Mormons ignoring Jesus as quoted in the gospel of Matthew

[dastardly stem]

I suppose that the Gospel speaks to me in a very different way than most. It seems most get caught up on the specific things Jesus is quoted as saying, rather than viewing everything together to try and build a picture of what the Jesus character in the New Testament is all about.

You can’t get around the fact that Jesus may not even have existed, and if he did exist certainly didn’t say verbatim what he is quoted as saying. So to me that means you need to look more holistically at everything together.

For example, “there is no way to God but through me” and “I came to bring a sword and divide” don’t seem in character with many of his parables and teachings. So I don’t put much weight in those when building my mental model of the Jesus character.

Everyone of course assigns different weights to all the conflicting facets of Jesus from the many conflicting passages. I lean on those passages that jump off the page at me when reading. I hope many who have read the gospels have some passages jump out at them like that, even if they’re no longer believers.

I think if you read the gospels through this lens, you can think more about why the gospels were so attractive and revolutionary at the time. Rather than get hung up on particular words and sentences.

I don't think the gospels were revolutionary. Many have concluded they are exactly what one would expect to see from that era given all the influence gained from pagan and Jewish cultures, customs, and writings. Its why Jesus fits nicely as myth...not because some guy named Jesus who started the religion didn't live, per se, but because the stories told about his life fit in every way with myths that came before. But to each his/her own, I say. If one wants to wiggle out the positive of Jesus' teachings for some reason, have at it. I'd agree people ought to take everything he supposedly said as a whole, but the end result, it seems to me, is a number of contradictions and messy or incomplete ideas. As i take it in as a whole bringing a sword instead of peace and one can only get to God through him fits nicely enough, all things considered. Those seem as prominent in his thoughts, parables and commands as any of his other ideas.

[malkie]

I suppose that the Gospel speaks to me in a very different way than most. It seems most get caught up on the specific things Jesus is quoted as saying, rather than viewing everything together to try and build a picture of what the Jesus character in the New Testament is all about.

You can’t get around the fact that Jesus may not even have existed, and if he did exist certainly didn’t say verbatim what he is quoted as saying. So to me that means you need to look more holistically at everything together.

For example, “there is no way to God but through me” and “I came to bring a sword and divide” don’t seem in character with many of his parables and teachings. So I don’t put much weight in those when building my mental model of the Jesus character.

Everyone of course assigns different weights to all the conflicting facets of Jesus from the many conflicting passages. I lean on those passages that jump off the page at me when reading. I hope many who have read the gospels have some passages jump out at them like that, even if they’re no longer believers.

I think if you read the gospels through this lens, you can think more about why the gospels were so attractive and revolutionary at the time. Rather than get hung up on particular words and sentences.

Seems you want to give it a rose-colored gist, rather than take into account everything "Jesus" is reported to have said. Is your Jesus so one dimensional that anything that doesn't fit is discarded?

The result, of course, is cafeteria Christianity, which can be used to justify a whole wide range of beliefs and actions. Schisms galore. Hatred of one's fellow being.

I grew up in a polarized Christian environment which was majority Protestant (of about a million varieties) with a large minority of Catholics.

Your religion might determine whether you could get a particular job. Shipyard squads were largely single religion; I was rejected for a job that was 'in the bag' when the interviewer casually mentioned these %***&^% Mormons who came knocking on his door, and I said that that was the church I attended. Wearing the colours of the Catholic football team in a Protestant area of the city, or vice-versa, could result in a beating.

Were/are these people Christians? Are/were their leaders?

I like some of the writings of John Pavlovitz, the Christian pastor, but when he says things like "Jesus would not have wanted XXX in his name" I have to stop and think "how do you know that?"

Before someone says that this is why we need a prophet in these days, let me stop you right there: I have seen no reason to think that your prophet / apostle / pastor / leader has anything better to offer than 101 others who claim without proof to speak for a god that they also have no proof of.

What a mess!

[drumdude]

I suppose that the Gospel speaks to me in a very different way than most. It seems most get caught up on the specific things Jesus is quoted as saying, rather than viewing everything together to try and build a picture of what the Jesus character in the New Testament is all about.

You can’t get around the fact that Jesus may not even have existed, and if he did exist certainly didn’t say verbatim what he is quoted as saying. So to me that means you need to look more holistically at everything together.

For example, “there is no way to God but through me” and “I came to bring a sword and divide” don’t seem in character with many of his parables and teachings. So I don’t put much weight in those when building my mental model of the Jesus character.

Everyone of course assigns different weights to all the conflicting facets of Jesus from the many conflicting passages. I lean on those passages that jump off the page at me when reading. I hope many who have read the gospels have some passages jump out at them like that, even if they’re no longer believers.

I think if you read the gospels through this lens, you can think more about why the gospels were so attractive and revolutionary at the time. Rather than get hung up on particular words and sentences.

Seems you want to give it a rose-colored gist, rather than take into account everything "Jesus" is reported to have said. Is your Jesus so one dimensional that anything that doesn't fit is discarded?

If you have a better method of determining what Jesus did or didn’t say I’m open to it. Bart Ehrman has pointed out that Jesus was supposed to say 11 separate things while dying on the cross. It would have been ridiculous for him to actually say all 11 things. So clearly someone put words in his mouth.

For me, nothing important hinges on the question. Jesus is not an ultimate source of truth, but he remains an important character in shaping human history. I don’t particularly like the myth hypothesis which seems like a misguided attempt to downplay the role that Jesus and Christianity has had over the last 2000 years. The fact is something unique and interesting happened, and you don’t need to be a believing Christian to see that.

[MG 2.0]

I have seen no reason to think that your prophet / apostle / pastor / leader has anything better to offer than 101 others who claim without proof to speak for a god that they also have no proof of.

What a mess!

You have to admit, you’re roughly paraphrasing words that came directly out of Joseph Smith’s mouth at the time he was concerned about the religious fighting/controversies of his day.

For what it’s worth.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Jesus is not an ultimate source of truth, but he remains an important character in shaping human history.

If you take him at his word he is.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I have seen no reason to think that your prophet / apostle / pastor / leader has anything better to offer than 101 others who claim without proof to speak for a god that they also have no proof of.

What a mess!

You have to admit, you’re roughly paraphrasing words that came directly out of Joseph Smith’s mouth at the time he was concerned about the religious fighting/controversies of his day.

For what it’s worth.

Regards,
MG

Yes but as was pointed out on Mormonism Live last week, the current Mormon church fits the definition of a church in apostasy to a T.

You can't have it both ways. Either the church Joseph restored was the true one, or the church we have today has morphed into the true one. If it has morphed, then you can make the exact same argument that Catholicism is still the one true church that Jesus founded.

[sock puppet]

Seems you want to give it a rose-colored gist, rather than take into account everything "Jesus" is reported to have said. Is your Jesus so one dimensional that anything that doesn't fit is discarded?

If you have a better method of determining what Jesus did or didn’t say I’m open to it. Bart Ehrman has pointed out that Jesus was supposed to say 11 separate things while dying on the cross. It would have been ridiculous for him to actually say all 11 things. So clearly someone put words in his mouth.

For me, nothing important hinges on the question. Jesus is not an ultimate source of truth, but he remains an important character in shaping human history. I don’t particularly like the myth hypothesis which seems like a misguided attempt to downplay the role that Jesus and Christianity has had over the last 2000 years. The fact is something unique and interesting happened, and you don’t need to be a believing Christian to see that.

Why not just own it then, drumdude, leave "Jesus" out and declare that you believe X, Y and Z, but not M, N, O? Why do you need "Jesus" if you don't swallow the whole?

[drumdude]

If you have a better method of determining what Jesus did or didn’t say I’m open to it. Bart Ehrman has pointed out that Jesus was supposed to say 11 separate things while dying on the cross. It would have been ridiculous for him to actually say all 11 things. So clearly someone put words in his mouth.

For me, nothing important hinges on the question. Jesus is not an ultimate source of truth, but he remains an important character in shaping human history. I don’t particularly like the myth hypothesis which seems like a misguided attempt to downplay the role that Jesus and Christianity has had over the last 2000 years. The fact is something unique and interesting happened, and you don’t need to be a believing Christian to see that.

Why not just own it then, drumdude, leave "Jesus" out and declare that you believe X, Y and Z, but not M, N, O? Why do you need "Jesus" if you don't swallow the whole?

I should clarify that I think of Jesus in the same way I think of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Aristotle, etc. They weren't all right on everything, but you still study them to get the gist of what they were trying to say. Jesus doesn't occupy a higher position than any of these men. It doesn't even matter to me if Aristotle and Jesus didn't exist, because all we have are their ideas (or their ghost writers' ideas).

[MG 2.0]

You have to admit, you’re roughly paraphrasing words that came directly out of Joseph Smith’s mouth at the time he was concerned about the religious fighting/controversies of his day.

For what it’s worth.

Regards,
MG

Yes but as was pointed out on Mormonism Live last week, the current Mormon church fits the definition of a church in apostasy to a T.

You can't have it both ways. Either the church Joseph restored was the true one, or the church we have today has morphed into the true one. If it has morphed, then you can make the exact same argument that Catholicism is still the one true church that Jesus founded.

The core teachings/doctrines/authority remain as they did/were at the beginning of the restoration.

The Snufferites fell into this trap and/or way of thinking and found themselves outside the household of faith and willing hands of fellowship.

You can nit pick at one thing or another, but essentially the church has the key hallmarks required to retain the authority and correct doctrine to bring souls to Christ.

In our day if we follow the living prophet we will not go astray.

Sadly many have cast aside this simple injunction and have done so to the detriment of their eternal welfare. Unless they repent and come back to Christ and His church.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Yes but as was pointed out on Mormonism Live last week, the current Mormon church fits the definition of a church in apostasy to a T.

You can't have it both ways. Either the church Joseph restored was the true one, or the church we have today has morphed into the true one. If it has morphed, then you can make the exact same argument that Catholicism is still the one true church that Jesus founded.

The core teachings/doctrines/authority remain as they did/were at the beginning of the restoration.

The Snufferites fell into this trap and/or way of thinking and found themselves outside the household of faith and willing hands of fellowship.

You can nit pick at one thing or another, but essentially the church has the key hallmarks required to retain the authority and correct doctrine to bring souls to Christ.

In our day if we follow the living prophet we will not go astray.

Sadly many have cast aside this simple injunction and have done so to the detriment of their eternal welfare. Unless they repent and come back to Christ and His church.

Regards,
MG

I don't think that hard-line McConkieish "your eternal salvation is at stake" doctrine is even taught anymore within Mormonism. It's become much more Universalist.

You can't take a hard line on it until you take a hard line against eternal progression, which Mormon leaders refuse to comment on.