5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Themis]

Relying on texts and/or historical documents...or lack thereof... isn't the primary reason that I choose to exercise faith/hope in Jesus Christ as the Savior. A few years ago after going through a period of questioning the existence of a creator/God, I, through a series of readings/events/experiences, made a choice to choose to believe in the possibility of a God. And as a result of that, in an afterlife that has purpose/meaning. Once that choice was made I then had to find a way to account for and explain the world as it is (all of the conundrums, evils, and unexplainables) and has been throughout the recorded history of mankind. In my mind I decided there had to be some sort of cosmic 'fail safe' plan that can/would make what is wrong/unfair, etc., right. Enter in an at-one-ment for all of mankind. Enter in Jesus Christ.

So I guess I come into this whole debate/question from the other end. Looking out (macro) and then coming back in (micro) rather than looking at it the other way around. I find myself doing the same thing with church history and even the Book of Mormon and PofGP.

But it is nice, and at times even helpful , to have the scriptures and the prophets to help clarify and add to the mix of all the knowledge that is available from many different/varied sources. Even if they too have a hard/difficult time wrapping their own minds around the workings/mind of God.

MentalGymnast, thanks for providing this background. I too, had my experience with doubting God. Heck, in all honesty I still doubt God at times, on a pretty much regular basis. But I too made the choice to believe; even when I find myself doubting God in my every day life, I always find myself coming back to belief at least at the end of the day.

Of course you two do. Your desire to believe outweighs your desire for the truth. You have admitted you will never want believe God doesn't exist, or that you may cease to exist.

[_RockSlider]

What does that mean???? I hope something good, because I'm a little tired/bored with people throwing crap at me for recommending guys on this forum who know this stuff better than most anyone else I've ever seen post here.

Like the world ended or something.

It means I followed your advice and went and read (re-read its been a while) the thread. It means I agree with your assessment.

In my industry, we often speak "standing on the shoulders of giants" when we reference/use/extend their works.

Also I was trying to lighten you up a bit, Fail!

[_KevinSim]

Matthew 27:46 quotes Jesus as He hung on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If people attempting to start a faith tradition were fabricating out of thin air the story of their central character, why in the world would they include a quote that makes it sound like Her/His God is forsaking that central character, when S/He needs that God most?

Good Mormon boy.

Keep paying for that mall.

By paying my tithing, you mean?

You must be old. You sound like it.

I'm 55. Is that old in your book?

[Guest]

I think this is where I'm at too. Although, while I see no reason why a good historian would assume the Bible is historically accurate, I think there are good theological reasons to believe God wants us to treat the Bible (and the other LDS standard works) as God's message to the world.

Given the diverse and contradictory nature of theology (maybe over 5,000 religions), is there such a thing as a good theological reason?

I emphatically say yes. Implying that there isn't is like questioning whether there's such a thing as a good application of chemistry by referring to the limits of alchemy, or questioning whether there's such a thing as a good application of philosophy by referring to the shortcomings of Plato or Descartes, or questioning whether there's such a thing as a good application of logic by referring to the disproven speculations of David Hilbert.

[_KevinSim]

I've heard this before. Furthermore, Rome was not in the habit of conducting censi anywhere but in Roman provinces, and Judaea did not become (part of?) a Roman province until ten years after the death of the Herod mentioned in the first two chapters of Matthew. Or at least so says respected historian Chester G. Starr in the textbook he wrote, A History of the Ancient World (which textbook was used by the University of Washington in its ancient history class when I took it back in 1983 or 1984).

'Censi'? Listen buddy, what you got there is a 4th declension noun. If you try to fit one of them second declension plurals to it, you gonna strip the gears soon as you move out of the driveway. Lucky for you, I got the right spare for you here: cēnsūs. It's a genuine maker's spare, a real 4th declension plural. 'Course, it's gonna' cost top dollar ...

Or you could just say 'censuses' like the rest of us?

Ouch! Now I wish I had! Thanks for pointing this out to me; I will never say censi again, I promise.

I was wondering about this as well. These two points lead me to seriously wonder if the Christmas stories in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke both might be complete fantasies ...

You are not alone. Look, when he was born, nobody was filming it. It was only when people started to say - "Who was that bearded man?" ... "Son, that was the Lone Messiah", which was decades later, that anybody would have started trying to imagine all the cool stuff that ought to have happened when he was born.

I think another thing they were trying to do was deal with the fact that no prophesies from the Tanakh mentioned anything about someone born in Nazareth, so if they could fill in "all the cool stuff," and also proclaim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so much the better.

[_mentalgymnast]

Your desire to believe outweighs your desire for the truth.

Nope. Not true.

You have admitted you will never want believe God doesn't exist, or that you may cease to exist.

I have only said that I have chosen to believe in a creator/God. That doesn't have anything to do with "never want believe God doesn't exist" (not quite sure what you were really meaning to say there). I'm guessing that you're saying that there is nothing that could sway me from choosing to believe in God. That's actually not true either. I am also open to the possibility that I cease to exist after I die. I do think, however, that if there is a creator/God I am more likely to exist after I die than if there is not a creator/God.

Clear enough?

Truth is more important to me than you seem to be letting on and/or think. But if that's what you need to believe...well, go right ahead. But don't be presumptuous and try and get inside my head and tell me what I think.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Do you mean people who have investigated, found the truth claims of the church to be lacking (or false), and wish to remain in the church?

I suppose that's the road that leads to NOM.

What about those people who have investigated a little, far enough to understand why many people who have left the LDS Church have left it, but not far enough (in their opinion) to decide conclusively that those truth claims are either lacking or false? Like me? I decided a long time ago that casual investigation of the LDS Church's truth claims are by far not an adequate way of verifying or falsifying those truth claims, that if someone really wanted to find out if those truth claims are true or false, that someone would have to put a heck of a lot more effort into investigating them than anyone I'm aware of ever has.

I don't think that makes me a NOM.

I don't have a firm belief that Noah's flood covered the whole world. I also kind of doubt that all the languages of the world came into being because God was trying to keep the Tower of Babbel from being built. I, like B.H. Roberts, find myself leaning very strongly towards believing the Theory of Evolution; I find myself believing the Garden of Eden story to the extent that there was someone (or some people) who was the first person (people) to understand the difference between good and evil. Just a few posts back I expressed my skepticism in the historicity of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.

But I do believe that Abraham was a real person, and that God covenanted with him regarding his posterity. I believe that Isaac, Jacob/Israel, and Moses were all real people, and I believe that the Hebrew prophets actually spoke to God, as did Joseph Smith and Spencer Kimball, and as does Thomas Monson today.

So I guess I find myself halfway between a TBM and a NOM. And you know what? I'm comfortable where I am.

I think people can successfully navigate that road if they're focus is on family and culture.

I consider family to be important, but I guess my focus is really on what I'm conscientiously required to do. I would leave the LDS Church in a second if I felt like my conscience required it. But it doesn't.

I'm pretty much on the same page as you in regards to the thoughts you've expressed here. And I don't think I'm the only other member of the church that would say that.

I came to the realization a number of years ago that if there is a God and He has a plan for those that live and die on this earth that this 'plan' is a lot larger in scope than I had ever thought when I was a youngster and young adult. Until one gets past the point of looking at the church as being the only game in town as far as God's works/purposes here on the earth are concerned, one is going to feel awful squozen in Mormonism...and/or thinking about its, and our, place in the world.

And recorded history, scripture or not, is a very fickle thing to fill up one's egg basket with.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

Are you planning on staying bitchy and irrationally judgemental about almost everything on the board?

IHaveAQuestion, surely you could have found a better word to use than bitchy. Bitchy, like bastard, while not always used to talk derogatorily about women and illegitimate children, are still sufficiently connected to those concepts that use of those two terms is always in very bad taste in my opinion.

Google 'bitchy'

bitchy
ˈbɪtʃi/
adjectiveinformal
malicious or spitefully critical.
"bitchy remarks"

Kevin, I look forward to your apology.

[_Themis]

You have admitted you will never want believe God doesn't exist, or that you may cease to exist.

I have only said that I have chosen to believe in a creator/God. That doesn't have anything to do with "never want believe God doesn't exist" (not quite sure what you were really meaning to say there).

This quote was directed at Kevin who has indicated this a number of times.

I'm guessing that you're saying that there is nothing that could sway me from choosing to believe in God. That's actually not true either.

It would depend on ones desire to believe or disbelieve in relation to their desire to know the truth as things really are. I would suggest one can have a high desire for the truth, but be trumped by an even higher desire to believe a particular belief. This can be complicated in that desire to believe can vary a lot from one particular belief to another. Your posts suggest you have a very high desire to believe certain LDS claims even if you may have a high desire for the truth. This is in consideration that I think you know some of the evidences available that clearly show Joseph as a religious fraud.

This thread is a good example with Jesus. I think the evidence for Jesus existence is very limited, but enough to make it more likely there was a Jesus figure, but nothing to confirm the many stories about him. It's unlikely they are even close to accurate, but many have that large desire to believe many if not most of them as true.

[_Quasimodo]

I emphatically say yes. Implying that there isn't is like questioning whether there's such a thing as a good application of chemistry by referring to the limits of alchemy, or questioning whether there's such a thing as a good application of philosophy by referring to the shortcomings of Plato or Descartes, or questioning whether there's such a thing as a good application of logic by referring to the disproven speculations of David Hilbert.

Well, I can't be emphatic about it, but I think not. I think you may have your first analogy backwards. I think you may be able to question that there is not a good application of alchemy due to the more reliable knowledge of modern chemistry.

Philosophy and Logic are academic studies that depend on new ideas to advance thought in these subjects. Like the sciences in general, they grow with the discovery of new viewpoints.

Religion depends on emphasizing standardized beliefs that are thought to represent the complete truth. When there are so many different religions with so many different truths, how could any theological reason be considered better (good) than any other competing theological reason?