The picture you’ve described—Jesus teaching salvation through the Law of Moses and repentance without reference to his own death—lines up more with how the Book of Mormon “prophets” portray things prior to Christ’s appearance, not with the New Testament. And what is included in the Book of Mormon only includes a portion of Jesus’ words, evidently copied from Matthew. It doesn’t mention Jesus’ ministry before showing up in the Americas, and there is no reference to the conversations record at the Last Supper, statements about ransom, or covenantal language.
If your argument is those things written in the New Testament are unreliable or fabricated, that’s a different, but that type of language does appear.
Atonement language does appear in the New Testament, and it is attributed to Jesus (with the exception of the oldest versions of Luke, which removes all atonement language from its sources). However these don't reflect the actual teachings of the historical Jesus - instead the gospel writers are retrojecting their own beliefs back onto Jesus. The interpretation of Jesus' death as an atonement for sin was only developed after Jesus died, not before. The apostles had no idea Jesus was going to be executed and were caught off guard. The atonement was their way of making sense of his apparent failure in his messianic mission, although not all early Christians were on board with Jesus' death as atonement.
The original plan was not for Jesus to die - it was for an angel to come down and clear out the Romans, making Jesus and his apostles the new rulers over Israel. Jesus' unexpected death required a radical rethinking of things.
Even in Matthew which puts some atonement language on Jesus' lips, there are long sections where Jesus teaches salvation based on personal righteousness and adherence to the law of Moses. So the editing of Jesus' teachings was not consistent.
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves at.
Personally, I think that the apostle Peter may have asked a very important question of Jesus:
Simon Peter replied, ‘Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.’
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
Regards,
MG
MG, You are not replying to the previous posts so I did not copy them.
I think it an error to think one needs some special message to avoid nilism. Life taken in all sorts of ways is full of meaning which is hard to ignore. There have been times in my life when I was convinced there was no God. I saw no reason to think life meaningless. I can think of some hard times which were short of fun or satisfaction. I did not encounter nilism. I think perhaps serious betrayal is needed to arrive at the land where life is a poor player full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have done some wrong things but perhaps not crossing into that land.
People and ideas might illuminate our connection to life's meaning. Many may help. Many may provide the enjoyment of understanding and learning.
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
Regards,
MG
MG, You are not replying to the previous posts so I did not copy them.
People and ideas might illuminate our connection to life's meaning. Many may help. Many may provide the enjoyment of understanding and learning.
Even the Greatful Dead may add a touch to life.
Underlined point in blue above. For me, it was Led Zeppelin. Not so much anymore. I found something better.
Atonement language does appear in the New Testament, and it is attributed to Jesus (with the exception of the oldest versions of Luke, which removes all atonement language from its sources). However these don't reflect the actual teachings of the historical Jesus - instead the gospel writers are retrojecting their own beliefs back onto Jesus. The interpretation of Jesus' death as an atonement for sin was only developed after Jesus died, not before. The apostles had no idea Jesus was going to be executed and were caught off guard. The atonement was their way of making sense of his apparent failure in his messianic mission, although not all early Christians were on board with Jesus' death as atonement.
The original plan was not for Jesus to die - it was for an angel to come down and clear out the Romans, making Jesus and his apostles the new rulers over Israel. Jesus' unexpected death required a radical rethinking of things.
Even in Matthew which puts some atonement language on Jesus' lips, there are long sections where Jesus teaches salvation based on personal righteousness and adherence to the law of Moses. So the editing of Jesus' teachings was not consistent.
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves at.
Personally, I think that the apostle Peter may have asked a very important question of Jesus:
Simon Peter replied, ‘Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.’
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
Regards,
MG
"... one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man."
Really? is there no other option?
How about a wise Jewish teacher, fighting the religious hypocrites of his time? Or an insurrectionist who hoped to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression? I'm pretty sure that there are others. By the way, I'm not saying that either teacher or insurrectionist is a historically supportable concept of the "real" Jesus, assuming that he existed at all - merely pointing out that others have suggested possibilities between "son of god" and "ordinary man" that you seem to be ignoring.
And you accuse critics of binary, black-and-white thinking‽‽‽
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves at.
Personally, I think that the apostle Peter may have asked a very important question of Jesus:
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
Regards,
MG
"... one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man."
Really? is there no other option?
How about a wise Jewish teacher, fighting the religious hypocrites of his time? Or an insurrectionist who hoped to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression? I'm pretty sure that there are others. By the way, I'm not saying that either teacher or insurrectionist is a historically supportable concept of the "real" Jesus, assuming that he existed at all - merely pointing out that others have suggested possibilities between "son of god" and "ordinary man" that you seem to be ignoring.
And you accuse critics of binary, black-and-white thinking‽‽‽
Ordinary man as in, not God in the flesh. There are lots of possible 'shades' there. Not black and white.
"... one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man."
Really? is there no other option?
How about a wise Jewish teacher, fighting the religious hypocrites of his time? Or an insurrectionist who hoped to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression? I'm pretty sure that there are others. By the way, I'm not saying that either teacher or insurrectionist is a historically supportable concept of the "real" Jesus, assuming that he existed at all - merely pointing out that others have suggested possibilities between "son of god" and "ordinary man" that you seem to be ignoring.
And you accuse critics of binary, black-and-white thinking‽‽‽
Ordinary man as in, not God in the flesh. There are lots of possible 'shades' there. Not black and white.
Regards,
MG
Perhaps you need to define your terms better.
But taking the meaning you're expressing here, what you're saying seems to boil down to:
either
- Jesus is the Son of God
or
- Jesus is not the Son of God
Did I get it right this time?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
Regards,
MG
MG, You are not replying to the previous posts so I did not copy them.
I think it an error to think one needs some special message to avoid nilism. Life taken in all sorts of ways is full of meaning which is hard to ignore. There have been times in my life when I was convinced there was no God. I saw no reason to think life meaningless. I can think of some hard times which were short of fun or satisfaction. I did not encounter nilism. I think perhaps serious betrayal is needed to arrive at the land where life is a poor player full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have done some wrong things but perhaps not crossing into that land.
People and ideas might illuminate our connection to life's meaning. Many may help. Many may provide the enjoyment of understanding and learning.
Even the Greatful Dead may add a touch to life.
Very well said, huckelberry, thank you. I was trying to marshal some similar thoughts, but you have said it so simply yet eloquently that I think I'll just leave it at "what he said."
However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.
In effect, nihilism.
Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves
Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?
Regards,
MG
MG, You are not replying to the previous posts so I did not copy them.
I think it an error to think one needs some special message to avoid nilism. Life taken in all sorts of ways is full of meaning which is hard to ignore. There have been times in my life when I was convinced there was no God. I saw no reason to think life meaningless. I can think of some hard times which were short of fun or satisfaction. I did not encounter nilism. I think perhaps serious betrayal is needed to arrive at the land where life is a poor player full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have done some wrong things but perhaps not crossing into that land.
People and ideas might illuminate our connection to life's meaning. Many may help. Many may provide the enjoyment of understanding and learning.
Even the Greatful Dead may add a touch to life.
This is an interesting reflection, Huck. A couple of your phrases—like the way you use “which” and the Macbeth allusion about “sound and fury”—made me curious about how you ascribe meaning to your experiences.
When you say that “people and ideas might illuminate our connection to life’s meaning,” are you drawing on a particular faith tradition or thinker? It sounds like a fairly developed way of looking at things, so I’m interested to understand more fully—maybe your view would “compete” with MGs.
Lastly, you mentioned periods when you were convinced there was no God—if you’re comfortable sharing, was there a point or experience that helped shift you back toward seeing meaning again?
The picture you’ve described—Jesus teaching salvation through the Law of Moses and repentance without reference to his own death—lines up more with how the Book of Mormon “prophets” portray things prior to Christ’s appearance, not with the New Testament. And what is included in the Book of Mormon only includes a portion of Jesus’ words, evidently copied from Matthew. It doesn’t mention Jesus’ ministry before showing up in the Americas, and there is no reference to the conversations record at the Last Supper, statements about ransom, or covenantal language.
If your argument is those things written in the New Testament are unreliable or fabricated, that’s a different, but that type of language does appear.
Atonement language does appear in the New Testament, and it is attributed to Jesus (with the exception of the oldest versions of Luke, which removes all atonement language from its sources). However these don't reflect the actual teachings of the historical Jesus - instead the gospel writers are retrojecting their own beliefs back onto Jesus. The interpretation of Jesus' death as an atonement for sin was only developed after Jesus died, not before. The apostles had no idea Jesus was going to be executed and were caught off guard. The atonement was their way of making sense of his apparent failure in his messianic mission, although not all early Christians were on board with Jesus' death as atonement.
The original plan was not for Jesus to die - it was for an angel to come down and clear out the Romans, making Jesus and his apostles the new rulers over Israel. Jesus' unexpected death required a radical rethinking of things.
Even in Matthew which puts some atonement language on Jesus' lips, there are long sections where Jesus teaches salvation based on personal righteousness and adherence to the law of Moses. So the editing of Jesus' teachings was not consistent.
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.
