First, let me state that i'm keenly aware of the debate as to the historicity of whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed so this post isn't advocating one way or the other. My beliefs are very uncertain at this time as I untangle myself from decades of mindthink i've been subjected to.

I've been attending off and on an Episcopal parish for the last several years. I've found the sermons there particularly illuminating and its made me realize that after 5 decades as a LDS (4 of those as TBM) I have no friggin clue who this Jesus of Nazareth is. I only know what I was told.

During the recent Good Friday service I sat in the pew bewildered. This Christ talked about in this very mainline liberal protestant church was so different than the Christ I had been molded to believe in since I was a CTR. I had spent countless hours in Sunday church meetings, primary, YM/YW, a mission, BYU and all I really knew was Jesus was supposed to be my special big brother who wanted me to follow his latter day prophets. There was never nuance. There was never any discussion of the context. Everything was framed in a way that would confirm that there was a restoration and that Joseph Smith was The Guy.

So, as i'm sitting in this pew realizing that after all these years I don't know a damn thing about anything I say this little half ass prayer "Hey Jesus, after all this time I still don't know who you are!". The answer, coming from myself, I know, was "Well read the New Testament, dumbass."

And so I have. And am. Not the King James version, which is nice poetic sounding words and all but I never could figure out what the hell was going on. I got a NIV edition which is much easier to figure out and follow. As I read I realized, Holy Hill Cumorah, this is all so different than what I was taught my whole life! This is all so different than the Jesus of the Book of Mormon! How did I never see this?!?

I don't know if the events in the New Testament happened or not and perhaps that is solely the realm of faith anyway, but I do know that what i'm reading in the New Testament is a different narrative than what I went blindly through life believing as a TBM.

I'm still amazed at the mind#uck.

It's my personal opinion that all church make up a version of "Jesus" that suits their wants/needs. After all, the NT gives conflicting ideas of what "Jesus" was, said, did, etc.

It's just that the "Jesus" made up by many churches is a far more pleasant, admirable one than the ones mormons made up. They emphasize the loving, forgiving portrait in the NT -- while mormons emphasize the obedience parts (and the stuff they made up that's NOT in the NT as well).

I'd take "liberal protestant" Jesus over mormon Jesus any day. If more people also did, the world would be a much better place, IMHO :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's my personal opinion that all church make up a
> version of "Jesus" that suits their wants/needs.

including THE church formerly known as the Roman Empire which was reborn as the Holy Roman (Catholic) church which then went on to be even more successful than the very successful Roman Empire had been at exercising political influence and governing people across the globe, and accumulating wealth, all that success by switching to operating in the name of God -Jesus Christ, instead of in the name of the Roman Emperor !!!!


> After all, the NT gives conflicting ideas of what
> "Jesus" was, said, did, etc.

Ummmmmm, actually the NT portrayal of JC is more staightforward than not. Jesus hates/ loathes / despises religion, which is odd for a Jew. That might seem confusing, but it remains consistent. Jesus also consistently tells people that He is the messiah and that He is divine which is an odd claim, but Jesus is quite consistent with that message. Jesus also says a lot of stuff that sounds a lot more like a Roman than a Jew, That might seem confusing (for those who are genuinely aware of both cultures WHICH certainly aint most Dumb ass ignorant MORmONS who do not have a clue), until is remembered/ considered that the NT Jesus was the Jewish Messiah as created by the Romans as a mockery of Judaism, then suddenly the deal makes a lot more sense !!!!!


> It's just that the "Jesus" made up by many
> churches is a far more pleasant, admirable one
> than the ones mormons made up.


OK, now you are talking about the Lower Head Lord MORmON Jesus
WHO has a very different set of priorities .......like making sure that Teen Age girls are married / RAPED by His latter day prophet PERVERT Joe Smith.


> They emphasize the
> loving, forgiving portrait in the NT -- while
> mormons emphasize the obedience parts (and the
> stuff they made up that's NOT in the NT as well).


> I'd take "liberal protestant" Jesus over mormon
> Jesus any day. If more people also did, the world
> would be a much better place, IMHO :)

Well, those would be some Key differences between the NT Lord Jesus Christ and the Lower Head Lord MORmON Jesus the facilitator of Joe Smith raping teen age girls.

.......Then MORmONS wonder why the traditional Christian Community excludes MORmONISM from Christianity !!!!!

Which is all good and fine, but realize that the authors of the gospels weren't witness to ANY of it.

Best of thoughts as 1)you unwind the mindf&^k of Mormonism, and 2)your spiritual journey to what you need.

It's your journey and there is no right or wrong, so don't let others, either here or IRL, tell you what is what.

You can find out what is what on your own. It's not something anyone should dictate to you.

Best of everything

My good friend HieToKolob and I disagree on the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth. I'll point out that Hie admires Stephen Hawking, and Hawking, while rejecting the recorded attributes of divinity and/or supernatural anointing, at least acknowledged that Jesus was a real, historical person. There are, of course, many roads that lead from that starting point.

At the risk of long-time posters rolling their eyes, I strongly recommend the ESV Study Bible, which is a good modern balance between the original languages and today's English. There are abundant maps, charts, and footnotes, and a special section on the origin and transmission of the ancient texts, which addresses the modern position questioning their reliability. "Hie" would say they were written so late there is little if any historical truth; I take the polar opposite position. That's something you'll have to work through yourself.

At least you understand that the LDS Jesus is quite the outlier, a good start. I had to go through the same thing with Christian Science.

Just a note for my buddy caffeined:

I did admire Hawking. That doesn't make his assessment of the historicity of bible Jesus any more authoritative, though. My evaluation is based on an assessment of the evidence, not what other people think (no matter who they are).

And it's not the "lateness" of the gospels that makes them questionable as to "historical truth" -- it's the lack of any confirming evidence as to their claims. That would be the case were they written 50 years earlier :)

And just to be clear, I don't claim "Jesus was a myth." I simply take the position that there isn't enough evidence to establish there was a "Jesus." We simply don't know.

I too like the English Standard Version of the Bible very much. Soon I will be reading the Revised Standard Version. I would enjoy hearing opinions about the difference between the two.

My relationship with Jesus has certainly changed since I left the LDS church. LDS Jesus tended to stand quietly by while Heavenly Father and "The power of the Holy Ghost" became the forceful elements of His church. He is merely the name. Non-Mormon Jesus is involved in Personal Relationships with people. I like this Jesus much, much better.

I can no longer bring myself to read the King James Version of the Bible, because it reminds me too much of Mormonism.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My good friend HieToKolob and I disagree on the
> historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth. I'll
> point out that Hie admires Stephen Hawking, and
> Hawking, while rejecting the recorded attributes
> of divinity and/or supernatural anointing, at
> least acknowledged that Jesus was a real,
> historical person.

based on what ??? the writings of Josephus who was totally co-opted by the Roman Flavians (to the extent that Josephus took on their name for his own) to completely rewrite Jewish history as the Flavians went about destroying recorded Jewish history which was totally bereft of any particular Jesus character claiming to be messiah and to be divine at the time.

Well, if you reject the turncoat Josephus, there are others, such as Tacitus. You may wonder whether the writers of the gospels embellished their stories to serve their purposes, but the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified on a Roman cross is as historical as Julius Caesar. I recommend Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" as a good reader. Ehrman is certainly no friend to the Bible-thumper view of the New Testament. I think you may find him an honest broker, at least. And more authoritative on this particular subject than Hawking.

Ahhh... the great "appeal to authority" fallacy.

gettinreal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhh... the great "appeal to authority" fallacy.

What?

.....The old "Jesus really was a historical figure even if not divine" *argument* / idiotic assertion was not dumb enough in its own right for you ??? so you had to point out other idiocy?

I would suggest two things
1. Read the book "The Slave Species Of God".
Tellinger covers the issue quite succinctly.
2. Google "Who wrote the new testament?"
I found some real food for thought in those sites.

There isn't much debate among historians on the existence of a human Jesus. The near consensus is that he did exist. That much is a fact although there are some posters here who think they are wrong and\or Christian apologists.They are no apologists and many are not Christian If you are interested,check out Bart Sherman 'Did Jesus Exist?'

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There isn't much debate among historians on the
> existence of a human Jesus. The near consensus is
> that he did exist. That much is a fact although
> there are some posters here who think they are
> wrong and\or Christian apologists.They are no
> apologists and many are not Christian If you are
> interested,check out Bart Sherman 'Did Jesus
> Exist?'

Here is the real question i want answered if he existed. Was he a badass or a stuck up high and mighty jackass? This actually matters to me believe it or not.

He almost certainly existed and it is hard to say what he was like as the information is limited

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There isn't much debate among historians on the
> existence of a human Jesus. The near consensus is
> that he did exist.

The vast majority of "historians" have never done any research or study on the issue, and have no opinion.

The supposed "near consensus" comes from New Testament Scholars, most of whom aren't "historians," and the vast majority of whom are believing christians.

> That much is a fact although
> there are some posters here who think they are
> wrong and\or Christian apologists.

Facts aren't established by opinion, they're established by verifiable evidence -- which the "near consensus" of New Testamtent Scholars don't have. It's not a "fact." It's an opinion not backed by verifiable evidence.

> They are no
> apologists and many are not Christian If you are
> interested,check out Bart Sherman 'Did Jesus
> Exist?'

Did you mean Bart Ehrman? Yes, by all means, check out that book. Reading it honestly will show why the opinion isn't a fact, and rests on some rather worthless assumptions. Also read the numerous criticisms of that book -- many of them written by other scholars who, while they also think an actual "Jesus" probably existed, think Ehrman's reasoning is crap, and point out the numerous flaws in his arguments.

Double post. Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2018 02:38PM by bona dea.

Bamboozled it seems your post has gone off in a different direction than you intended and qualified. I can identify very well with your reaction which reflects in some way my own experience. Once I determined to seek for myself rather relying on the dictates of others I discovered something quite different. Good luck in your reading.

The Mormon Jesus seems to exist only to validate Joseph Smith and has largely been supplanted by him.

Thanks Kentish. I thought no you have a finger on my pulse.

Didn't the Jesus of the BoM knock down a city? I think most Christians would find that incongruous with the Jesus of the New Testament, who had no problem knocking down the tables of the temple money changers, but was not otherwise interested in violence.

Episcopal priests, along with the ministers and priests of many other mainstream denominations, are very well educated individuals. In the course of earning their divinity degrees (often a doctorate in divinity,) they spend years studying ancient languages, the Bible, Bible scholarship and critique, the historicity of Jesus, etc. They know how to do research and can build their sermons from a scholarly perspective. They are often exposed to many texts that the members of their congregations might consider heretical. They are educated in the same thorough manner as a Jewish rabbi, who is considered to be both a scholar and a teacher.

IMO Mormon "talks," although possessing a down-to-Earth, folksy, personal quality, along with a personal testimony, can not possibly compare with a sermon delivered by a church minister who has spent years in college and graduate school studying his field at an advanced level. Would you rather hear about a dig from an archeologist with a doctorate, or from a random but enthusiastic person with a shovel?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2018 02:37AM by summer.

Agree totally and the talks are usually not centered on Jesus anyway-even if he is mentioned. Yes, he did knock down a city in the BofM.To Mormons he is about the letter of law, temples, tithing and all those other thing the Jesus of the NT ignored or minimized

Yes the the two versions of jesus do not match and that has always bothered me. Whether he existed or not the new testament was my favorite scriptures growing up. My idea of jesus was a true badass that fought for the broken and the oppressed not the holier than thou jesus of mormonism too good to help anybody. But yea they don't matcjh at all.

Jesus is just as real as Thor and Zeus. Gods are meta-real. They’re archetypes you can look up to instead of learning everything the hard way. It doesn’t matter that Jesus is a story. It’s the story that counts, a very deep and powerful story. The Jesus character is just a prop. Inside every person is a Jesus and a Satan, metaphorically speaking. The Bible, especially the New Testament, is about what’s going on inside you, not what happened historically.

D@mn right i am jesus and satan at the same time jk those guys are jackasses.

It will be hard to follow along with the metaphor

If you don't. If that <congrgation> is where you want to be here are metaphorical constructs socially relevant concrete and abstract reflections on Christ <a moment instant recorded descriptive event someone reflection on a sequence or a statement or act> then like a slingshot back in reference to your time or an act feeling or eventually you'd get tired of being with the people and not getting what they're chuckling about. Read the book their translation

Enjoy your life you don't need to undermine your joy by taking it to seminary scripture search mormonizing it while " life sizing" your current religious culture ...just enjoy it don't strangle the life out of it attacking it frantically with Mormon scripture wrangling devices or utilizing Mormon it says this b because logic on it. Just enjoy the folk and amazing good fortune /sometimes referred to in lots of protestant descriptive vocabulary.

Be . Love is. Nothing was,horrible about you without the descriptive vocabulary or automatic reflex responses to someone else's faith stories in how they reflect , in how they made thhe metaphors <of meaning> you have value too with or without integrating their exact list of words, stories, and metaphor. You're obviously great and already experiencing great love and understanding exactly as you were.

Racking up more points by the glory of God is intelligence isn't really the protestant way/metaphor it's Mormon metaphor. But I like you anyway. Think away! Grand joy glory fun strewn grace see your journey home friend

Paintingnotloggedin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be . Love is.

My philosophy as well...Thank you, Painting!!!

This is a great book and made complete sense to me: https://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Jesus-Roberta-Grimes/dp/0692542817

I think we do all agree that Mormon Jesus never existed. The other Jesus had a HUGE impact on history--so much so that it is extremely difficult for me to conceive that he never existed. Many of the records were destroyed by Roman leaders who wanted to stomp Christianity out and also by invading Germanic tribes. I'm not sure if opposing Jews destroyed records or not, but to me it seems likely that they did. I don't believe that today's Jews are denying that Jesus was a historical figure.

I have met people online who are hell-bent on asserting that Jesus never existed, and act very threatened when someone doesn't agree with them. I don't understand why some insist on attacking believers and demand that they change their minds or else. Is it really destroying their world that some people believe? Is it so impossible for us to co-exist? Maybe it's a payback for people in their lives who have tried to cram religion down their throat. I'm glad we live in a time when we are free to choose what we believe and whether we do, but some on one side or the other want to dictate.

although I currently considers myself as agnostic atheist which means that I currently don't hold a belief that God exists while at the same time do not claim to know any proof that would show that none do exist. However, I think that the historical Jesus has no business with the gentiles but only to the jews . The Restoration of his Kingdom will happen in His second coming and he won't delegate it to any prophet he may choose because the purpose of prophets are to act as a spokesman and not as King to the kingdom he alone will set up

This kingdom will be setup among the Jews not among the gentiles. Paul preaches to the gentiles as part of the prophecy to prepare the Jews and that the gentiles will become the nursing fathers and mothers to them.

The Jews will stand as a blessing to the gentiles and will become the nation of priests that will minister to them as a fulfillment to the promise to abraham. This is why the jewish leaders were so mad at the church dead dunking the Holocausts victims because they are depriving them of their Jewish identity by converting
them to Mormonism. The Jewish leaders considered it as sacrilegious.

I am saying this because Joseph Smith claims that the Kingdom of God will be set up through him and that he proclaim himself as King and Priest in this Kingdom. What the hell!

It is in his secret council of fifty agenda. This council of fifty shows that the Kingdom of God is distinct from the Church. Joseph Smith is not a Jew! He has 0 business in doing the works of the Jews let alone the works that Jesus himself would do alone. Peter was asking Jesus when he will set up his Kingdom and will stand as King among them. He did not set up the Kingdom himself because he knew that his work is to preach repentance to the Jews so that the work of Jesus in setting up his kingdom will commence because unless the Jews turns to him and repent this Kingdom will not come. Not every Jews had turn to Christ yet nowadays so the restitution hasn't come yet. It will be in the second coming when the fullness of the gentiles has arrived. But after Paul, I didn't know anyone who continued his works for the gentiles. Definitely not J.S. jun since it wasn't Paul whom he claims to appear to him to give him the key of the gospel that Paul holds.

So now I'm saying this to show that Joseph Smith's religion like others that claims that their churches are the gateway to salvation is fake news not the good news and that after knowing all this, I still remain as agnostic atheist since I cannot accept a Being who says that he's no respecter of persons but at the same time considering us gentiles dogs and second only to the Jews. Although he turned to the gentiles now, we still stand as second to the Jews since in his Kingdom he will make all gentiles become servants to the Jews by saying that we will lick the dust from their feet and will nurse them or become their caregiver. This is no different with the Mormon doctrine against blacks. So now I'm done.