anti-christ discussion, from middle p. 3 to end.

[Holy Ghost]

I think it was Bart Ehrman who said that he thought Jesus was probably a revolutionary who got caught by the romans and crucified for attempting to start a revolution. The other stuff is probably paul and other later christian writers inserting their views.

Dr Exiled,
I am sure there are some scholars who have read Jesus this way. My understanding is that Ehrman is of the school that reads Jesus as a messianic prophet teaching righteousness for the kingdom of heaven. The sayings we read may have been adjusted or added to in combination but would be in the ball park of what Jesus went about preaching.

Is Jesus just a blank canvas onto which others have projected notions of good as his "preaching" because he was crucified by the Romans, or are there first hand sources, closer in time than the four gospels that suggest what his preaching ballpark would be?

[honorentheos]

...if one strips Christ from Christianity...It does damage to his divinity but it humanizes him and allows for more universal access to at least the moral ideals one may associate with being a "good Christian".

In my earlier comments on this thread I said that a person who is antichrist is simply one that doesn’t acknowledge His divinity. I think I’ll stick to that. But again, it’s in degrees. Different strokes for different folks. The range goes from antichrist having similar parallel to antibuddah...to vehemently speaking in hatred and/or direct opposition to the Christ. The commonality being a non belief in Christ’s status as only begotten of God in the flesh.

Regards,
MG

I believe the concept of humanity needing a savior, and that we are in a fallen state, is damaging and I am opposed to it. I don't accept your definition because it presupposes the virtue of the Christ myth. It isn't. It's historical roots are sown in bitterness and hostility towards a world that did not conform to a religious fantasy. This hostility manifested the Christ myth as a champion who would conquer the enemies of this god belief and set the world right.

I am anti Christ because I see Christ-as-concept for what it is: anti-humanity.

[honorentheos]

Dr Exiled,
I am sure there are some scholars who have read Jesus this way. My understanding is that Ehrman is of the school that reads Jesus as a messianic prophet teaching righteousness for the kingdom of heaven. The sayings we read may have been adjusted or added to in combination but would be in the ball park of what Jesus went about preaching.

Is Jesus just a blank canvas onto which others have projected notions of good as his "preaching" because he was crucified by the Romans, or are there first hand sources, closer in time than the four gospels that suggest what his preaching ballpark would be?

I understand that the parables are sufficiently innovative and unique that they are usually assumed to be authentic or nearly authentic direct teachings of the historical Jesus. They meet certain critical criteria. Most else? Hard to say.

[Holy Ghost]

Is Jesus just a blank canvas onto which others have projected notions of good as his "preaching" because he was crucified by the Romans, or are there first hand sources, closer in time than the four gospels that suggest what his preaching ballpark would be?

I understand that the parables are sufficiently innovative and unique that they are usually assumed to be authentic or nearly authentic direct teachings of the historical Jesus. They meet certain critical criteria. Most else? Hard to say.

So for the time, if I understand what you are saying, the parables were innovative and of a similar type to lead one to assume they emanated from the same person (or think tank). Is there anything that ties them to having originated from an individual named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans?

[honorentheos]

The author of John tells us that the Christ is the way, truth, and life. This author was anti-semitic and wholely Christian.

So, when he describes Jesus like this, he is confirming the view that humanity is fallen, that one must integrate with a certain orthodoxy or perish.

Christ is preached at the end of a sword. Usually metaphorically but not always.

If one chooses to find ancient wisdom and socially benefitial beliefs in the New Testament, I think that's reasonable. There is wisdom and helpful teachings in the book. But to forget where it comes from is to risk either finding oneself swinging a sword in righteous indignation or, perhaps, trying to say such sword swinging isn't REALLY what the Christ myth is about. Except that is what came first and never goes away as long as one accepts the underlying conditions Christ is supposed to resolve. To reject those conditions makes Christ a foundationless concept. Jesus isn't the Christ at that point.

[honorentheos]

I understand that the parables are sufficiently innovative and unique that they are usually assumed to be authentic or nearly authentic direct teachings of the historical Jesus. They meet certain critical criteria. Most else? Hard to say.

So for the time, if I understand what you are saying, the parables were innovative and of a similar type to lead one to assume they emanated from the same person (or think tank). Is there anything that ties them to having originated from an individual named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans?

Traditional attribution. It's about as good as evidence gets when it comes to pulling back the curtain over history this far back.

To clarify, though, the original written texts are recognized to likely originate out of oral tellings regarding Jesus. The parables are unusual and of a quality that suggests they originated with the original teller who is the subject of the tellings.

[Dr Moore]

Ideas born of science have clearly and incontrovertibly overturned plenty of "truths" which were once "known" through faith. I'm confident everyone here could cite examples.

Honest question. What about the other direction?

Do examples exist of ideas born of faith which have clearly and incontrovertibly overturned "truths" which were once "known" through science?

[honorentheos]

Ideas born of science have clearly and incontrovertibly overturned plenty of "truths" which were once "known" through faith. I'm confident everyone here could cite examples.

Honest question. What about the other direction?

Do examples exist of ideas born of faith which have clearly and incontrovertibly overturned "truths" which were once "known" through science?

I don't personally think it is so binary. Ideas regarding how the universe may work are generated out of a place that is not entirely rational, but require methodical processes to validate. We aren't anything like computers, really, and human endeavor and ingenuity includes the very concept of science and it's tools. Much like other tools allow us to do things that we couldn't achieve without them, so it seems science allows us to verify and replicate processes that bewildered our ancestors and would seem like magic to people from less than a hundred years ago. If we've entered a scientific age in any sense at all, it is that we now assume technology is behind the incomprehendable rather than the supernatural. Well, some of us do.

So I read you as asking if there are examples of beliefs that were supposed arrived at rationally that contradicted religious beliefs but then the religious beliefs were validated using scientific tools. Is that close?

[huckelberry]

The Christ-myth posits that humanity needs a savior. This originated out of a tribal religious community that viewed itself as God's chosen struggling with prolonged periods of subjugation to more powerful states with what they viewed to be hedonistic and pagan religious beliefs. The Christ-myth arose out of the need to blame self and others for this captivity by lesser peoples. It's never been based on reality or interested in facts. It rejects the idea there truly is a season for everything and instead dreams of perpetual spring for the chosen and winter for everyone else.

The belief that this being would be a literal conqueror who was God's champion is baked into the concept. It doesn't matter that modern Christians believe humanity needs saved from vice and sin rather than kings and armies. Why? Because they define being human as vicious and fallen and maintained that to be a savior Christ must be a conqueror.

So Christ is at war with humanity and those who believe this myth foresee a day when every knee will bow to him and every tongue confess him their Lord. And why? Because they need saved from being a human being, part of this universe as it exists, for loving and living too much, for being willing to say I don't know rather than I believe. For appreciating the fact life is a mystery but against all odds we get to live it.

Christ as savior is an enemy to humanity. Don't like reading that? Consider how few human beings have lived in cultural settings that fit under the christian label. Consider that conversion to Christianity is an act of violence to ones culture and demands abandoning ones father, brothers mother and sister if needs be. I am anti Christ. I am pro humanity. I honor the god within myself. Within you. Within us all.

////////
Moksah posted» Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:11 pm

dastardly stem wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:43 am
It may be interesting to read the anti-Christ pages again and then determine who in Joseph Smith" world fit that type of description. Are we talking Korihor, Nehor, umm...who else?

Donald Trump, Sidney Powell, Mike Flynn, Rudy Giuliani.
/////////////
I am inclined to agree with this wags proposal. This crew is more suggestive of antichrist not all the people who do not believe Christianity or have paranoid interpretations of Jesus's hate fmaily saying.

/////////
Hoorentheos, I am repelled by the chick comix colored description of Christianity you describe. It is simply not stuff I believe. But at the same time you present a thoughtful image of the kind of understanding that has made Christianity a problem. I suspect that you think this way of seeing is built into the foundation of Christianity enough that it does not go away. The past few years has it made in increasingly difficult for me to not see that what appears to be a large portion of Christian believers pretty much swallow the Chick version whole.

You asked us to consider how few people who have lived have lived in a culture where Christian belief is available. Unless one thinks that only people wareing a Christian badge or id avoid hell then this population ratio would do little to indicate that Christianity is anti human.

[Dr Moore]

So I read you as asking if there are examples of beliefs that were supposed arrived at rationally that contradicted religious beliefs but then the religious beliefs were validated using scientific tools. Is that close?

Not quite so specific. I'm asking generally if there are any examples of science-based beliefs -- about anything at all -- being overturned in validation of differing or contradictory faith-asserted knowledge (a.k.a., "revelation")? Not anecdotes or possibly coincidental data points, but generally accepted beliefs informed by the tools of science which were later shown to be incorrect, validating the correct version of reality previously offered by revelation or a religious inspiration. Not specific to Mormonism.