F.Y.I. It's very informative - based on archaeological and historical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, and Pontius Pilate's role that led to that.

Historians and archaeological scholars contribute to the program.

It's an educational program, in other words. Not religious per se.

it is still fiction.

"Pilate Stone"?

Not very comfortable to exercise on, I would think...

Not Pilates.

The Pilate Stone. "The archaeological investigation zeroes in on crucial artifacts that connect to Pontius Pilate -- the inscription on the Stone that proves his existence, as well as the recent discovery of Herod the Great's Jerusalem Palace." (Dr. Google)

Here's a video clip from tonight's show:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/02/17/finding-jesus-pontius-pilate-1.cnn/video/playlists/finding-jesus/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2017 10:28PM by Amyjo.

Oh, that's what you were talking about!

The problem with this is that there is ZERO evidence Pilate had anything to do with any Jesus.

the fake jesus character again.

Maybe the mythicists should do some actual research.

But then they wouldn't be mythicists!

Religious nuttery sells much better than cold evidence, and CNN knows it.

I havent watched the program so I am not commenting on its value, but refusing to do actual research and read both sides, including scholars who are respected by academia, is extremely anti intellectual. Just saying.

Reading both sides is frequently a waste of time. I've read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, parts of Joseph Smith's history, the journal of discourses... I'd have been much better off studying math or physics. There is a grest deal of material in the world that is not worth listening to.

That said, years ago your posts on the possible historicity of the Jesus character did get me to study it, I love the stuff the professors who lecture for the great courses have on the subject.

Still, I'd have been better off never having wasted any time on it, because ultimately it is useless to human life. Unlike, say medicine, biology, on and on and on.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I havent watched the program so I am not
> commenting on its value, but refusing to do actual
> research and read both sides, including scholars
> who are respected by academia, is extremely anti
> intellectual. Just saying.

It's anti-intellectual of you to assume those who criticize such programs *haven't* done "actual research."

And how much "respect" some "scholar" does or doesn't have has absolutely zero to do with the value of a claim. Claims are assessed based on evidence or lack thereof, not on the amount of "respect" a person making the claim has.

In this case, the "Pilate Stone" does provide evidence that Pilate existed. It doesn't provide evidence that an historical "Jesus" existed.

Well, I.happen to believe in knowledge for knowledge sake. Everything doesnt have to have a practical or monetary value. A lot of my history students think this way. It isnt going to mane them money or cure their illnesses so why bother. I.strongly disagree. Of course we all have different interests but there is satisfaction in learning new things and it makes you a more.interesting person.

Then why not study the deep ideas behind Harry Potter?

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with your general point, but the fact is people only have so much time, and there is a great deal more bullshit in the world than truth.

Knowledge of every soccer score in history may be interesting to some, but the truth is we'd be ruined as a species if many of us got that into anything that isn't important.

I'll go further and say we'd be far, far, far better off as a species if Jesus, Mohammed, and Mormon stories were as passing as last weekend's scifi movie fad.

Study what you like, but dont put down what others find interesting and that includes Harry Potter. lol. My 11 year old niece would be very offended by those who dont think Harry Potter is important. Religion has had a big influence on history which is reason enough to be familiar with it. I understand no one can study everything and we all have likes and dislikes and different abilities, but being well rounded and well read is never a disadvantage.
At any rate I was mainly talking about a few mythicists who have not read anything scholarly and who know nothing about ancient history, but who are sure Jesus is entirely mythical because no contemporary writings exist,nevermind that is true.of many people, and because no one can do miracles. They never consider that adding mythological elements to real people was common at the time. On top of that, they assume all those scholars whom they wont read are Christian apologists even though many are not even Christian. Assuming you know more than scholars when you have no background and refuse to even read those who.dont share your belief is.anti.intellectual



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2017 11:40PM by bona dea.

I'll put down anything I please. Human nature and all.

There is ZERO chance 2 billion people *choose* to study the christ myth. They were shamed into it and would be better off without it.

Fake news

This is the same as someone two thousand years from now finding a sign from a military base in Iraq with a colonel's name on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 04:14AM by anybody.

Only this time it was Pontius Pilate, who was responsible for ordering the death of one Jesus H. Christ.

Not a fictional character, that Pontius Pilate. That he would be mentioned in FOUR of the Gospels, NOT an accident, me thinks.

As for "who" was Pontius Pilate, he was the "Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea (26–36 ce) under the emperor Tiberius who presided at the trial of Jesus and gave the order for his crucifixion.Jun 1, 2015. (died c. 36 ce)." (Brittanica.com)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 07:40AM by Amyjo.

When I was about 11, I was beaten by my mother because she found my name engraved on our piano, despite my protestations that I hadn't inscribed it there.

Fast forward ten years and my sister finally admitted to my mother that she had done it, not me (I mean, what sort of idot writes his OWN name for everyone to see and follow up?).

My point is that anyone could have inscribed the stone with Pontius Pilate's name - at any time before the discovery of the inscription. In other words, a Pontius Pilate inscription on a stone (or the name Tom on a piano ;-) means nothing at all and certainly doesn't "prove" anything whatsoever.

Tom in Paris
(who didn't scratch the piano)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 09:30AM by Soft Machine.

Some facts about the "Pilate Stone" that authenticate its origins: (from Wikipedia)

"The Pilate stone is a damaged block (82 cm x 65 cm) of carved limestone with a partially intact inscription attributed to, and mentioning, Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36. It was discovered at the archaeological site of Caesarea Maritima in 1961. The artifact is particularly significant because it is an archaeological find, of an authentic 1st-century Roman inscription mentioning the name "Pontius Pilatus". It is contemporary to Pilate's lifetime, and accords with what is known of his reported career.[2][3] In effect, the writing constitutes the earliest surviving record and a contemporaneous evidence for the historical existence of this person; otherwise known from the New Testament, Jewish Literature and brief mentions in retrospective Roman histories, which have themselves survived in still-later copies.

It is likely that Pontius Pilate made his base at Caesarea Maritima, a city that had replaced Jerusalem since AD 6 as the administrative capital and military headquarters of the province,[4] and the site where the stone was discovered. Pilate probably travelled to Jerusalem, the central city of the province's Jewish population, only as often as necessary.[5]
The Pilate stone is currently located at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.[6][7] Replica castings can be found at the Archaeological Museum in Milan, Italy, and on display in Caesarea Maritima itself.

Inscription[edit]
On the partially damaged block is a dedication to the deified Augustus and Livia ("the Divine Augusti"), the stepfather and mother of emperor Tiberius, originally placed within a Tiberieum, probably a temple dedicated to Tiberius. It has been deemed authentic because it was discovered in the coastal town of Caesarea, which was the capital of Iudaea Province[4] during the time Pontius Pilate was Roman governor.
The partial inscription reads (conjectural letters in brackets):[3]
[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM
[...PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[...FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]
The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:
To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum
...Pontius Pilate
...prefect of Judea
...has dedicated [this]"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 07:40AM by Amyjo.

A Roman Governor was an ex-Senator who was given a province (provincia = "conquered territory"). Pilate was a Prefect, a soldier of a rank roughly equivalent to that of a Colonel or Lt. Colonel in a modern army. Roman society was very class oriented and Pontius Pilate's family was not of senatorial rank. If I recall, the Roman Governor was not based in Jerusalem but in another city -- Damascus, I think in the first century.

As I've said before, all this proves is that someone named Pontius Pilate existed. There are no known contemporary records of Jesus of Nazareth beyond the Gospels -- which are not historical but were written to promote a story of faith.

I'm not against you or your faith, Amyjo. Not at all.

Religious faith is based on belief, not history. Even if archaeological evidence of Jesus' life were found it still wouldn't prove if he was/is a divine being.

There is no document or artefact that can prove that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 09:10AM by anybody.

There are contemporary coins with Pilate's name on them and Jospehus mentions the riots that were caused by him.and his wife over bringing in Caesar's image and using temple funds to divert water to build a garden. Whether Jesus was real or not is a different issue doesnt affect the fact that Pilate was real.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only this time it was Pontius Pilate, who was
> responsible for ordering the death of one Jesus H.
> Christ.

This time it was Pontius Pilate, who was *claimed* to be responsible for ordering the death of one "Jesus."

Establishing Pilate's existence doesn't substantiate the claim that he ordered the death of "Jesus." Or that "Jesus" existed at all.

There's more historical evidence to support Jesus' existence than there will be in 2,000 years for you or me.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 08:59AM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's more historical evidence to support Jesus'
> existence than there will be in 2,000 years for
> you or me.

Doubtful, since there is no "historical" evidence for "Jesus."
And at the very least, I've left offspring, who will leave offspring, etc. Not the case for a supposed "Jesus."

Not that your statement means anything anyway. Nobody's claiming I was magically born of a virgin as a son of a god that can't be shown to exist, that I go around doing "miracles," and that if you don't believe that I had myself killed for the "sins of the world" you'll spend eternity in hell. So my "burden of proof" is much lower.

Look, every time this subject comes up, all sorts of outrageous claims are made, fallacies tossed out like candy, and ad-hominems seem to be required. Why is it *so hard* for believers to simply admit that they believe despite the lack of evidence, and that we can't establish with evidence that an actual "Jesus" existed? It shouldn't affect "faith" one bit, which isn't based on evidence. We simply don't know from evidence if "Jesus" was ever a real person or not. It's just that simple.

We really can't say that Jesus' didn't leave offspring.

It's Jewish wisdom to marry and procreate. What we know of Jesus love life, like the apostles, is next to nil. Other than Mary Magdalene, who was his paramour and the closest woman to him next to his mother.

It's very possible he had children. We also don't know of other children Mary may have had with Joseph, but it's also just as likely there were some.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We really can't say that Jesus' didn't leave
> offspring.

Fair enough.
We can say, though, that there is no evidence of any, so no reason to assume there are any :)

You can neither prove or disprove if he had children.

That isn't really the essence of this discussion. Did he live?

If he did, then Pontius Pilate and him most definitely crossed paths, because it's in the Jewish history books!

That he was Jewish, lends credence to his being married, and having children.

Period.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 07:18PM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can neither prove or disprove if he had
> children.

I didn't say I could. I said there's no evidence "he" did, so there's no reason to assume anything or believe anything about "children." My children, I can provide ample evidence for.

> That isn't really the essence of this discussion.
> Did he live?

You can (to use your words) neither prove or disprove he lived.

> If he did, then Pontius Pilate and him most
> definitely crossed paths, because it's in the
> Jewish history books!

But there's no evidence he did. And if he did, that doesn't automatically make the claims in "Jewish history books" true, either. Oh, and...what "Jewish history books" are you referring to anyway?

> That he was Jewish, lends credence to his being
> married, and having children.
> Period.

You put "periods" in funny places.
Like where they don't belong.
You'll have to provide some evidence he lived before moving on.
Then you can provide some evidence he was Jewish to establish if he was Jewish or not.
Then you can provide some evidence he had children to establish if he had children or not.
Going right to the end of that chain of evidence, without ANY evidence, isn't at all supportable.
Period.

Jesus is irrelevant.

How is Jesus' irrelevant, if he existed and is who he says he is?

Jesus the person was a poor bloke who was executed by occupying Romans. Jesus the Christ is the Son of God.

If Jesus the person existed, how would you prove he was the Son of God? That's impossible. You can only believe.

Most of us arent say that he was the Son of God. Got it yet??

or disprove it either with rational logic.

The supernatural is irrational.

Deja vu is totally irrational.

Could never explain that either.

But I knew it when I saw it.

Our brains are finite to try to explain the infinite.

Of course we attempt to. That's part of the process of being alive!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 07:16PM by Amyjo.

and that's why I, as an astronomer, use science and mathematics to try and understand the form and structure of the Universe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 07:19PM by anybody.

Even if he was a mere mortal, his movement changed history and that certainly makes relevant.

It is interesting to see the finds that we hope will validate our own beliefs...to me anyway...there just has to be a christ...or a kolob...or a celestial kingdom...its such a huge letdown when you discover the wine at kirtland was probly spiked...joe was likely doing hallucinogens for all his visionary claims...horn doggery likely caused plygmy....it all just loses its luster when we face the possibility we been had...and our mom might have done it to us with suggestion and reinforcement of that which just isnt true...i will say this christ returning in a new chariot bull shit better dam well happen soon...geez thats a hundred generations of the elect squandered waiting it out...i have no answers...but i do know giving up santa claus certainly wasnt pleasant...but it was necessary to stop kidding my self...faith seems not a useful tool to live by...ymmv...reality can sure be elusive to a religeous person...i spent most of a lifetime being one of the elect that was gonna see christ return...seems now weve moved on to the next generation held in reserve to waste their life waiting for christ to smite the evil doers and cause all that glory and stuff...no offense intended...it is what it is...faith is hoping things are true that you know just aint so...any day now that evidence for the bofm will surface...or are we just kidding ourselves

The difference between Jesus and the bible, vs Joseph and the book of mormon is the bible is based on the actual history of a nomadic tribe of people. The book of mormon is based on folklore.

Whether you agree with the Jewish historical record or not, it's real to the Romans. And it's real to the Jews. Pontius Pilate actually existed during the time Jesus crucifixion occurred. And there is archaeological evidence linking him to the time and place.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 12:03PM by Amyjo.

?? what... no.

It was written in their time, but in no way was it "real". The vast majority of Jews and Romans never heard of Jesus until centuries later.

And calling it "historical" as an account is just plain irresponsible.

The bible continues to be the #1 best selling book in the history of the human race.

Coincidence? Maybe. Accident? Perhaps.

Divinely ordained? Only heaven knows.

Like the bible on earth, is the Book of Life in the heavens.

That's written in the stars.

Morality, as we know it in the law, is based on the Ten Commandments as its foundation.

You can thank the God of the bible for giving us a moral code that didn't exist before a monotheistic god came along (the Judeo one.)

And the Quran is #2. So Islam must be almost as historical as Christ myths? Right?

What about Dianeics? Massively oversold in our own time and country, so Scientology must be the REAL modern science of mental health? Right?

And most dogs will eat vomit and shit, so it must be good! Right?

"the bible for giving us a moral code that didn't exist before a monotheistic god came along"

That is 100% false.

Good grief, even the rest of the animal kingdom shares the majority of our "morals".

- Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Good grief, even the rest of the animal kingdom
> shares the majority of our "morals".

I'd encourage you to start a new topic demonstrating the depth of morality demonstrated in the animal kingdom and its parallels among human civilization. Please pay close attention to how the animal kingdom differentiates between right and wrong and good and bad behavior since that is the definition of the word, "morality."

:) :) :) :)

+25,000 x 10 ;)

Wait... You're asking for supporting proof for statements made here? Amyjo's argument for the historical Jesus is that someone wrote something down, so it must be true... Her supporting argument is that she believes it... Oh and there's an appeal to numbers in there as well as if thousands of people haven't believed other things in the past without them being true or based in reality.

Why should "-" do your homework for you? (And yes, there is a basis for statements about there being moral behavior in the animal kingdom)

I also like how you go straight for deflection. Attacking that without acknowledging the actual argument he was making, that the Bible was somehow the original and only moral code for humanity is completely false. Even if it were, that doesn't make the stories in it historical.

Do you have a response to this? Please do so without deflecting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 02:57PM by Finally Free!.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why should "-" do your homework for you? (And yes,
> there is a basis for statements about there being
> moral behavior in the animal kingdom)
>
> I also like how you go straight for deflection.
> Attacking that without acknowledging the actual
> argument he was making, that the Bible was somehow
> the original and only moral code for humanity is
> completely false. Even if it were, that doesn't
> make the stories in it historical.
>
> Do you have a response to this? Please do so
> without deflecting.

It seems you're the one engaging in deflection. Our friend "-" made a sweeping statement that has no meaning whatsoever in the absence of a broader explanation. Any attempt on my part to understand what he meant by a simple, sweeping phrase would be little more than creating a straw man on my part.

I wish for him (and you're invited as well) to more fully explain what you mean by "the rest of the animal kingdom shares the majority of our 'morals'." Without redefining our understanding of "morality," please explain your position, so I don't incorrectly place words in your mouth or assume things that are not part of your belief.

Once you make your point, then I'll respond if I choose to.

Ah, the irony... The whole argument for a historical Jesus is a sweeping statement without any proof.

Amyjo > "the bible for giving us a moral code that didn't exist before a monotheistic god came along"

- > "That is 100% false."

That was the main point of their argument. It's clearly stated. No straw-man required. You are deflecting away from that by focusing on the secondary statement, which was a supporting statement, not the argument.

But do feel free to continue to ignore it.

You still did not (or rather cannot) submit any proof or evidence to your assertion that animals have a moral compass. True, there are humans who lack one as well. But in homo sapiens there's a possibility one will be acquired if not inbred.

Such a possibility does not exist in the Animal Kingdom.

You still did not (or rather cannot) submit any proof or evidence to your assertion that "the bible for giving us a moral code that didn't exist before a monotheistic god came along"

Two can play at this game... How 'bout you answer the actual argument that "-" made. Instead of deflecting to a supporting statement to that argument.

But I'll bite...

Just from one article:
"Prof Bekoff, who presents his case in a new book Wild Justice, said: "The belief that humans have morality and animals don't is a long-standing assumption, but there is a growing amount of evidence that is showing us that this simply cannot be the case.

"'Just as in humans, the moral nuances of a particular culture or group will be different from another, but they are certainly there. Moral codes are species specific, so they can be difficult to compare with each other or with humans.'"

"Prof Bekoff believes morals developed in animals to help regulate behaviour in social groups of animals such as wolves and primates.

"He claims that these rules help to control fighting within the group and encourage co-operative behaviour."
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

For reference as to who the Professor is:
"Marc Bekoff (born September 6, 1945) is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.[1] He is the co-founder, with Jane Goodall, of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,[2] a fellow of the Animal Behavior Society and a former Guggenheim fellow. He lectures internationally on animal behavior, cognitive ethology (the study of animal minds), and behavioral ecology...

"Bekoff has written over 1000 articles and published 30 books, and has edited three encyclopedias"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Bekoff

So, I'll take his word over yours

So, it looks like I can submit proof/evidence for a moral compass in the animal kingdom... It took me less than a minute with a single google search... I could provide more articles from well credentialed scholars on the subject, but why bother since, they were ancillary to the actual argument being made.

Now... Can you do the provide any proof for your statement that a moral code only appeared after a monotheistic God? I'm willing to bet that you can't provide an unbiased source for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 02:41PM by Finally Free!.

Judeo-Christianity brought laws to the books as we understand them today in democracies around the world.

Hitler compared morality to the Jewish condition. He blamed morality on the Jews. He thought if he eliminated the Jews he would eradicate morality from the world and our code of ethics.

Glad he got that half-assed backwards!

Comparing animals to humans based on a moral compass and conscience that humans are endowed with, is rather facetious. There really is no moral equivalent.

This is awesome. I love this reply for so many reasons.

I provide a subject matter expert, who has written over a 1000 articles, several books, travels the world lecturing on the subject... You provide... Hitler.

That's amazing on so many levels.

You ignore all the civilizations the predate Jewish history. They had laws, they were cooperative, they provided the foundation that the Jews used to create their "law books". Not to mention ones developing in distant lands like China and India... I guess they didn't have morals until they met the Jews.

But, because Hitler blamed morality on the Jews, that somehow supports your statement "You can thank the God of the bible for giving us a moral code that didn't exist before a monotheistic god came along (the Judeo one.)"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 08:30PM by Finally Free!.

Why should they? He was a local phenomenon and/lived in a distant province. Not only that, there was no.TV, radio, newspapers or internet.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference between Jesus and the bible, vs
> Joseph and the book of mormon is the bible is
> based on the actual history of a nomadic tribe of
> people. The book of mormon is based on folklore.

Well...even a great many Jewish scholars agree that the vast majority of what we call the OT *isn't* "actual history" at all. And that it's folklore. So...

> Whether you agree with the Jewish historical
> record or not, it's real to the Romans. And it's
> real to the Jews. Pontius Pilate actually existed
> during the time Jesus crucifixion occurred. And
> there is archaeological evidence linking him to
> the time and place.

And BoM "history" is "real" to mormons. So?

Yeah, Pilate probably existed. There's nothing linking Pilate and "Jesus" though.

Then you ignore history that states it clearly.

Sometimes you make absolutely zero sense at all.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then you ignore history that states it clearly.

There is no "history that states it clearly."
There are *claims* made in the bible stories, which have already been clearly established as containing a great many claims that are NOT "historical." As to whether those claims are valid or not, there is no evidence to show they are.
I haven't ignored anything.

> Sometimes you make absolutely zero sense at all.

Yeah, those pesky facts and stuff don't make any sense, I should just believe whatever nonsense people tell me and shut up, right?
Oh, wait...

Let me give you an example:
The "Harry Potter" books set a number of stories in London. London can be established as a real place by ample evidence.
Does that mean the "Harry Potter" stories set in London *actually took place there,* and are real?

No, it doesn't.

Just like stories claiming Pilate crucified Jesus aren't automatically real if Pilate existed.

That makes sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 01:19PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I agree with the statement that it is hard to let go of Santa.

When I realized that I had been had with the dream of life going on and on forever in a forever-after-mormon-wonder-land I felt cheated, disappointed and very angry. How I felt was much worse when all this came shattering down then when Santa went up the chimney and stayed there.

Why? Because Santa was created for fun and magic for children's entertainment......which to me is a lot less harmful than the claims perpetuated by faith and how it can save us all.

As far as I'm concerned, so far the facts show that there were several dudes way back in the Jerusalem area running around with the name of Jesus. Also, there were dudes who claimed that they could help end the Roman domination and very, very soon the time was coming that life would be unbelievable!

Sound familiar?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 12:32PM by presleynfactsrock.

What's interesting about the Jesus story is that if you study it, no human could come up with his ideology.

DON'T tell me that they said the same thing about the JS writing tge BoM, JS and the BofM has NO ideology... It's just a story.

Even so-called Mormon prophets seers and revelators from JS to present day, understand and live and teach Jesus' ideology.

Example...JS took advantage of his position as church leader to have sex with his followers feales weather they be single, married or teens. He took advantage financially.

Jesus heavily criticized the Chief priests, Scribes and Pharisees for the fancy clothes and greetings in markets, the best seats at the synagogue, and chief rooms at feasts, and devoured widows houses for a vain prayer. Basically they needed the perks and the praise, just like our present leaders that get huge financial and other perks while they prey financially of poor Mormon families, even using extortion of, if you don't pay us, you can't see your child's wedding.

The master is the servant, He even washed his disciples feet. A good deed is only if the person is in need and can't return the favour and you do it privately. As soon as you boast of your good works, there is no heavenly reward. Exalting yourself creates vain ego centric people, but doing good to glorify heaven creates loving, caring people.

If you exalt yourself you will be abased, but if you humble yourself, you will be exalted. Humans constantly seek after recognition, perks, money, women. So when Mormon leaders do it, they don't understand the ideology of Jesus, and don't care. Mormons behave more like Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisee, which is toxic to marriages, families and relationships. Jesus even said that harlots and publicans go to heaven before CP, S, and Ph's. Mormons excommunicate harlots, but you are way better to be one than a Pharisee.

Mormons get up in F&T meeting and brag about how good they are, and better than others but the true follower bowed his head and said forgive me Lord a sinner.

Our works can't save us, but only our humility to Jesus and his atonement. Mormons don't understand that.

The only ideology of Mormonism is don't drink coffee, alcohol, and pay us money or else. Jesus never officially from his own mouth told us to pay and how much. He brought wine to a wedding, and told us to drink red wine in remembrance if him. Mormons can't even get that right.

My ex wife did a LOT for the church, like a lot, but she did it to be seen, admired, praised. She was always trying to prove to herself and others that are was better than others...always. That creates such a judgemental culture, and ruins relationships. We are all equal in that we all sin and all need the atonement. That person that is looked down on might make it to heaven before you, so how can you judge?

Jesus didn't come to condemn the world but to save it. Mormons condemn.

That should have said, don't understand.

It seems to me that all you've said is humans are so pathetic and stupid we need to trust in something our weak little minds can't understand because we are so useless and it so great.

Congratulations, you've described ABUSE. Not new, and something everyone, in every species learns.

You go be a slave to an evil ideology that treats you like trash, but don't insult the rest of us who can see through that vile subjugation of our intellect.

I dare you to treat your own children like your vile jesus treats us. See how great his ideas are then.

The only one making hateful and vile statements here is yourself.

Jesus didn't spew hate. He taught love. Love is the highest law there is.

How is having charity and mercy hateful to you?

I merely pointed out that requiring blood sacrifices before forgiving people is HATE.

You can spin that hate into love by saying he died for us, but the truth is requiring anyone to die at all is HATE.

And burning people in an eternal lake of fire for the crime of not believing your hate filled story is likewise HATE.

Christianity is a religion of hate. Human beings from the dawn of their evolution in every race have loved, but the christ myth is just a story of pure hate.

Joseph Smith didn't deviate from that when he invented mormonism, he grew it from its very nature.

I don't believe Jesus' taught anyone to hate though. His whole life was one of love and service. That he was rejected, despised, and hated by others was nothing more than persecution for what he stood up for (or against.) Christianity distorted Christ's message and made it something else. Christ was really an itinerant Jewish rabbi that bucked the system of his day. He only taught straight up from Proverbs and Psalms, the teachings he replicated for his sermons and beatitudes.

Jesus didn't teach people would burn in a lake of fire. That's part of the distortion later religions put on his teachings. His religion was pure and simple: care for the sick, poor, widowed, orphaned, imprisoned, those who were without an advocate. He came to heal the sick and save the lost.

The angriest Jesus got in the gospels was when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers at the temples. He became enraged that the pharisees and rabbis perverted the word of God that way. That was the most outrageous thing he did, which led to his arrest and ultimately death on the cross. He threatened the status quo.

Joseph Smith was self-serving. Jesus was selfless. Huge chasm between them in that sense. One lived to perpetuate a myth. Jesus was a sacrificial lamb, true. He did not wish or will it on himself.

God created evil like he created good. Why did he? Those are age old questions humans grapple with. Is it to test ourselves? We aren't testing God. He already knows the outcome before it happens.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 03:18PM by Amyjo.

Christians at times have been hateful, but they also led the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement. It isn t black and white.

One of the frustrations with ideologues is they tend to have difficult time distinguishing between their opinions and global undeniable truths.

Ask a proctologist to tell you about his view of the world, and it may not be quite the same as the rest of us.

Good points, 6 Iron.

Did you see the movie "The Shack?"

It's about how Jesus still touches lives, one at a time. Sans religion.

His life was his religion. He walked the walk.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you see the movie "The Shack?"
>
> It's about how Jesus still touches lives, one at a
> time. Sans religion.
>
> His life was his religion. He walked the walk.

The movie is fiction. As in made-up.

It's a great movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

And it has a moral theme, such as a proverb would teach.

Jesus is love. I believe that was the message it tried to portray.

Let's try to be logical here.

In the Iliad, the great epic poem of Western Civilisation, Priam is the king of Illion and a city known as Troy, with a son named Paris who is called Alexandros. His city is besieged by a king named Agamemnon who is leader of people known as the Achaeans.

The Iliad was not written down until the sixth century B.C. and is though to have been based on events that took place hundreds of years before during the Bronze Age ca. 1500 - 1200 B.C. and was thought to be only a legend.

The city of Troy is a real place and not just a legend. Not only is Troy real, but there are contemporary historical documents from that time that have been found. But did the Trojan War actually happen? Were all the characters real people?

Well, maybe.

There's no evidence of a Priam, but there was a Piyama-Radu:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piyama-Radu

And this Piyama-Radu isn't a king and he doesn't have a son named Paris Alexandros, but there is someone named Alexandu who is mentioned as king of Wilusa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaksandu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilusa

So here's the problem. There are people in the ancient documents who are similar to the characters that we know of from the Iliad who are probably the real people the epic is based on -- but we'll never be certain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaeans_(Homer)#Hittite_documents


You can verify some things from ancient records and archaeological evidence -- but some stories have a life of their own.

Is that the same one The Rolling Stones sang about?

The one I was thinkin about is "Jesus is just alright with me." (Doobie Bros.)

:)

It is always interesting watch these kinds of threads, and how some people have a such a hard time separating their emotions from their perceptions. It's interesting that there is such a debate to insist that Jesus did not exist as a person. Most of these people follow the fundamentals of new atheistism. Not sure why it matters either way to atheism, but they are always pushing for no man existed. Even if there is a stronger argument for a dude existing that went around and taught some stuff that got popular. Hard to believe that individual people could make a big changes in history?

What's even more interesting when people lump Jesus or a least what he taught into popular Christianity. If you are just to take the words that reportedly came from his mouth, most self claiming Christians are fake-a$$ Christians. Most of them are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging idiots who do not have the intellectual capacity to think for themselves about the words of the person they claim to worship.

People who have the ability to really think for themselves can take the base words of Jesus and what they mean, then compare what has been built is history's biggest oxymoron. I'm not religious at all, maybe that is why its so glaringly obvious.

The existence of a human Jesus does not make Christianity true any more than the existence of JS makes Mormonism true. I do not get why mythicists will defend this historical nonsense so rabidly and dismiss accepted scholarship as apologetics even when the scholars are, you know, atheists. It is mind-bogglng.

"The existence of a human Jesus does not make Christianity true any more than the existence of JS makes Mormonism true."

Absolutely true... On this I think we can all agree.

"I do not get why mythicists will defend this historical nonsense so rabidly..."

If you replace "mythicists" with "anyone", I think we'd agree. defending unsupported historical nonsense as if it were fact, is worthless.

"...and dismiss accepted scholarship as apologetics even when the scholars are, you know, atheists. It is mind-bogging."

It's almost as if the person's beliefs don't matter and the proof they bring to the table does. Funny how that works.