Honoring the historical Jesus

[Stargazer]

If all of @Gray's points in the OP are the truth, then Jesus Christ is just another itinerant preacher who was more successful than most. And regardless of his teachings (which by this logic may have been made up for him post-mortem by a committee), he is then just another human being, with no particular claim on our gratitude. If this were the case, then be his attributed teachings valuable in themselves for a successful life, he has no power to save, and is just another smart mortal like Lao Tzu. 

Bart Ehrmann convinced me quite some time ago that the New Testament is an awful mess. It may feature true and valuable teachings, but I do not rely upon it sola scriptura. Fortunately, there is the Restoration. My testimony of Jesus Christ does not rely upon the New Testament. I always recognized it as a valuable document, but my testimony of Jesus Christ relies upon the Book of Mormon and the revelations received by Joseph Smith -- which I have tested by the Spirit and found to be true.  

Scholars schmallers, they have their uses, but not in discovering absolute truth -- it's beyond their purview.  Jesus is the Christ, but I didn't discover this upon due consideration of the writing of some university-degreed dweeb desperately trying to make him- or herself relevant to some credentialing committee or tenure-granting body.  It reminds me of the professor whose life work was to prove that the Iliad and the Oddysey was not written by Homer, but by some other Greek of the same name. Don't CFR me on that, please -- it's a joke.  

 

 

[Gray]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:34 PM, mnn727 said:

Shall we throw out the Bible also?

He wasn't doing carpentry in the Temple. 

It's unlikely the stories about Jesus' childhood and youth have any historical basis.

According to Mark Jesus' family thought he was crazy - meaning they were unaware he had any special mission from God.

[Gray]

On 9/27/2017 at 8:32 PM, Glenn101 said:

Faith vs. reason = tug of war.

Faith first, followed by reason = living with hope and at least in my case, peace of mind.

That is why I believe in the historical Jesus the Christ, the Great Jehovah. And why I believe what Isaiah said, which was echoed by Nephi:

Isaiah 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

2 Nephi 9:28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

Glenn

There is no reason why anyone can't completely accept all the conclusions of critical Jesus scholarship, and also still accept traditional theological notions about who Jesus was. The only adjustment required, perhaps, is letting go of the idea of total consciousness of the mission by Jesus himself.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 9/27/2017 at 11:32 PM, Five Solas said:

What does this even mean, Gray?  Jesus didn't write the Gospels.  They were written by his followers in the decades following his death & resurrection.  And the Gospel of John makes Jesus's divinity most explicit, culminating with Thomas's exclamation: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).  Will you argue we jettison John?  On the basis of what, a few more years in the context of millennia vis-a-via the Synoptic Gospels? 

Yes, of course. But earliest sources are generally best, so we can take a look at Mark and Q and see the way the story evolved from there. We can also look at Paul (one of the earliest sources) and see what he was aware of and what he wasn't aware of.

Of the four gospels, John is the furthest divorced from the historical Jesus. The writer himself seems to warn against literalism, and I don't think the intent of John was ever to write a history of Jesus. John presents the Jesus that his community believes in, and wrote parables about him that teach those beliefs.

 

Quote

And if, as you suggest, claims of Jesus's divine status come from misguided followers--well, what sort of prophet inspires his followers to get it so absolutely wrong?  Why should you (or anyone) take Jesus more seriously than, say, the prophet Balaam who rails against his donkey (Numbers 22).    

--Erik

I don't know that they were misguided. But their views about Jesus certainly evolved dramatically after his death. Maybe for good reason, who knows?

Edited October 2, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But, how do you compare the Jesus Joseph saw to the Jesus an African or Chinese person see's?  

Also, I didn't say there aren't truths that can apply to others besides the person experiencing the vision.  Many religious traditions have formed out of visionary experiences.  These truths don't tell us facts about historical events, but they often express meaningful truths about important elements of life and relationship with the divine.  

I can't because i've never talked or read any accounts of Africans or Chinese people seeing Christ.  

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can't because i've never talked or read any accounts of Africans or Chinese people seeing Christ.  

Try doing a youtube search, you'll find many Christians all over the world talking about their visionary experiences.  Many less developed nations are more conditioned to have these experiences, so their cultures are similar to the world views in Joseph Smith's culture in that way.  

Remember also that visionary experiences were common place in Joseph's world and the burnt over district, his family, his friends, his neighbors, everyone was having visions.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Try doing a youtube search, you'll find many Christians all over the world talking about their visionary experiences.  Many less developed nations are more conditioned to have these experiences, so their cultures are similar to the world views in Joseph Smith's culture in that way.  

Remember also that visionary experiences were common place in Joseph's world and the burnt over district, his family, his friends, his neighbors, everyone was having visions.  

Can you understand why I wouldn't put much credence into random claims of visions of Jesus?  If i put everyone's claim of having visions into the same category of JS's visionary claims, I wouldn't be mormon.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you understand why I wouldn't put much credence into random claims of visions of Jesus?  If i put everyone's claim of having visions into the same category of JS's visionary claims, I wouldn't be mormon.  

 

Thats the odd thing, I think Joseph Smith considered all those other visionary experiences legitimate too.  It's modern Mormon conditioned thinking that certain visionary experiences are unique and qualitatively better than others.  The more history you read, especially early Mormon history you will find that these experiences were common.   

Richard Bushman talked about these common experiences in an essay.  It was just part of their world view, Joseph Sr., Cowdery, Harris, Whitmers, they not only all believed and practiced folk magic, but they all had visionary experiences too.  This was the milieu for early Mormonism.  

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/visionary-world-joseph-smith

Edited October 2, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you understand why I wouldn't put much credence into random claims of visions of Jesus?  If i put everyone's claim of having visions into the same category of JS's visionary claims, I wouldn't be mormon.  

 

But there you go...why would a vision of a 14/15 year old take precedence over any other? 

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats the odd thing, I think Joseph Smith considered all those other visionary experiences legitimate too. 

I'd like to know why you say that.
Joseph certainly didn't consider all revelations and visions equal.  We have numerous examples of his statements against false visions and revelations, starting with Hiram Page, and including many others.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But there you go...why would a vision of a 14/15 year old take precedence over any other? 

Because of the evidence that I have gathered that I believe supports that conclusion.  That's what it all boils down to right?   You don't believe that everything you hear is true or accurate, do you?  You make decisions every day to give precedence to one thing over another.  

Why do you do that?

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats the odd thing, I think Joseph Smith considered all those other visionary experiences legitimate too.  It's modern Mormon conditioned thinking that certain visionary experiences are unique and qualitatively better than others.  The more history you read, especially early Mormon history you will find that these experiences were common.   

Richard Bushman talked about these common experiences in an essay.  It was just part of their world view, Joseph Sr., Cowdery, Harris, Whitmers, they not only all believed and practiced folk magic, but they all had visionary experiences too.  This was the milieu for early Mormonism.  

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/visionary-world-joseph-smith

They didn't believe all visions were of God, or equally valid though.  

Edited October 2, 2017 by bluebell

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because of the evidence that I have gathered that I believe supports that conclusion.  That's what it all boils down to right?   You don't believe that everything you hear is true or accurate, do you?  You make decisions every day to give precedence to one thing over another.  

Why do you do that?

No..I  don't believe in every Tom, **** and Harry....what I am asking you is..can you understand why others in JS day could not  believe?  Your evidence is   based on this.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

No..I  don't believe in every Tom, **** and Harry....what I am asking you is..can you understand why others in JS day could not  believe?  Your evidence is   based on this.

Of course I can understand why some don't believe, but that's not what we are talking about.  We are talking about why some believing mormons would doubt that prophetic visions of Jesus are accurate.

[theplains]

On 27/09/2017 at 3:44 PM, Gray said:

Even in considering the historical Jesus, we're not free from faith-based proclamations. We can talk about probability and make good arguments from the text and the historical context, but we'll never have a solid conclusion. It's like listening to echoes of echoes of echoes and trying to catch what was said. So I'll say I could be totally wrong, but this is how I've come to see Jesus.

Why do I care? Maybe because I've always been fascinated with the Jesus of the gospels, and maybe because I belong to a church that was started as an attempt try to restore the "original" Christianity that had gotten lost over the years. I love Jesus, so I want to understand him better. In so doing I think he's more impressive and miraculous to me as a human being than as a God. But am I understanding him? I hope so. But there are other interpretations too.

I believe there is one true historical Jesus.  While I am not a Mormon, I would point out two LDS canon scriptures:

“For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity” (Moroni 8:18).  "By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in
them” (D&C 20:17).

But the LDS Church has transgressed and began teaching in another Jesus (the first born spirit of heavenly
parents, who progressed into a god when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life). Even
Heavenly Father himself is taught to be a man who became a god (and who is not from everlasting to everlasting).
This teaching originated with Joseph Smith.

iMO, there are consequences in following and worshipping a false god.  There won't be a second chance after
death as the Alma 34:33,35 also explains.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd like to know why you say that.
Joseph certainly didn't consider all revelations and visions equal.  We have numerous examples of his statements against false visions and revelations, starting with Hiram Page, and including many others.

The Hiram Page incident I see as more of an authority for the early church issue, he was also wrestling with Oliver Cowdery for authority to receive revelations for the church.  This is precisely because Joseph was so encouraging early on with respect to people having their own encounters with God. 

A tension developed with respect to this idea of encouraging a personal experience with God and revelation, and after the Hiram Page incident written revelations for the body of the church was restricted to only coming from Joseph, but verbal ones weren’t out of bounds. 

I think Joseph experienced many different moments throughout the movement where this tension between his wanting people to seek the divine individually and his authority for the church as a whole. 

It’s complicated, so unless you can remind me about times where Joseph spent efforts to condemn the ecstatic experiences of others as being counterfeit, I think the large majority of the history points to a fairly egalitarian Joseph with respect to honoring the visionary experiences of all. 

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They didn't believe all visions were of God, or equally valid though.  

From my readings of early Mormon history, I'm not sure they were very critical of the visions of others. 

Do you think only Mormon visions are valid descriptions of God?  

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Hiram Page incident I see as more of an authority for the early church issue, he was also wrestling with Oliver Cowdery for authority to receive revelations for the church.  This is precisely because Joseph was so encouraging early on with respect to people having their own encounters with God. 

A tension developed with respect to this idea of encouraging a personal experience with God and revelation, and after the Hiram Page incident written revelations for the body of the church was restricted to only coming from Joseph, but verbal ones weren’t out of bounds. 

I think Joseph experienced many different moments throughout the movement where this tension between his wanting people to seek the divine individually and his authority for the church as a whole. 

It’s complicated, so unless you can remind me about times where Joseph spent efforts to condemn the ecstatic experiences of others as being counterfeit, I think the large majority of the history points to a fairly egalitarian Joseph with respect to honoring the visionary experiences of all. 

I don't agree with you at all. 

Here is just one discourse condemning the ecstatic experiences of others as counterfeit.  In fact it labels a very large number as false, both within and without the Church.
http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Smith, Joseph/SmithJ_TryTheSpirits.html
Some selected quotes:

• One great evil is, that men are ignorant of the nature of spirits; their power, laws, government, intelligence, &c., and imagine that when there is anything like power, revelation, or vision manifested, that it must be of God. Hence the Methodists, Presbyterians, and others frequently possess a spirit that will cause them to lie down, and during its operation, animation is frequently entirely suspended; they consider it to be the power of God, and a glorious manifestation from God—a manifestation of what? Is there any intelligence communicated? Are the curtains of heaven withdrawn, or the purposes of God developed? Have they seen and conversed with an angel—or have the glories of futurity burst upon their view? No!
• Mr. Baxter received the spirit on asking for it, without attending to the ordinances, and began to prophesy, whereas the scriptural way of attaining the gift of the Holy Ghost is by baptism, and by laying on of hands.
• The Turks, the Hindoos, the Jews, the Christians, the Indian; in fact all nations have been deceived, imposed upon and injured through the mischievous effects of false spirits.
• There have also been ministering angels in the Church which were of Satan appearing as an angel of light. A sister in the state of New York had a vision, who said it was told her that if she would go to a certain place in the woods, an angel would appear to her. 
• We have also had brethren and sisters who have written revelations, and who have started forward to lead this Church. Such was a young boy in Kirtland, Isaac Russel, of Missouri, and Gladden Bishop, and Oliver Olney of Nauvoo. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by JLHPROF

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't agree with you at all. 

Here is just one discourse condemning the ecstatic experiences of others as counterfeit.  In fact it labels a very large number as false.
http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Smith, Joseph/SmithJ_TryTheSpirits.html
Some selected quotes:

• One great evil is, that men are ignorant of the nature of spirits; their power, laws, government, intelligence, &c., and imagine that when there is anything like power, revelation, or vision manifested, that it must be of God. Hence the Methodists, Presbyterians, and others frequently possess a spirit that will cause them to lie down, and during its operation, animation is frequently entirely suspended; they consider it to be the power of God, and a glorious manifestation from God—a manifestation of what? Is there any intelligence communicated? Are the curtains of heaven withdrawn, or the purposes of God developed? Have they seen and conversed with an angel—or have the glories of futurity burst upon their view? No!
• Mr. Baxter received the spirit on asking for it, without attending to the ordinances, and began to prophesy, whereas the scriptural way of attaining the gift of the Holy Ghost is by baptism, and by laying on of hands.
• The Turks, the Hindoos, the Jews, the Christians, the Indian; in fact all nations have been deceived, imposed upon and injured through the mischievous effects of false spirits.
• There have also been ministering angels in the Church which were of Satan appearing as an angel of light. A sister in the state of New York had a vision, who said it was told her that if she would go to a certain place in the woods, an angel would appear to her. 
• We have also had brethren and sisters who have written revelations, and who have started forward to lead this Church. Such was a young boy in Kirtland, Isaac Russel, of Missouri, and Gladden Bishop, and Oliver Olney of Nauvoo. 

Maybe I'm over valuing some of his earlier impulses and not taking into account many of the later things.   Each quote in context will be in relationship to events that occur, so at least from what I've read, some of these kinds of quotes come within the context of a response to persecution or betrayal.  Joseph Smith is a complex character, that is for sure.  Perhaps he's more antagonistic towards other religions at times than others.

I have to say that from my readings of multiple biographies, I've come away with a more charitable impression about Joseph's openness to the experiences of others, and his willingness to encourage those experiences.  While at the same time, depending on the time and context, there were some very condemning statements towards other religions.  

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I believe there is one true historical Jesus.  While I am not a Mormon, I would point out two LDS canon scriptures:

“For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity” (Moroni 8:18).  "By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in
them” (D&C 20:17).

But the LDS Church has transgressed and began teaching in another Jesus (the first born spirit of heavenly
parents, who progressed into a god when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life). Even
Heavenly Father himself is taught to be a man who became a god (and who is not from everlasting to everlasting).
This teaching originated with Joseph Smith.

iMO, there are consequences in following and worshipping a false god.  There won't be a second chance after
death as the Alma 34:33,35 also explains.

Thanks,
Jim

 

Incorrect; the LDS have always taught Jesus was a God from the beginning. That he in his mortal life learned to succor his people through the things that he suffered. to show us how to be with God.

There is no second chance once we are dead. What the LDS have always taught is that everyone will be given a chance whether in this life or the next. It is a false and  fickle god you worship that would damn his children for not even hearing about his Son.

Edited October 2, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

 While I am not a Mormon, I would point out two LDS canon scriptures:

“For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity” (Moroni 8:18). 
"By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in
them” (D&C 20:17).

But the LDS Church has transgressed and began teaching in another Jesus (the first born spirit of heavenly
parents, who progressed into a god when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life).
Even  Heavenly Father himself is taught to be a man who became a god (and who is not from everlasting to everlasting).
This teaching originated with Joseph Smith.

 

Ok, two minor points here.

1. The scriptures you quote refer to the Father, not Christ, so we are not teaching "another Jesus" in those verses.

2. Eternal doesn't always mean what is assumed in the common usage.
The word eternal:

• late 14c., from Old French eternel "eternal," or directly from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus "of an age, lasting, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless,"
  contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age"

Eternal doesn't have to have reference to no beginning.  God can be eternal and still have a beginning.  God can be everlasting and still have a beginning.
The word eternal refers to an age, or in Mormon terms, the beginning of this creation.

That is how in Mormonism you can go from everlasting (eternity) to everlasting (eternity) - or in another term, eternities.

• Moses 7:29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst aweep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

And how there can be eternal lives, not just eternal life. ( D&C 132:24)
http://www.josephsmithfoundation.org/wiki/eternity/
 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you think only Mormon visions are valid descriptions of God?  

No, but I do believe that non-Mormon-prophetic encounters with God are A) for the individual and B) therefore not for me to worry about or try to discern.  

God reveals Himself to prophets when He speaks to the world and those (typically scriptural) accounts are the ones I’m concerned with. 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, but I do believe that non-Mormon-prophetic encounters with God are A) for the individual and B) therefore not for me to worry about or try to discern.  

God reveals Himself to prophets when He speaks to the world and those (typically scriptural) accounts are the ones I’m concerned with. 

Interesting, are you saying that only the non-Mormon experiences are subjective and for the individual.  Are you also saying that Mormon visionary encounters are only applicable to other Mormons, or are you saying that Mormon visionary experiences apply to everyone universally in the world, while at the same time saying that non-Mormon visionary experiences are limited and not applicable to you?  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, are you saying that only the non-Mormon experiences are subjective and for the individual.  Are you also saying that Mormon visionary encounters are only applicable to other Mormons, or are you saying that Mormon visionary experiences apply to everyone universally in the world, while at the same time saying that non-Mormon visionary experiences are limited and not applicable to you?  

I said that only the non-mormon-prophetic experiences were.  As I just said "God reveals Himself to prophets when He speaks to the world and those (typically scriptural) accounts are the ones I’m concerned with."

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I said that only the non-mormon-prophetic experiences were.  As I just said "God reveals Himself to prophets when He speaks to the world and those (typically scriptural) accounts are the ones I’m concerned with."

There are lots of scriptures all over the world, as defined by the various religions around the world.  Are you saying that Mormon scriptures and Mormon visionary experiences apply to everyone universally, while non-Mormon scriptures and non-Mormon visionary experiences only apply to the followers of those religions.