, even opposing,
characteristics and activities.

Would it be possible to sort out an evident
pattern of Gospel references of the "Real Jesus?"

It's an intriguing idea -- but when observers
get that deep into attempted reconstructions
and speculation, I doubt any two of them
would agree.

Agreement upon the person and relevance of Jesus
is one imposed by theological conformity... By
the very same dictatorial methods employed by
Mormonism, in making all its adherents agree to
a sanitized, absurd depiction of Joseph Smith.

I'm not interested in the glorified Joe Smith,
and I'm not interested in the Christians' Jesus.

I am interested in certain, sparsely presented
ideas attributed to an historical Jesus (whether
the product of his mind, or of some other sage).

Dale B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
....
> I am interested in certain, sparsely presented
> ideas attributed to an historical Jesus (whether
> the product of his mind, or of some other sage).

For example -- how does the Jesus of the Gospel
accounts interact with late Second Temple Judaism,
in those instances where the issues were not of
much interest to subsequent Christian piety?

David had two high priests -- contrary to the
Temple Establishment's orthodoxy in Jesus' day.
And, when David took shewbread from the temple
for his men, it was not from the Sadducean
One True Temple in Jerusalem, but from a northern
(apostate?) temple, later detroyed by the
Sadducee Establishment.

These were not the sorts of theological issues
that would have occupied the attention of the
first Christians -- nor the kind of elements
Roman gospel fabricators would have interjected
into bogus narratives, written up to promote
a new, empire-friendly bogus mystery religion.

There are bits and pieces of the Jesus accounts
which look like authentic, early 1st century
social and religious developments. WHO preserved
such stuff? HOW did it get put into the Gospels?
And WHY was it attached to the name of Jesus?

That's what this cynical old ex-mormon finds
interesting, in his reviewing those stories.

If there was a completely unremarkable itinerant preacher named Yeshua, he is completely lost to history. His place has been completely usurped by the miracle-working god-man of Xtianity. And that personality certainly never did--and does not--exist.

Yeshua's-historical-existence-is-irrelevant-ly yrs,

S

It is the main thing that matters on planet earth.

Everything was created by him. He atoned for those that believe and repent. The planet rotates because of him.

For thousands of years the Isrealites and then the Jews and Isrealites sacrificed the first born unblemished animals in anticipation of a Savior. We all know he was going to be a Jew of the lineage of David and born in the city of David.

The Jews still celebrate Passover, centuries later.

Spend some time exposing yourself to truth and prayer.

6 iron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> For thousands of years the Isrealites and then the
> Jews and Isrealites sacrificed the first born
> unblemished animals in anticipation of a Savior.
...

I assume you meant to say Israelites -- or, at least
the "real" Israelites. They pretty much faded from
the historical record after the Babylonian Captivity.

Before that, they had no reason to anticipate any
"Savior." The Davidic kingship and its presumed
covenant with YHWH precluded any such need.

It was the unexpected (and bewildering) end of that
monarchy which gave rise to the hope of its eventual
restoration, with the coming of a royal Messiah --
a warrior-king of David's House, who would drive out
the Neo-Babylonians, the Persians, the Seleucids,
and, lastly, the Romans.

That sort of "anticipation" ended with Simon bar Kokhba
and the last Jewish attempt to restore the prophesied
kingship of YHWH (read: "Kingdom of God").

No -- the Israelites (and Isrealites) anticipated no
Messiah -- for their Davidic King was already the
Promised Anointed One.

David ruled in Hebron for 7 years then in Jerusalem for 33 years.

Funny how Jesus was 33 years old until he was crucified.

Has anyone else on planet earth claimed to be the Savior??
Has any other people sacrificed their first born, unblemished animals for centuries in anticipation of a Savior?

For centuries

For centuries

Year after year, decade after decade, century after century....

"Has any other people sacrificed..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice


bertstare.jpg

6 iron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has anyone else on planet earth claimed to be the
> Savior??
> Has any other people sacrificed their first born,
> unblemished animals for centuries in anticipation
> of a Savior?
>
> For centuries
>
> For centuries
>
> Year after year, decade after decade, century
> after century....

Probably not to that extent.
However, that doesn't mean they're "right."
Just consistent.
They could just as well be consistently wrong.
Which is what evidence appears to show.

6 iron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Has anyone else on planet earth claimed to be the
> Savior??

You might want to consult Rabbi Akiba about that.

You did read what I answered you, concerning the
Second Jewish Revolt, didn't you?

If you're ready to learn, the history is clear,
and not held in dispute by reputable scholars

And all of that is your opinion.

To me? Not at all.

Not to me.

RB

gheco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would submit it is not of great importance.

I say it is extraordinarily important. The sheer number of people who base a good portion of their morality on the existence of Jesus makes it matter.

>
> More important than whether or not Jesus, as
> purported, existed would be the merit of his
> preachings which are deeply flawed.

While I am no fan of the ethical dilemma caused by Christianity I think the discussion is more nuanced than just proclaiming the merits of Christian teachings to be flawed.

>
> One could suggest that "turn the other cheek" is
> the central tenet of Christianity, or at least of
> many strains of it.

The central tenet of Christianity is sacrificial death of Jesus resulting in the salvation of everyone. I know this is nitpicking but sometimes I just get the urge to be an asshole.

>
> When the other cheek is turned, an injustice is
> created as well as an opportunity for an aggressor
> to be emboldened.

This is just strange, in my opinion. You claim that non aggression is one of the central tenets of Christianity and then claim that non aggression is an affront to justice. I just cannot follow this logic. The greatest flaw that I see in this statement is the simple fact that I have no idea how you define justice. Second, in my very immature mind I just cannot see how a personal decision to respond to aggression with non aggression creates injustice. No matter how you define injustice.

>
> This creates, which is the problem for most
> religions, opportunity where the powerful may
> exploit the followers.

Again, I'm being a prick but this isn't a problem for religions. It is a problem for the adherents of a religion.

That said your inference is that the powerful are by nature unjust, which I don't feel is supported.

And just one other nit pick. How do you define the powerful? What is it that makes someone powerful? I can extrapolate that you believe the powerful to be the aggressive but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

>
> Peace exists only when justice exists.

This platitude is lost on me. Is justice and equal and opposite reaction? Is justice cutting off the hand of a thief who stole bread? I just don't know what you mean by justice. However, I guess that peace means an absence of aggression but only when there is balance in that aggression. If you punch me in the nose I'll punch you in the nose and we will have peace.

Right?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gheco Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would submit it is not of great importance.
>
> I say it is extraordinarily important. The sheer
> number of people who base a good portion of their
> morality on the existence of Jesus makes it
> matter.

This is my point. Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it (Hitchens) Religions have wrongly been credited for humans moral code. We would have never survived as a specie before man's concoction of religion.
>
> >
> > More important than whether or not Jesus, as
> > purported, existed would be the merit of his
> > preachings which are deeply flawed.
>
> While I am no fan of the ethical dilemma caused by
> Christianity I think the discussion is more
> nuanced than just proclaiming the merits of
> Christian teachings to be flawed.

All religions are flawed, but Christianity more than others.
>
> >
> > One could suggest that "turn the other cheek"
> is
> > the central tenet of Christianity, or at least
> of
> > many strains of it.
>
> The central tenet of Christianity is sacrificial
> death of Jesus resulting in the salvation of
> everyone. I know this is nitpicking but sometimes
> I just get the urge to be an asshole.

The "turn the other cheek" is the part of Christianity that is marketed. In the case of Mormonism, the atonement of Jesus (and they do not like that name, as "The Savior" is preferred) is almost an afterthought. Of course Mormons worship Joe Smith and their current administration far more than a Christian Jesus.
>
> >
> > When the other cheek is turned, an injustice is
> > created as well as an opportunity for an
> aggressor
> > to be emboldened.
>
> This is just strange, in my opinion. You claim
> that non aggression is one of the central tenets
> of Christianity and then claim that non aggression
> is an affront to justice. I just cannot follow
> this logic. The greatest flaw that I see in this
> statement is the simple fact that I have no idea
> how you define justice. Second, in my very
> immature mind I just cannot see how a personal
> decision to respond to aggression with non
> aggression creates injustice. No matter how you
> define injustice.

This is important and overlooked. A good start regarding the "turn the other cheek" exploitation of mormonism would be the poverty conditions and substandard medical care allowed to their missionary sales force. These kids are exploited by family and cultural pressure to labor for LDS Inc, and they are not treated decently for their labors. This is an injustice. This is exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful.
>
> >
> > This creates, which is the problem for most
> > religions, opportunity where the powerful may
> > exploit the followers.
>
> Again, I'm being a prick but this isn't a problem
> for religions. It is a problem for the adherents
> of a religion.
>
> That said your inference is that the powerful are
> by nature unjust, which I don't feel is supported.

We have example after example on this board of sexual abuse and misuse by a priesthood holder covered up by church leadership. Many cases in which the perpetrator should be in jail.
>
>
> And just one other nit pick. How do you define the
> powerful? What is it that makes someone powerful?
> I can extrapolate that you believe the powerful to
> be the aggressive but I don't want to put words in
> your mouth.
>
Deism and Theism is a belief in a deity. Religion is a belief that the god tells you what to do. The worst exploitation of this is when someone convinces other they speak for a god, which is the business model of LDS Inc, and its followers are certainly exploited. The worst examples of religious exploitation fueling followers with so much fervor they steal airplanes and ram them into buildings, or strap their children in suicide vests.
> >
> > Peace exists only when justice exists.
>
> This platitude is lost on me. Is justice and equal
> and opposite reaction? Is justice cutting off the
> hand of a thief who stole bread? I just don't know
> what you mean by justice. However, I guess that
> peace means an absence of aggression but only when
> there is balance in that aggression. If you punch
> me in the nose I'll punch you in the nose and we
> will have peace.
>
> Right?

Justice does not need to be violent. It could be as simple as proper nutrition and medical care for missionaries.

Also flawed is the golden rule. If I were to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then I would go to Africa and give all the starving children new smart phones. My wife is an extrovert and I am an introvert, so she would think I was ignoring her all the time. The golden rule does not adequately challenge people to put themselves in others' shoes.

We don't need a rule in order to feel empathy. It's a natural trait that most of us possess, built up over thousands of generations of evolution as a tribal species. The tribes with the highest levels of empathy were the most successful, and the ruthless tribes diminished from the gene pool. What we need is help learning how to step outside of our own perceptions and understand the needs and wants of other people so that we can make better use of our natural empathy.