Implications Of Discovering The Body Of Jesus.

[_Mary]

Ray, when I have wandered around the many ancient English churches that survive over here in the UK, I have always been impressed with the little details that indicate that christianity was adapted and synthesised with the prevailent English pagan traditions, so we have churches bearing roman Gods and motifs and also typically English ones such as the Green man.

I would have thought that there would have been Mithraic, Greek, Egyptian and Roman influence in the earliest church, all with the aim of making a new religion more palatable (and familiar) to converts. That makes sense.

I think something that Joseph Smith realised and used, as well as the founders of the early church is that people like Story, and they like a really good one. I would think that the human love of story has been going on since we became sentient beings. I love the 'story' of the founding of Mormonism, and I love the story of the founding of christianity. I also love history! There's the rub...!!

I do remember that this topic came up over on the Mad Board, a while back, (the nature of the resurrection) and the ensuing thread was rather interesting. There were LDS (a few) quite prepared to accept that the nature of resurrection is little understood and that if the Talpiot tomb were found to hold the body of Jesus it would have little real impact on their faith, and others unable to reconcile scripture and faith with such an event.

A search on the talpiot tomb over there would reveal the threads that have discussed this.

[_Sethbag]

...but he would only have been "half a god"
...

OK -- it all makes sense now.

A being like Jehovah can organize entire worlds and need never have been
married (let alone a polygamist).

Yeah, but he's still just a technician at that point - the real action in Mormon Godhood is in the procreation of spirit children and presiding over this spirit progeny's own exaltation, and so on. Mormons assume that Jesus will either have been married while on Earth, or else will be married at some point, and procreating his own spirit children, and play the part of Elohim in his own universe.

A being like Joseph Smith can organize nothing on a cosmic scale, even
though he has dozens of wives, a glorified body of flesh and bone, etc.

Joseph couldn't organize anything on a cosmic scale while living on Earth, but Mormons will believe that if he hasn't started already, he soon will be organizing his own universe, and playing the role of God the Father in the universe, and populating it with all the spirit children his dozens of Celestial wives bear him.

So -- no need to go the Jo Smith route. Just win Eloheim's favor, and we
can skip ever having to be born into a tabernacle of clay, getting married, etc.

Sure, if all you want to do is be a technician in someone else's universe. Aim high!

[_harmony]

Mormons assume that Jesus will either have been married while on Earth, or else will be married at some point, and procreating his own spirit children, and play the part of Elohim in his own universe.

It's always interesting to note who is going to be doing the heavy lifting in the CK: the women.

Good thing I'm not going there.

[_huckelberry]

Miss Taken, I agree stories are important in Religion. That people can become involved in the interesting story of Mormon past is one of the relgions strengths. I admit to feeling a residual attration to that even now( I have not been a member for decades and last attended in 1967) But the role of story in what i religion actually is and how it works for people may not only be of some importance it might better said to be absolutely central. It is with story that elements of what people believe reveal their identity. A story says this person or item had this important result, an observation which shows what it is better than images people make of it can show.

In relation to this thread, body of Jesus, how the story changes determines the result. As Uncle Dale points out some central poits of the Jesus story would remain the same. However there is a change if Jesus body was left behind.

But I was struck by your use of the word Sythesised for Christian use of preChristian imagery. I think the of admixture would be shown be how much the story changed or incorporated the pagan beliefs. In terms of images all images of Christ are built from the art history store of previous images which are all of pagan origin. However Christian artists molded the images to fit their new story not the other way around. The images are part of the cultural language which can be used to tell a new story. There may be trickier relationships in the first centry.

[_huckelberry]

cont... there is something squirrely with these post boxes. I can only write a limited number of lines?? Am I writng to long? this post continues my previous.

In any case Ray A link to the Jesus didn't exist theory using Mithraism in the theory proposing a heavenly Christ Myth being replaced by a Christ come to earth ficton by the author of Mark. The article completely avoids dealing with the importance of story in seeing what is actually going on in a religion. Instead it picks up trivial similarities and tries to pretend they are central. This strategy reaches silliness when he proposes that because early Christians prayed with raised hands the actually worshiped the sun. A little more important is noticing that there are sacramental ideas in mythric cults. Actually the truth is there are sacramental actions in virtually every religion found anywhere in the world. It is like saying the Mythric and Christian religions are engaged in by human beings. Or as specified by the article, did you know they both ate meals??

The tightest relationship was not in the article, Christian images of the birth of Jesus have used a cave. That is an image from Mithraism. Yet the stories in the New Testament do not say cave. Cave is part of the image vocabulary people later used due its availablity. That is much the same as having the story written in the pagan language of the Greeks.

The article did admit that Christianity gave important place to women and showed a concern for poor and marignalized in society. These are cenral elements of the very identy of Christianity. They are not in common with Mythric cults which shows how foreign these to beliefs are to each other.

I think the babptism comparison the article makes is absurd. Baptism comes from Jewish culture.

[_Ray A]

cont... there is something squirrely with these post boxes. I can only write a limited number of lines?? Am I writng to long? this post continues my previous.

In any case Ray A link to the Jesus didn't exist theory using Mithraism in the theory proposing a heavenly Christ Myth being replaced by a Christ come to earth ficton by the author of Mark. The article completely avoids dealing with the importance of story in seeing what is actually going on in a religion. Instead it picks up trivial similarities and tries to pretend they are central. This strategy reaches silliness when he proposes that because early Christians prayed with raised hands the actually worshiped the sun. A little more important is noticing that there are sacramental ideas in mythric cults. Actually the truth is there are sacramental actions in virtually every religion found anywhere in the world. It is like saying the Mythric and Christian religions are engaged in by human beings. Or as specified by the article, did you know they both ate meals??

The tightest relationship was not in the article, Christian images of the birth of Jesus have used a cave. That is an image from Mithraism. Yet the stories in the New Testament do not say cave. Cave is part of the image vocabulary people later used due its availablity. That is much the same as having the story written in the pagan language of the Greeks.

The article did admit that Christianity gave important place to women and showed a concern for poor and marignalized in society. These are cenral elements of the very identy of Christianity. They are not in common with Mythric cults which shows how foreign these to beliefs are to each other.

I think the babptism comparison the article makes is absurd. Baptism comes from Jewish culture.

Thanks for letting me know you're an apologist for absurdity. Baptism for the remission of sins, followed by the "gift of the HG" is, most certainly, "Jewish culture".

Jews didn't even believe in life after death until the later prophets.

This is a sort of "Honk if you love Jesus" scholarship.

[_huckelberry]

Ray, I have no way of processing your comment. Baptism as coming from jewish culture does not require it have the specific Christian understanding (you supply the Mormon version, why?) You sound as if later prophets are events after the new Testament instead of several hundred years earlier. By New testament times a resurrection was part of Jewish culture even if not believed by all Jews.

I have not apologised for anything in my post though there are things about Christianity I am willing to do so for.

I think it is logically possible to believe that the resurrection was an invention of the imagination and Mark supplies some crucial fictioanal inventions for the Jesus story. It is possible to doubt Christian story with relying on weak associations proposed in the article.

[_Ray A]

Ray, I have no way of processing your comment. Baptism as coming from jewish culture does not require it have the specific Christian understanding (you supply the Mormon version, why?) You sound as if later prophets are events after the new Testament instead of several hundred years earlier. By New testament times a resurrection was part of Jewish culture even if not believed by all Jews.[/quote}

Mythology. It was an evolution based on emtional hope. Nothing more, nothing less. Is an afterlife real? Quite possibly. But we'll never discover that through religion.

I have not apologised for anything in my post though there are things about Christianity I am willing to do so for.

So am I. I'll profusely apologise for the concept of "love your neighbour", and I'd back the "ungodly Samaritan" even if he was running at 1000-1.

I think it is logically possible to believe that the resurrection was an invention of the imagination and Mark supplies some crucial fictioanal inventions for the Jesus story. It is possible to doubt Christian story with relying on weak associations proposed in the article.

Sigh. Apart from Jesus' "moral" teachings, I think he's the biggest figment of human superman wishful thinking ever concocted. If that impels some to live better lives, it has my qualified blessing. Unfortunately most of the "Jesus believers" also stand out as award-wining bigots.

In short, my concept of, and belief in God, does not "require" a Jesus. If Jesus was myth on heroin, it would not make one iota of difference to my theism.

If you really look at Jesus in human tradition, he's just a divine APE. If God was within him, then it was only a small manifestation of the Providence of God. To think that God's "only son" came to this planet, to die for "the sins of mankind" is like believing the myths of Mithras. I understand it's habitual. Kind of makes us feel "connected to God". And that's why, following unbelief, so many Mormons abandon a belief in God. Not realising that Mormonism doesn't define "who God is". Even though they may "think" so.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Ray. If I consider your comment about feeling much about Jesus is myth and saying believing that is like believing the Mithra myth I can understand your point even if I see the myth role with Jesus as more limited.

If Jesus was God come to earth in order to set up a class of authorities that would be pretty odd to my mind. I thnk of it as more along the line of coming to earth to open up new possiblities in our own creation. For me that puts his teachings at center.

If incarnate in an ape then that would clearly be only a small portion of the fullness of God. From a cosmic vantage point that is most obviously true. A tiny tiny portion. But from the vantage point of humans it would have larger significance to humans. (I do not mind thinking of humans as a particular form of ape with somewhat less hair)

[_Mary]

Huckleberry,

I thnk of it as more along the line of coming to earth to open up new possiblities in our own creation. For me that puts his teachings at center.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

On a side note, I understand 'atonement' as a key part of many religions along with 'sacrifice'. Bill Hamblin et al, brings this out well in his book on the temple of Solomon with regard to Judaism and outlying cultures. To me, now, it looks pretty barbaric actually, to be sacrificing all these animals in the temple, as if it would make any difference to a loving God. I'll forgive your sins and you will be reconciled to me, but only if you sacrifice this lamb or if you are a Canaanite, this child?

We may just as well pay penance (which might be more appropriate in an economy based on the exchange of money) and be done with it. A lot cleaner and a lot less messy or painful for the animals involved. (Though the cynic inside me says that there are bound to be people who will get rich on that kind of belief ie the ones acting on behalf of 'God')

I 'get' (I think) Jesus as sacrifice and atonement for our faults and sins, but only on the basis that we accept him as God incarnate. I 'get' it certainly in terms of its basis and roots in Judaism and the surrounding cultures and in the development of christianity as a religion uniquely able to 'save' its followers on the basis of certain beliefs and practices..

Like Ray, 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.

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.