Implications Of Discovering The Body Of Jesus.

[_Uncle Dale]

... I can accept Jesus as an itinerant preacher and good teacher,
but in terms of God atoned and resurrected in which I am expected to
follow a cult of personality, I just don't know.
...

Think of it this way -- there is always one tree in the forest that is tallest; only
one moment in time that a baby is born; only one final eye-blink before death.

Jesus was/is one of those "only" phenomena -- and so human beings make
up creeds to try and force an agreement on what that "only" really means.

The New Testament is jam-packed with messages about people having to
"believe," but it says very, very little about what Jesus communicated as
"gospel" -- at most, there are a few intriguing passages about what the
Kingdom of Heaven is "like."

Strip away all the churchly propaganda -- the "you must believe this" stuff.
Strip away the idea of Jesus being a purposeless teacher of morality.

Concentrate upon the precept of "encounter."

What did a Palestinian peasant "encounter" when he or she experienced
the essence of a parable hit like a ton of bricks?

What did a disciple "encounter" when he or she witnessed tears in Jesus' eyes?

What do we "encounter" when we pass through Jesus as a gateway?

Turn the old teaching on its head -- Instead of saying Jesus is the gate,
see the Gate as the way provided through Jesus, to eternity/infinity.

It is the "only" gate -- no matter that we term it Jesus, Krishna, Buddhahood,
or our own Inner Self.

Forget the terminology and concentrate on the gateway.......

Your Uncle Dale

[_Ray A]

As for the atonement aspect in terms of how it affects my life, then I just don't get it. I really don't. I don't (if there is a God) expect a free pass at life to do what I want and not escape the consequences. I understand responsibility, I understand the importance of trying to love and be kind to others and ourselves, I understand the need to change my ways and try and be better. The lesson in the missionary discussions on repentance I could relate to. It makes sense. But the atonement, from a very personal point of view. Nope I just don't get it.

I don't get it either. I prefer the Buddhist or Hindu concept of karma, or "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction". The responsibility for wrong doing rests squarely with you and me, not some guy who comes along and says "I'll take your sins upon me, but only if you agree to live on the terms I will lay out for you." Sounds a bit bribeish to me. And how is a person supposed to learn unless they suffer the consequences of their actions? They'll think that every time they do something wrong this guy can come along and "redeem them from their sins", unless the sin is denial of the Holy Ghost. "Sin now, Jesus has paid the debt." Sounds like government welfare.

[_huckelberry]

Miss Taken, I do not know Mr Hamblins ideas on atonement and its relationship to Jewish culture, child sacrifice?? I can understand that people have sought to express faith and gain spritual power through child sacrifice. The Bible contains an extensive rejection of that historical surrounding cultural expectation. (referring back to the key story of Abraham)

I do not think it makes much sense to see sacrifice buying forgiveness. Isaiah hears God saying "I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats, who asked this of you? stop bringing meaningless offerings?" Clearly there is some substance desired from God instead.

Unlike your comment, I really do not get the idea of atonement as being on the basis that we accept Jesus as God incarnate. I believe that of Jesus but I do not believe atonement functions only on the basis of that belief. Istead I beleive forgiveness is shared, not purchased. We pick up the pain effort and responsibility of forgiving others. It is in that sense that Jesus said come follow me. It is in that sense I can understand the atonement and not as some personality cult.


I understand recreation as a movement changing human relationships from one of warfare utilization and disposal, into ones of mutual cooperation and growth. I believe this change to continue into life after death with God, but the idea makes sense even if it is limited to the life we live now.

[_mentalgymnast]

This is only a hypothetical, but let's say that the body of Jesus was discovered in a tomb, and it was positively identified as the body of Jesus....

Yes, it is only a hypothetical. Cool thread though. Sethbag the apologist. Who woulda thought?

Uncle Dale, did your lack of faith/belief in the divine sonship of Christ predate your explorations and resultant conclusions and/or hypotheses in regards to Book of Mormon authorship?

I would have to agree with most of you on one thing. Once belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon goes down the tubes, it is much more likely that Christ's divinity does too. Then you can have fun looking for the corpse of Christ and have suspicions that it might really be out there somewhere to find. Good luck.

Regards,
MG

[Bedlamite]

...
Uncle Dale, did your lack of faith/belief in the divine sonship of Christ predate your explorations and resultant conclusions and/or hypotheses in regards to Book of Mormon authorship?
...

As I've tried to explain -- I do not speak in terms of "Christ" being Jesus'
last name. It is a title.

A "title" has no more "divine sonship" than does any other human creation.

So -- let's look for something a little more concrete. I find that in the Hebrew
term for "congregation," -- and, by extension, in the congregation of the
faithful, or the covenant people, or the body of Messiah.

I am perfectly willing to profess that together, all of us in "the Body of Christ"
share an Ultimate Divinity. Jesus the son of Mary is the head of that body.

I truly believe my stating THAT much is enough. I am willing to fellowship any
Jesus follower who professes, that to encounter Jesus is to encounter God.

Anybody who wishes to go beyond that simple statement, to craft creeds of
trinitarianism, Mormonism, or whatever, leaves me behind in the process.

I will not exclude others from fellowship, based upon hair-splitting arguments
over Christology. I am perfectly willing to worship alongside anybody who
accepts the Christology of IIINephi (which is the same for the rest of the book).

However, I do not accept that IIINephi Christology as historically valid or as
theologically true. My own opinion. Nobody else need agree with me.

My personal witness of Christology pre-dates my graduate studies in
theology, Book of Mormon text, etc. -- it was formulated before that period --
at about the time of my RLDS baptism.

UD

[_huckelberry]

" once your belief in the Book of Mormon ends then belief in Jesus,atonment, incarnation go down the tube"

Mentalgymnist, I missed how you got to that strange conclusion.
I do not see any connection there whatsoever. True a person might stop believing in both but disbelieving the Book of Mormon hardly must result in the other.

[_mentalgymnast]

" once your belief in the Book of Mormon ends then belief in Jesus,atonment, incarnation go down the tube"

Mentalgymnist, I missed how you got to that strange conclusion.
I do not see any connection there whatsoever. True a person might stop believing in both but disbelieving the Book of Mormon hardly must result in the other.

What I said was:

Once belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon goes down the tubes, it is much more likely that Christ's divinity does too. Then you can have fun looking for the corpse of Christ and have suspicions that it might really be out there somewhere to find...

I suppose in a way it's a chicken and the egg thing. Ask Ray which came first. Or others here.

Regards,
MG

[_Sethbag]

Yes, it is only a hypothetical. Cool thread though. Sethbag the apologist. Who woulda thought?

by the way, I wasn't defending Mormon beliefs. I was merely clarifying what Mormon beliefs actually are*.

It's far better to argue against what a true believer actually believes, because then any point made will have to be dealt with one way or another (which is where apologetics would actually kick in). I realize that as soon as one starts stating what true believers actually believe, in order to criticize it, one is "telling us what we believe" and the apologists will attack you for it. Oh well.

*I won't be drawn into a debate about whether the beliefs I was clarifying constitute "official" doctrines, or even "doctrine" at all, as opposed to just teachings of the church, beliefs of its founders, the common belief of most members over the past 150 years, or any other such finely-nuanced distinctions.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Once belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon goes down the tubes, it is much
more likely that Christ's divinity does too.
...

I tend to agree with that statement. I have watched a few dozen people leave
the LDS and RLDS churches over the years, leaving behind their previous
affirmation of the Book of Mormon as a truly ancient work of scripture. I have also watched
a handful of people attempt to remain in these churches, after losing their
belief in the traditional, "standard works" status of the Book of Mormon.

Once a compulsory affirmation of the Book of Mormon being "true" can be abandoned,
there follows the opportunity to disavow the reality of its various characters,
including the cardboardy, central-casting character of the risen Jesus in that
book. Some "leavers" go so far as to likewise abandon a belief in even the
historical Jesus. But it is the discarding of Book of Mormon Christology I'm here discussing.

Once a "leaver" has determined that the Book of Mormon Jesus Christ is not a real person
(that he is either a distortion of the biblical Jesus -- or that both the Book of Mormon and
biblical portrayals are distortions), then room is made in the mind and heart
for new concepts, new ideas, and new professions.

One of the possible "new ideas" for folks who abandon the Book of Mormon as being "true,"
is that the reality of the Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago, is NOT
determined by what the Book of Mormon has to say about the subject.

That can be a wonderfully liberating discovery.

Whether or not a person goes on from that discovery, to also profess that
there is nothing Divine about Jesus (or that Divinity itself is an untruth) may
depend very much upon what experiences and personal interactions the
individual "leaver" happens upon after abandoning the Book of Mormon.

Of the "leavers" I know personally, a few are born again Christians -- two
have become Unitarians -- most are outright atheists.

Uncle Dale

[_mentalgymnast]

One of the possible "new ideas" for folks who abandon the Book of Mormon as being "true,"
is that the reality of the Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago, is NOT
determined by what the Book of Mormon has to say about the subject.

That can be a wonderfully liberating discovery.

So I've heard. I wonder if I should be jealous.

Regards,
MG