I would like to ask a simple question. What do you think of Jesus? Was he who he claimed to be - the son of God or just a fraud. It seems to me that the life of this one man or at least the story of this man has changed the world a great deal....I would just like to know how to think about Jesus now that I'm no longer a "mormon" As a member of the church I was told how to think....I'm not sure what I think about Jesus anymore. I'm having a hard time just....dismissing him as no body special....any ideas?

Oh boy, here we go!

AFAIK he never claimed to be the son of God. Others called him that. He called himself the "Son of Man."

I think that he was a real person -- an itinerant preacher over whom many, many myths were laid. I consider him to have been an enlightened being -- what the Buddhists would refer to as a bodisattva.

The earlier gospels he wants people to prepare for the coming of the Son of Man - which is more like something she said.

Anywho, the earliest gospels point more to Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher.

Over time with the evolution of the stories/gospels getting more and more fantastical does he become more of a deity.

Therefore, he was probably neither the Son of God or a fraud. The myths grew up after his death. What he thought of himself is a matter of conjecture.There just isn't enough info to know.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more. *Source (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)

Did these historians normally source their accounts?

The 1st Josephus quote is either a forgery or tampered with, but the others are considered authentic if for no other reason that they are very neutral and in no way glorify Christianity. That is the same reason we know the first Josephus quote has been tampered with or forged.

That's part of the reason many if not most historical scholars believe the later references to Christ were forged add-ons...

It seems most unlikely such an individual could make only minimal references to the Messiah (even mentioning someone who claimed or said to be one would've been terrible heresy). Yet that's what has survived...

Yes, in fact Josephus was one of the primary historians of his time. He recorded daily the goings on of the Romans and Jews and his records were meticulously kept. They were true historians of their period and yes they included great details when recording the events that transpired.

So Josephus primarily wrote about comtemporaneous topics of which he had personal knowledge?

My first introduction to him was when I read the movie script for, "The English Patient." It's still my favorite movie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 11:19AM by summer.

I am often asked what my personal opinion (or explanation) of Jesus is. The following summary is not intended as a complete scholarly discussion of Jesus, but only a summary of my own personal conclusions after many years of reading the Bible and many, many books and articles, both critical and apologetic, about Jesus and the origins of Christianity.

Christians often argue that the only reasonable explanation for Jesus' life and for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus was, in fact, what Christians claim he is: the resurrected Son of God, the second member of the Trinity. This argument often takes the form of the dilemma: either Jesus was God, as he claimed, or he was a lunatic. Perhaps the most famous statement of the argument is by C. S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity, where he says that we cannot simply say that Jesus is a "great moral teacher." He says we have only three choices (a trilemma): "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse." The three choices, then, according to Lewis, are: 1) God; 2) lunatic; 3) Devil.

Lewis here commits the logical fallacy of the "false dilemma" (in this case, the "false trilemma"), which consists of proposing only two (or, as in this case, three) possible explanations for a set of facts, then demolishing all except the one being argued for, leaving it as the only possible explanation. The fallacy is committed when the advocate neglects to consider that there are other possible explanations which he has not demolished.

In the case of Jesus, I believe that there is at least one other possible explanation, and one is all that is required to destroy the argument. And please note: It is not necessary, in exposing the fallacy of the false dilemma, to prove that the unmentioned possibility is actually true. One must only show that it is possible and that it is a reasonable explanation of all the facts.

The evidence we have about Jesus is rather sparse, and none of it, strictly speaking, is contemporary. The earliest evidence is the writings of Paul, generally dated after 55 A.D., at least twenty years after Jesus' death. (Note, however, that Paul mentions no details about Jesus' life or even his teachings.) We also have the four canonical gospels, the earliest being Mark, generally dated around 70 A.D. All of these writings were by Christians, and reflect the undisputed fact that by the time of their writing, there was a belief among Christians that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews, and that he had risen from the dead after three days (Paul) or two days (Gospels).

It is important to remember that the documents only indicate Christian belief in these things, and that one cannot take such belief by anyone to be convincing evidence for the actual truth of what is believed, even though today's Christians may argue that the early Christians, who were much closer to those events, would not have believed if it were not true.

Disregarding for the moment the miraculous and the theological, which can easily be explained as later pious embellishment on the actual facts, the bare facts of Jesus' life and times from these sources and from contemporary non-Christian sources are these:

Jesus lived in Palestine at a time of political and religious unrest. Palestine was under oppressive foreign occupation, and had been for a hundred years. Jewish hopes for relief were based more and more on the writings of their prophets, which were interpreted to prophesy the eventual coming of an anointed king (Hebrew 'mashiah', Greek 'christos'), who would restore the Jewish kingdom as promised by God. It was believed by many Jews that this king would be a descendant of King David, and that his ascension to the ancient throne of David would usher in a period of peace for Jews and retribution and punishment for their enemies, and that the Jewish kingdom, under God and God's chosen people, would encompass all the nations of the world.

These beliefs were not universally held among the Jews, and there were sharp differences among them. The Zealots advocated violence; the Sadducees (the more aristocratic, priestly Jews) advocated accommodation; the Essenes advocated monastic withdrawal from the world; the Pharisees advocated strict observance of the Law. There were also individual rabbis (teachers), prophets and holy men who gathered followers, such as John the Baptist. Every such charismatic rabbi was the possible King, and some even proclaimed themselves as such. A common theme of all these groups and prophets was that the history of the Jews showed that prosperity for the nation came only upon obedience to God, and that failure to obey God resulted in national distress. Thus, obedience to God was a prerequisite to the coming of God's kingdom and the rescue of the nation.

Jesus was such a teacher. His message was a call to obey God. Like many of the prophets (Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), he taught that obedience to God did not consist simply in performing the proper temple sacrifices and avoiding unclean foods, but required also personal integrity, avoidance of all sin, and a sincere love of one's fellow man - an inner righteousness as well as an outer, superficial righteousness.

Like all charismatic teachers in ancient times, he was a healer, and was credited with miraculous healings and other miracles by his followers, even though he insisted that miracles should not be used to authenticate his message.

It is generally conceded by scholars that Jesus did not formally organize a church, nor did he intend to establish a new religion. He had a message to spread, and he called upon his followers to spread that message, but it was essentially a Jewish message, and intended primarily for the Jews.

As with many other such figures in Palestine, some of his followers came to believe that he was the promised King. Perhaps he himself came to believe that. Perhaps he even proclaimed himself as the King. In any case, the Roman authorities could not tolerate a pretender to the Jewish throne. Palestine was a country seething with unrest already, without having a live pretender to the throne who was telling his followers (among whom were some Zealots) that a new kingdom was about to be established, and making triumphal entries into Jerusalem, welcomed jubilantly by the people, and causing riots in the temple compound. Such a doctrine and such acts were treason under Roman law, for which the penalty was death by crucifixion. And that was the sentence pronounced upon Jesus by the Romans.

How did the belief arise that Jesus rose from the dead? Remember that we have no solid evidence of the resurrection except the fact that such a belief was held by at least some of Jesus' followers about twenty years after his death.

I believe that there are at least two possible explanations for the existence of this belief.

One explanation is based on our knowledge from sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists about the two common phenomena now known as "urban legends" and "cognitive dissonance."

"Urban legends" is the term given to those wild stories of odd or mysterious events that are rapidly passed nowadays from person to person and often even end up as news stories on the inside pages. Anthropologists and folklorists have collected thousands of them in the last few decades and studied them.

Many modern urban legends are so common that they have acquired titles: "The $300 Cookie Recipe," "The $50 Mercedes," "The Kidney Kidnappers," "The AIDS Needles In the Pay Phone," "The Vanishing Hitchhiker," "The Choking Doberman." (See the Snopes collection of urban legends for more information and examples.)

Some of the characteristics of urban legends are:

they are passed on as true events, not fiction;
they are authenticated by assurances that the person reporting it heard it from someone who knew someone who actually was a witness to the event;
the events they report are astonishing, frightening, miraculous, mysterious, comical, or with a moral;
they can arise and spread very quickly;
the details of the events (location, characters, setting) often change and get embellishment;
it is usually impossible to trace the story to its source, particularly an origin in an actual event;
they do not die: even after being frequently exposed as not factual, the story crops up again and starts the rounds once more as fact.

Urban legends now being collected and studied are the modern urban legends, that is, those that are being spread today, in our supposedly sophisticated, educated and skeptical society. But there is nothing to indicate that they are a modern phenomenon. It would seem obvious, rather, that in the ancient world, an age of credulity, where miracle tales were common and belief in magic and the supernatural was widespread even among the best-educated classes, the urban legend would have had even more fertile ground. An urban legend that today can travel three thousand miles in six months surely could have had a counterpart two thousand years ago that could travel that fast over three hundred miles, even without today's modern means of communication.

Jesus' resurrection is explainable as a typical urban legend. It has all the characteristics listed above, with the exception that its source is traceable to a specific supposed actual event, namely, Jesus' execution for treason. How that event became an urban legend can be explained by a study of cognitive dissonance.

"Cognitive dissonance" is the name given by psychologists to a phenomenon which sometimes warrants psychiatric treatment, but perhaps does not always become so severe as to affect an individual's normal functioning. It arises in an individual (or a group) when two incompatible and contradictory facts seem to become so undeniable that neither one can be denied. An individual example would be a wife who is absolutely certain that her husband is faithful, but who is presented with evidence that he is having an affair. The person (or group), when faced with two such contradictory and incompatible facts, neither of which can be acknowledged as false, suffers from cognitive dissonance, and is forced to find some way, however absurd, to accept both facts. The belief in an absurd reconciliation of the two contradictory facts is the attempted solution to the cognitive dissonance. Forcing oneself to believe an absurdity causes the psychological damage which may require outside help. The cure, of course, is to abandon the acceptance of one of the cherished facts (e.g., admitting that her husband is a cad).

In religious cults, for example, especially in those based on a leader who claims prophetic ability, the problem of cognitive dissonance arises when the prophecies do not come to pass. Cults that promise happiness in exchange for obedience cause cognitive dissonance when their obedient members realize that they are not, in fact, happier.

For the followers of Jesus, the two incompatible facts were, first, that Jesus was the promised king ('mashiah') who was going to usher in the Kingdom under God and make the Jews the leaders of the world, and, second, that Jesus was executed before establishing that expected kingdom. How could his disciples reconcile these two contradictory facts?

It is not difficult to imagine. Obviously a dead man cannot found a kingdom of any kind. Therefore, Jesus must somehow be alive. But how is that possible? The answer was at hand: the Jewish belief (at least among the Pharisees) in the resurrection of the dead in the "last days."

But the mere logical conclusion that Jesus must be still alive (or alive again), and thus able to "return" to carry out the establishment of the promised Kingdom, would benefit from some tangible evidence. Here, our knowledge of how urban legends arise and grow helps. It is easy to suppose, and likely, that people might ask Peter or another disciple how he knows that Jesus is not dead. If Peter were to say, "I feel Jesus' presence with me often, as though he were actually here," the zealous believer could easily pass this remark on to others as, "Peter says Jesus is often with him," which, after a few more steps becomes, "Peter has seen Jesus alive!"

Or two disciples meet a stranger on the road who talks like Jesus. They tell about this meeting, and in the frequent retelling it becomes an actual meeting with Jesus himself, whom the disciples had failed to recognize.

Believers undoubtedly speculated about these things: What must it have been like? Do you suppose he just walked out of the tomb? Did someone see him come out? And there were undoubtedly imaginative guesses: I'll bet Mary was there. I'll bet Peter went to check the tomb. And soon these guesses became rumors, and then they became facts: urban legends.

One cannot help but be reminded of the many stories circulating nowadays about people who have seen Elvis Presley alive. Just as it does no good to tell devout Elvis fans that such sightings are impossible, so too it must have been impossible to dissuade Jesus' followers from believing what they so desperately wanted to believe.

There were also the pagan (Egyptian, Canaanite and Hellenistic) models of the god who rose from the dead (Osiris, Tammuz, etc.) Combining these two ideas led easily to the idea that Jesus was not just an ordinary man, but somehow partook of divinity. Adapting those stories to Jesus, along with familiar tales about virgin birth (from Alexander the Great), about shepherds attending the birth (from the Mithra myth), and other stories attached to great men, prophets and pagan gods, it is no surprise that within thirty or forty years Jesus' life story had become the myth-encrusted account we find in the gospels.

I said that there were at least two possible explanations. I have suggested the first. The second is the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but survived, at least for a short time. This possibility has been suggested by a number of scholars, and in varying forms. Most suggested scenarios include some kind of plot by an inner circle of Jesus' friends (such as Joseph of Arimathea) to snatch the suffering Jesus unconscious from the cross before his actual death, then to nurse him back to health. Some suggest that he then lived for years in hiding (he was, after all, a condemned criminal), perhaps to participate and finally die in the rebellion of 69-70 A.D. Others suggest that he died soon after, having failed to recover fully from his ordeal on the cross.

The irony of this suggestion is that it allows us to lend greater credence to some of the details of the crucifixion and resurrection stories as reported in the gospels and Acts, especially the appearances to the disciples. The stories of the ascension (especially the version in Acts 1, placing it forty days after the resurrection) then become the possible report of when Jesus actually died (and really "went to heaven").

If a reasonable, possible explanation exists for a set of facts, we cannot logically accept a different explanation which defies reason, goes against all our human experience, and requires us to accept miracles or magic. One Christian to whom I suggested the above possibilities exclaimed, "That is absurd, to think that Jesus' friends took him from the cross alive!" But what is more absurd: to think that a condemned man's friends tried to save his life, or that a dead man came back to life after two nights in a tomb?

I am not among those people mentioned by Lewis who consider Jesus "a great moral teacher." I have two reasons for my opinion.

First, none of his moral teachings are original with him. "Love thy neighbor," "act justly," the "Golden Rule" - are all much older, and have been taught in almost all systems of morality and ethics in all parts of the world. It is an error to give credit to Jesus for originating those teachings.

Second, many of his moral teachings are not very moral or wise, and some are even reprehensible. Among the worst are:

his doctrine of an eternal fire for the punishment of those who do not accept his message (for whatever reason);
his message that he came not to bring peace, but the sword;
his teaching that one should abandon family to follow him;
his recommendation to pluck out the eye if it "offends";
his teaching to "resist not evil";
his hesitancy to heal a non-Jew (i.e., racism).

The ultimate condemnation of the value of his "moral teaching" is the long history of atrocities committed by his followers, using his teachings as their justification.

A final side note on C. S. Lewis: In the same paragraph in which Lewis commits the fallacy of the false trilemma, he commits another fallacy as well, when he says, after giving us only his three choices: "[Therefore] let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

This is the fallacy of the self-sealing argument, or the self-validating argument, which is a special form of the fallacy of the circular argument or "begging the question." It is a favorite argument of Christian apologists, appearing also in arguing for the validity of the Bible as the word of God: How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it says so. Why should we accept the Bible's statement as proof? Because the Bible is the Word of God. Here: Jesus says we have to accept him only as God, not as a human teacher. Why? Because Jesus said so, and Jesus is God, so you have to take his word for it (God wouldn't lie).

Sometimes Christians suggest that I should think of what Jesus would say to me if he were to be sitting next to me: "I died for your sins. All I ask of you is to believe in me and follow me, to live your life as I would have you live it, to become as a little child and believe! And you shall have eternal life and dwell with me forever."

My response to that suggestion:

Your statement of what you think Jesus would say to me is the purest speculation on your part, and you have no way of knowing any such thing. Jesus has been dead for almost two thousand years, and his followers have turned him into a myth and a god. I do not consider that to be a very good basis for my life. Superstition by its very nature is dehumanizing and has a tremendous potential for evil.

Allow me to suggest what Jesus would say to you if he were sitting next to you: "How could you be so gullible as to believe all those wild stories that my followers made up about me after the Romans executed me? I gambled on setting up David's throne again, and we failed. I wanted people to be good Jews, and instead they threw out everything that I based my life and teachings on! That damned Paul! Who did he think he was, anyway? I never met him in my entire life! Why would any of you think that he should have the last word? Hey, I was wrong... I thought the last days were when I was alive, and the world was about to end, and I was wrong. The world is still going strong, two thousand years later. So, all I have to say is: be nice to each other. That's all I was trying to tell you. And one more thing: I really am dead."

On the other hand, a very strong case can be made that there never even existed a man named Jesus as described in the New Testament. This notion may seem absurd to many, especially to Christians. But even many non-believers might exclaim, "Of course he existed! He may not have been divine, as Christians believe, but it's a historical fact that he really existed! Everybody knows that!"

Actually, when carefully examined, the evidence for Jesus' having actually lived in Palestine is quite flimsy. To examine the case against the historicity of Jesus, see for example any of the following:

Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Jesus Exist?, http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/

Freke, Timothy, and Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?", Harmony Books, New York, 1999

Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist? (revised edition), Pemberton, London, 1986

Kenneth Humphreys' website http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

"there was a belief among Christians that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews, and that he had risen from the dead after three days (Paul) or two days (Gospels)."

And I'd like to cheerfully suggest inserting the word "certain" into "a belief among [certain] Christians that Jesus was the Messiah...."

Not all early Christian sects believed these things, and it's a common misconception for todays Christians to think that early Christianity was homogenous with their beliefs in the role of a Messiah, and the resurrection.

One of the biggest early Christian sects, the Gnostics, had very different ideas about who Jesus was and what he was really trying to teach peeps.



Thanks for letting me nitpick.

Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "there was a belief among Christians that Jesus
> was the Messiah promised to the Jews, and that he
> had risen from the dead after three days (Paul) or
> two days (Gospels)."
>
> And I'd like to cheerfully suggest inserting the
> word "certain" into "a belief among Christians
> that Jesus was the Messiah...."
>
> Not all early Christian sects believed these
> things, and it's a common misconception for todays
> Christians to think that early Christianity was
> homogenous with their beliefs in the role of a
> Messiah, and the resurrection.
>
> One of the biggest early Christian sects, the
> Gnostics, had very different ideas about who Jesus
> was and what he was really trying to teach peeps.
>
>
>
> Thanks for letting me nitpick.

Raptor, you are absolutely right. Thanks for the correction!

wow..I read through the information you have provided and want to thank you for posting it but now I'm really lost. I mean now you are telling me that I not only waste 50 years in the Mormon church being con'ed by them but now even Jesus may have not even existed? And even if he did he was most likely not what he claimed to be....damn....I feel like going to my downloaded music list and playing the Jefferson Airplane song that starts out...."When the truth is found to be lies and all the love within you dies" (Don't you want somebody to love)....is there nothing to believe in but greed and dishonesty and selfishness? I know those things exist but I would like something more to believe in than that....I have spent my life as a man of great faith...only to learn that my faith in God has made me a fool! bummer.........

I recently went though this myself. I had been a faithful member of the church, studied all the scriptures and never really questioned any of it. It was all "true".

About 6 - 7 months ago, I found myself questioning, for reasons outside the scope of this post. I found that the church wasn't true, it was based on lies and that alone left me spinning for a while. What did I believe now? Do I find another church? Who am I without the church. This lead to more questions, what was Christianity?

I don't remember how I found the question, but it had something to do with "is there a Historical Jesus". I know I read a lot of Richard Dawkins, so it might have been from there. I also read a lot of Mr. Packham's online material, so it might have been a combination. I found myself believing much as Mr Packam has posted above... If Christ even existed, he certainly wasn't the Christ that I grew up "knowing" about.

This was a whole new rabbit hole... Not only was the church I was raised in and had followed all my life not true, but the very person's teaching it was supposedly based on might not have even existed. What do I do with that.

This lead to a lot of conversations with my wife and trusted friends, and a lot of research... Where does morality come from? If not based in religion, why don't people run around promoting their own needs and stomping all over everyone else? In other words what am I supposed to do now...

Finally, after a lot of research, a little depression, I started to realize that I was basically the same person I was before I left the church. I still wanted to be a good husband, I still wanted to do good work at my job. I still wanted to have fun and enjoy life. I didn't want to hurt any of my neighbors and I didn't want to become a bank robber, just because I didn't have religion guiding me. I was a little more open to other people's opinion and more willing to hear other people out, but that's another story...

In time, I settled into my "new" life, living the way I always have, just without the controlling overlord of religion constantly telling me what was right or wrong. I didn't need religion to hold judgement over me. I could decide on my own based on common sense and normal social boundaries that have nothing to do with religion.

I'm guessing that all this is new, it's a huge change, especially after 50 years. You're world is changing. Give it time to soak in and decide what you are ready to accept.

Golden rules...Do unto others....in as much as yea have done it unto one of these the least of my brethren ye have done it unto me....there was such peace and happiness believing in those things...believing in Greed Dishonesty and Selfishness doesn't make me feel as good!

the golden rule is not from religion is it@?
from: wiki:

The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms).[2] As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s).[2][5] The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.[citation needed]

and you dont need religion to keep you from being dishonest and selfish!! you can do that all on your own!! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 02:09PM by bignevermo.

Thanks, Richard. I think I've read this on your website before but I always enjoy a re-read.

I just cannot fathom how any thinking person can buy into any religion or into any definition of the word, god.

Atheism is such a relief. Such a relief.

"I like to picture Jesus as a figure skater. He wears like a white outfit, and He does interpretive ice dances of my life's journey."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 12:38PM by searching27.

Paul never met Jesus. Everything he said about Jesus he pulled straight out of his inspired @ss. If you subtract his ideas, you are more or less left with Jefferson's Jesus.

Christianity should be called Paulism.

I am in the same situation. I was originally baptized in a protestant church because I became "spiritually convicted" (received a witness) and was rebaptized when I "received a witness" regarding JS. I had lots of those experiences and even received revelation for a small restoration church.

Now I know that those experiences regarding mormonism were phoney. Therefore, I cannot trust those that regarded the man they call Jesus, Yeshua or "3 box tops full", whatever. Apparently nothing was written down for a couple of hundred years and that was written by spin doctors. Theologians freely admit Mathew (or whoever) wrote to present an ancestry that would support being a priest / king.

As I view the claim that if 4 guys tell the same story, it must be true justification, I just can't buy it. Ever heard of plagerism, anyone???

I have tried reading the translations of the gnostic gospels and they seem to be gibberish to me.

In my quest to maintain some iota of faith, the best I can do is suggest to myself that the approach of the gnostics is valid. Could a man acheive redemptive powers through the process of knowing? Maybe.

Did god do the dirty with a flesh and blood woman? Please...! Did "angels" sing him into the world? Let's not get silly. Was he crucified and resurrect? Sounds weird! Did he raise the dead, cure the sick? Stranger things have happened.

It is also interesting to me that Mohammid's stuff didn't get written down for about 400 years (from what I read). Budda's story didn't get written down for 500. Seems none of the "great ones" get a biographer until long after they are dead. To my mind the arguement that people didn't write things down, doesn't hold water because people were recording every other aspect of daily life in the same eras.

I must assume that the fact that I still seek for confirmation of some part of the story of Jesus is nothing more or less than some human need for the supernatural and / or the need for an ultimate parent figure to make everything "ok".

I would probably be happier today if I had never heard of JS. The mormon church has robbed me of my ability to live by faith. If there is a life hereafter, I hope to be able to track all the mormon prophets down and kick their asses for the evil they have foisted on so many millions. Catholics and protestants are no better!

Religion has been called the opiate of the masses. Rather religion should be called the arsenic of the masses.

Thank you for the opportunity to vent!

I've gone back and read the posting that came in while I was typing. It would seem, Randy, that you have pulled the scab off a wound that many of us share. Maybe some day it will heal.

And don't resort to the josephus forgeries !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 12:38PM by Dave the Atheist.

Even spiritual eye-witnesses are more reliable than second-hand and third-hand stories..

So now what? I'm suppose to go back to believing in Golden Plates before I believe in Jesus....I'm beginning to wish I had not asked the question....Is the whole a lie? Am I even here? Does my exsistance matter to anyone? Is there any purpose to any of this? Damn I'm lost when I have to think for myself. I think I liked it better being a Mormon and being stupid but sure I was smart and knew what was going on. At least as a Mormon I had something that sounded nice to believe in! Golden rules...Do unto others....in as much as yea have done it unto one of these the least of my brethren ye have done it unto me....there was such peace and happiness believing in those things...believing in Greed Dishonesty and Selfishness doesn't make me feel as good!

How about trying no beliefs at all?

Richard that was probably the best post I ever read on speculation that Jesus was not as christians claim he was. Thanks for posting that.

I personally am open-minded to Jesus but the more I find out, the more that seems like a myth or some distortion of what events really happened 2000 years ago.

Richard, is this posted on your site somewhere?

SpongeBob SquareGarments Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard that was probably the best post I ever
> read on speculation that Jesus was not as
> christians claim he was. Thanks for posting that.
>
>
> I personally am open-minded to Jesus but the more
> I find out, the more that seems like a myth or
> some distortion of what events really happened
> 2000 years ago.
>
> Richard, is this posted on your site somewhere?

Yes, at http://packham.n4m.org/jesus.htm

I used to wonder if he existed at all, but the more I've studied, the more I'm now convinced he was never even a real person at all. I think several myths came into the mix, over a few hundred years, to make him what he is today.

In my nonmo, Judeo-Christian eductaed mindset:

Jesus existed and had something really important to say.





People/religions have taken that and ran with it..

If you are interested here are some books (written by Christians) on Jesus that to me are thoughtful and have some depth to them. Any sort of serious inquiry is going to require some reading.

1. Death on a Friday Afternoon by Richard John Neuhaus

2. Was Jesus God? By Richard Swinburne

I would also recommend starting with the basics. How would you define God? Are there any reasons to believe that such a God exists? If God exists does God interact in any way with us? What is our relationship, if any, to that God? The traditional Christian view of Jesus is best understood in the context of questions like these. I think in Mormonism we did things backwards - a testimony of the Book of Mormon means Joseph Smith was a prophet which means that Jesus is our savior which means that God is real. In my mind an intellectual foundation for belief should work in the opposite direction - start with God/Creator and build from there.

In any event he's the reason for the season. lol

MERRY CHRISTMAS!