The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[huckelberry]

I would agree that the term 'cafeteria Jesus' would apply only to those that believe in Jesus, either historical and/or divine

mmmmm....I actually believe Jesus was historical so no, that doesn't work. Don't get caught into the trap of thinking if Jesus was historical he was most likely divine.

PseudoPaul could easily believe Jesus was historical and a good teacher while thereby making him an inappropriate target for a "cafeteria Jesus" remark.

There is a fairly obvious observation which has been skipped. It is a widespread view of scholars of the new Testament that the high claims in John are not things Jesus actually said but portraits of what followers came to believe after the crucifixion. There is a lot of logical room for a person to appreciate what they believe Jesus actually said while not accepting everything later followers said.

Gadianton is making a related valid point that a person can hold in high regard an important influential thinker without accepting everything that source says or thinks. Critical thinking is always going to produce some sort of cafeteria acceptance.

In a highly thought controlling social context cafeteria consumption is seen as inferior, perhaps inauthentic , perhaps betrayel. In other more healthy contexts valuing thought and learning cafateria acceptance is normal. It may occasion someone being asked what reasons are in view making the choice.

[I Have Questions]

mmmmm....I actually believe Jesus was historical so no, that doesn't work. Don't get caught into the trap of thinking if Jesus was historical he was most likely divine.

PseudoPaul could easily believe Jesus was historical and a good teacher while thereby making him an inappropriate target for a "cafeteria Jesus" remark.

There is a fairly obvious observation which has been skipped. It is a widespread view of scholars of the new Testament that the high claims in John are not things Jesus actually said but portraits of what followers came to believe after the crucifixion. There is a lot of logical room for a person to appreciate what they believe Jesus actually said while not accepting everything later followers said.

Gadianton is making a related valid point that a person can hold in high regard an important influential thinker without accepting everything that source says or thinks. Critical thinking is always going to produce some sort of cafeteria acceptance.

In a highly thought controlling social context cafeteria consumption is seen as inferior, perhaps inauthentic , perhaps betrayel. In other more healthy contexts valuing thought and learning cafateria acceptance is normal. It may occasion someone being asked what reasons are in view making the choice.

There are no writings about what Jesus taught that date to the time that he was alive. The earliest contributions date to something like 25 years after his death. So second hand, third hand, fourth hand, accounts by Iron Age bloggers with their own agendas. Nobody who witnessed any of Christ's miracles wrote about the experience. Which is interesting. The stories of Jesus are akin to the Norse myths and legends. Interesting and entertaining tales, with many good principles being taught within them, but not to be taken as historical fact. One can see how Jesus being kind to someone feeling unwell, over time becomes "Chinese whispered" into him raising the dead.

[I Have Questions]

What are your thoughts in regard to whether or not you will exist after death?

That question points to the root of all the issues you encounter on this board. There are no rational, reasonable, objective evidentiary reasons to reach the conclusion that there is life after death. There are plenty of good, emotive, non evidentiary reasons for choosing to believe in life after death. If only you would stop conflating the two then a proper conversation could be had.

I see that Peterson has once again drawn inspiration from this board…

A week or two ago, I came across the assured declaration online that there is absolutely no rational, reasonable, objective evidence to suggest a life after death. The person issuing the declaration is of no particular intellectual distinction or scholarly authority, but I was struck — and, truth be told, somewhat amused — by the complete confidence with which he issued it. I can only conclude that he doesn’t get out much or read very extensively. I understand people who remain unconvinced of the claim of an afterlife, but I’ll admit to having little regard for anybody who flatly declares that there simply isn’t any evidence for the postmortem survival of human personality. Thousands of accounts of near-death and related experiences are now on record, from all around the world. These certainly suggest, if indeed they don’t do more than that, the continuation of consciousness beyond death.

Now there’s a couple of things to unpack. Firstly his unwarranted slander upon my credibility. How has Peterson concluded that I am “of no particular intellectual distinction or scholarly authority”? And why the need to preface his words with an attack on the messenger? Those are the hallmarks of an insecure mind who’s about to present something they know to be inadequate. He doesn’t disappoint in that regard.

Secondly, his response to my assertion is woefully inadequate. In fact, it simply confirms the credibility of my assertion. NDE’s are not “rational, reasonable, objective evidentiary reasons to reach the conclusion that there is life after death”. What they are, are “emotive, non evidentiary reasons for choosing to believe in life after death”.

So come on Peterson, cut out the unnecessary personal snark and produce some “rational, reasonable, objective evidentiary reasons to reach the conclusion that there is life after death” rather than confirming that all you have are “emotive, non evidentiary reasons for choosing to believe in life after death”.

Spoiler alert
Peterson won’t, because he can’t. NDE’s are the best he’s got.

[Physics Guy]

Claiming NDEs as evidence of life after death is ridiculous. It's not just that they are insufficiently compelling evidence, or even that they are weak evidence. They are not evidence at all, not to any degree.

Near-death experiences are all still-alive experiences. They occur while neural activity is continuing in a living brain, and they are reported as memories afterwards. They provide no information whatever about any state beyond death.

They are evidence about what it can be like to approach death, at least for some people. That may be interesting. But thinking of recounted memories of NDEs as evidence about what lies beyond death is like thinking that walking barefoot on the beach and feeling hot sand between your toes must be telling you what deep-sea diving is like, because the beach is close to the sea.

Walking the beach is a near-sea experience, but the beach is still land. Feeling sand between your toes on the beach is no evidence that you'll feel anything similar scuba diving.

[MG 2.0]

mmmmm....I actually believe Jesus was historical so no, that doesn't work. Don't get caught into the trap of thinking if Jesus was historical he was most likely divine.

PseudoPaul could easily believe Jesus was historical and a good teacher while thereby making him an inappropriate target for a "cafeteria Jesus" remark.

Critical thinking is always going to produce some sort of cafeteria acceptance.

I think there is some truth there.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

That question points to the root of all the issues you encounter on this board. There are no rational, reasonable, objective evidentiary reasons to reach the conclusion that there is life after death. There are plenty of good, emotive, non evidentiary reasons for choosing to believe in life after death. If only you would stop conflating the two then a proper conversation could be had.

I see that Peterson has once again drawn inspiration from this board…

A week or two ago, I came across the assured declaration online that there is absolutely no rational, reasonable, objective evidence to suggest a life after death. The person issuing the declaration is of no particular intellectual distinction or scholarly authority, but I was struck — and, truth be told, somewhat amused — by the complete confidence with which he issued it. I can only conclude that he doesn’t get out much or read very extensively. I understand people who remain unconvinced of the claim of an afterlife, but I’ll admit to having little regard for anybody who flatly declares that there simply isn’t any evidence for the postmortem survival of human personality. Thousands of accounts of near-death and related experiences are now on record, from all around the world. These certainly suggest, if indeed they don’t do more than that, the continuation of consciousness beyond death.

Now there’s a couple of things to unpack. Firstly his unwarranted slander upon my credibility. How has Peterson concluded that I am “of no particular intellectual distinction or scholarly authority”? And why the need to preface his words with an attack on the messenger? Those are the hallmarks of an insecure mind who’s about to present something they know to be inadequate. He doesn’t disappoint in that regard.

Secondly, his response to my assertion is woefully inadequate. In fact, it simply confirms the credibility of my assertion. NDE’s are not “rational, reasonable, objective evidentiary reasons to reach the conclusion that there is life after death”. What they are, are “emotive, non evidentiary reasons for choosing to believe in life after death”.

So come on Peterson, cut out the unnecessary personal snark and produce some “rational, reasonable, objective evidentiary reasons to reach the conclusion that there is life after death” rather than confirming that all you have are “emotive, non evidentiary reasons for choosing to believe in life after death”.

Spoiler alert
Peterson won’t, because he can’t. NDE’s are the best he’s got.

Does Peterson believe in the thousands of accounts of alien abductions? Does he look for Cryptids? Is his confidence on the profound mysteries guided by the organization he spent his life defending? I have a strong feeling he buys into dowsing because of Mormonism and the gift of the rod.

[Limnor]

Mormonism claims to be a much-needed restoration after a great apostasy of Christ’s true Church. However, the idea of a restoration was already being pursued. Could Joseph have borrowed that idea as well?

The Restoration Movement developed from several independent strands of religious revival that idealized early Christianity. Two groups which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith were particularly important.[3] The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, and identified as "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell, both educated in Scotland; they eventually used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the Christian church based on visible patterns outlined in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832, they joined in fellowship with a handshake.

Among other things, they were united in the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that Christians should observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of each week; and that baptism of adult believers was necessarily by immersion in water.[4]: 147–148  Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus.[4]: 27  Both groups promoted a return to the purposes of the 1st-century churches as described in the New Testament.

The ideal of restoring a "primitive" form of Christianity grew in popularity in the U.S. after the American Revolution.[34] This desire to restore a purer form of Christianity played a role in the development of many groups during this period, known as the Second Great Awakening.[35] These included the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Baptists and Shakers.[35] The Restoration Movement began during and was greatly influenced by, this Second Awakening.[36] While the Campbells resisted what they saw as the spiritual manipulation of the camp meetings, the Southern phase of the awakening "was an important matrix of Barton Stone's reform movement" and shaped the evangelistic techniques used by both Stone and the Campbells.

Lots and lots of restorations.

I’ve toyed with the idea that the original Lamanite/Nephite divide wasn’t racial at all, but theological, reflecting the Restoration groups like the Rigdon’s churches in Ohio, Stone–Campbell Christians, and others. Before the skin-color change, Lamanites look more like competing sects than like an ethnicity. It fits into a model in which the book portrays 19th century schisms.

[PseudoPaul]

SudoPaul, I’m trying to follow your thought process here, and I’m interested in the way you describe “Even in Matthew which puts some atonement language on Jesus’ lips…” Could you describe the distinction you’ve noticed here? The way you’re describing it suggests a more complete interpretation, and I’m curious what that is.

When you talk about the gospel writers “retrojecting their beliefs back onto Jesus,” is there a specific source or redaction model are you working from? I’d like to understand the method behind how you separate earlier from later interpretation—I’m using similar ideas to develop my views on the Book of Mormon and I’d be interested in the methodology you use.

And out of curiosity, what writers or sources shape your view on this? I think I see some Ehrman in there but not sure.

Definitely some Ehrman, even some Crossan even though he's very different to Ehrman. The usual historical criteria come into play (multiple attestation, criterion of embarrassment, dissimilarity, etc).

For example, atonement language coming from Jesus isn't historically plausible since that was an interpretation of Jesus' death that his disciples came up with after the fact. Jesus wasn't predicting his own death - we get hints of that because the gospels let slip that the disciples felt defeated when Jesus died, they felt he had failed as a messiah. Jesus' death took them by surprise. So obviously Jesus wasn't predicting his own death, and therefore did not talk about his death as an atonement.

[PseudoPaul]

I still admire Jesus and I think there is much to be learned from his teachings.

What are your thoughts in regard to whether or not you will exist after death?

If you believe that there isn't anything after you die isn't that more or less being nihilistic?

If you believe in life after death, what do you think the 'mechanism' is that gets us from here to there?

Regards,
MG

I won't have personhood in death. My molecules will disintegrate and take other forms. There is no plausible mechanism for consciousness to survive death.

[PseudoPaul]

Jesus' teachings on adultery and divorce were far more egalitarian than what you find in the Old Testament. Basically in the Old Testament married men could sleep with any woman so long as it wasn't a married woman. Married women, not so much. Jesus made it fair for everyone. However the idea that no one should ever remarry after a divorce doesn't seem to really have any value. It's too extreme (Matthew thought so too because he modified that teaching to give an exception in the case of fidelity).

I don’t mind challenging this a bit more as I think some of your readings might be overstating the contrast between Jesus and the Old Testament. For example, Old Testament law doesn’t actually say “men can sleep with any woman they want”; adultery laws were tied to marriage contracts, not male sexual license, and Second Temple Judaism had a much more developed moral framework than the caricature you’re describing.

Similarly, on Jesus’ teachings about family, apocalyptic urgency is a scholarly model (per Ehrman), but it doesn’t explain everything he says, and it isn’t the only way to read those passages.

In short, these topics are more nuanced historically than “blind spots” or simple upgrades, so I’m curious what specific sources or criteria you’re using to draw such sharp conclusions.

I'm contrasting Jesus' teachings, which have the same standard for male and female adultery, with the Pentateuch, in which adultery is a property crime against the "owner" (husband) of the woman.

From the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

"In the Old Testament, adultery had a precise and limited definition: sexual relations between a married (or betrothed) woman and any man other than her husband. Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never a wife.

"[…] In the New Testament period, it appears that the definition of adultery was extended in its scope. For example, the teaching of Jesus was understood to mean that a husband could now be held responsible for committing adultery against his wife."