The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[I Have Questions]

Historically speaking, this idea is just not defensible.

History is an interpretive discipline, not an exact science. It's also shaped as much by perspective as by evidence. Historical knowledge is provisional, always subject to revision and reinterpretation in many instances.

So the history of Joseph Smith, and the witnesses is provisional, always subject to revision, and reinterpretation?

[bill4long]

[History is based on evidence and probability. If you're intentionally choosing a belief that goes against the historical evidence...

There's a couple of perfectly good terms for that: fantasy and delusion.

[MG 2.0]

[History is based on evidence and probability. If you're intentionally choosing a belief that goes against the historical evidence...

There's a couple of perfectly good terms for that: fantasy and delusion.

That might end up limiting options for learning from others besides your 'in group'. More information is far better than simply reducing that which you don't like to "fantasy and delusion". As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, historical evidence is multi-faceted and comes from different directions.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

One could view Christianity as aiming this way for the past 2000 years. How to put that into action is not so clear however.people wish for justice and are hoping Jesus will return divinely establishing it. There is also a hope people will internalize Jesus aims over time growing closer to the goals.

Christianity can and has had those qualities (eschatological, justice, etc), but it leaves out the Judaism. And adds the atonement theology, which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

PseudoPaul,
Perhaps this can be a beginning point of discussion. Perhaps if one thinks of atonement as the payment concepts as from Ansalem which have dominated words in the second christian millennium but not the first one could say atonement is not part of Judism. A broader take on the word will allow atonement to be a central concern of Judaism. It would be a central concern of the Baptist with whom baptism is a step in becoming right with God, leaving guilt, atonement . It would be natural for Jesus to follow that concern. It might be seen that his concern for sacrificial concern for others is a fundamental insight into atonement. Perhaps he saw a willingness to accept suffering as having the fundamental atoning power when done in hope for others.

Perhaps he got stuck with demonstrating that atonement. He may or may not of forseen it. It completed his teaching about atonement even if he did not particularly wish it to be completed that way.

[PseudoPaul]

Christianity can and has had those qualities (eschatological, justice, etc), but it leaves out the Judaism. And adds the atonement theology, which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

PseudoPaul,
Perhaps this can be a beginning point of discussion. Perhaps if one thinks of atonement as the payment concepts as from Ansalem which have dominated words in the second christian millennium but not the first one could say atonement is not part of Judism. A broader take on the word will allow atonement to be a central concern of Judaism. It would be a central concern of the Baptist with whom baptism is a step in becoming right with God, leaving guilt, atonement . It would be natural for Jesus to follow that concern. It might be seen that his concern for sacrificial concern for others is a fundamental insight into atonement. Perhaps he saw a willingness to accept suffering as having the fundamental atoning power when done in hope for others.

Perhaps he got stuck with demonstrating that atonement. He may or may not of forseen it. It completed his teaching about atonement even if he did not particularly wish it to be completed that way.

Obviously Judaism anciently had blood sacrifice of animals as an atonement for sin. What I'm saying is that Jesus did not talk about his own death as an atonement for sin. He didn't teach anyone would be saved by his death. He didn't predict his own death. He thought people would be saved by living the law of Moses, eschewing wealth, and repenting for their sins. Jesus didn't think his blood had anything to do with forgiveness of sins.

Ancient Israelite religion did have elements of human sacrifice (including infant sacrifice, something done by Israel's neighbors as well). You can see some conflicting voices on that in the Hebrew Bible, sometimes saying it was God-mandated and other times saying it was condemned by God, or even that God tricked Israelites into sacrificing their own children in order to punish and humiliate them. Judaism did rid itself of human sacrifice eventually, however. It became a relic of a more barbaric past.

But Christian atonement theology is essentially the return of human sacrifice. So yes I'd say the Christian doctrine of human sacrifice of the man Jesus is profoundly unjewish.

[PseudoPaul]

If you're waiting for history to vindicate your theological views, you'll be waiting a long, long time (spoiler: it will never happen).

My previous post seems to show that there are reasons to consider my theological views/beliefs as being reasonable...or at least in the ballpark of being so.

And then there is faith...

Regards,
MG

Faith certainly isn't reasonable, in the way you are using it. It essentially means, "I may not be able to support this idea on evidentiary grounds, but I'm just going to believe it because I want to believe it." That's not an argument, it's a cop out.

Why reject the Jesus of history in favor of a Jesus of the imagination?

[Limnor]

What I'm saying is that Jesus did not talk about his own death as an atonement for sin. He didn't teach anyone would be saved by his death. He didn't predict his own death. He thought people would be saved by living the law of Moses, eschewing wealth, and repenting for their sins. Jesus didn't think his blood had anything to do with forgiveness of sins.

This confused me until I realized something.

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.

[bill4long]

What I'm saying is that Jesus did not talk about his own death as an atonement for sin. He didn't teach anyone would be saved by his death. He didn't predict his own death. He thought people would be saved by living the law of Moses, eschewing wealth, and repenting for their sins. Jesus didn't think his blood had anything to do with forgiveness of sins.

This confused me until I realized something.

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.

When combining Mark 8:31 and 10:45 it would appear that even in Mark (the earliest gospel) that a "yom kafar" kind of covering is intended.

[bill4long]

What I'm saying is that Jesus did not talk about his own death as an atonement for sin. He didn't teach anyone would be saved by his death. He didn't predict his own death. He thought people would be saved by living the law of Moses, eschewing wealth, and repenting for their sins. Jesus didn't think his blood had anything to do with forgiveness of sins.

This confused me until I realized something.

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.

When combining Mark 8:31 and 10:45 it would appear that even in Mark (the earliest gospel) that a "yom kafar" kind of covering is intended.

Verse 10:45 uses language (that indicates a buying back of slaves out of their slavery.

"For the Son of man also came not to be served (by slaves) but to serve (as a slave), and to give his life as a ransom (λύτρον buy back of slaves) for many." In other word, he paid the slavery buy-back-price. In Leviticus 16 this idea plays out as the two innocent goats that "take upon" the sins of Israel and are treated as proxies, one being killed, with its blood poured out on the Mercy Seat so that Yahweh can't see the Ark containing the Torah Law, and the other, carrying the sins out of the covenant camp into the desert never to be seen again. By this Israel is spared for another year from the consequences of their misdeeds. The Exodus, of course, precedes all of this when the innocent lamb is killed and eaten, and the blood put on the doorpost in the shape of a pyramid to keep the Destroying Angel from killing the firstborn son (and even firstborn of the animals.) This whole "redeeming the firstborn male" is a rather obvious theme in the Torah, starting with Abraham and Isaac. (Yes, Ishmael was physically the firstborn, but he was not the covenant firstborn male heir.)

[PseudoPaul]

What I'm saying is that Jesus did not talk about his own death as an atonement for sin. He didn't teach anyone would be saved by his death. He didn't predict his own death. He thought people would be saved by living the law of Moses, eschewing wealth, and repenting for their sins. Jesus didn't think his blood had anything to do with forgiveness of sins.

This confused me until I realized something.

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.