“I am the way, the truth, and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME.” — Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Found it posted on a baptist website, under the heading on why we knew Christ was the only way to heaven. So their basic argument is that we know that Christ is the only way, because he said so, and here it is in the holy book, that we know is holy, because it says that it is holy.

Now imagine if Joseph Smith had said that same thing about himself, and that Mormons claimed the statement was true because it was written in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a Holy Book, because the Doctrine and Covenants says that it is holy. You see how lame the argument is? But yet all of religion is built on such drivel.

I don't believe that the Jesus Christ in our scriptures was a real person. Even if he was based on a man, then that man was more like our Joseph Smith, the conman, then he was the divine son of God as he is portrayed in the bible. Sorry, I need evidence of divinity that amount to more then taking the claimants word for it, or on warm feelings.

YES!

What I find fun now, is reading the teachings of jesus with a Buddhist mindset.... Think about this, where did he go for those 18 years??? Buddhist teachings were very prominent in asia by the time jesus would have been able to learn them... :D

I realized then that Jesus was an enlightened master attempting to lead people who continually distorted what he was trying to say. No wonder he went willingly to the cross (if he did).

I actually lean more toward believing he was trying to help people understand Eastern ideas of finding peace within yourself (the kingdom of god is within, the temple is your body, etc). Instead, like many do now, the prevailing authorities felt threatened by his suggestion that the average man had god within him.

In my view, Jesus was one of those amazing individuals who come along once in while and we always remake them into the mythos we already have in our mind.

Anagrammy

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I actually lean more toward believing he was
> trying to help people understand Eastern ideas of
> finding peace within yourself (the kingdom of god
> is within, the temple is your body, etc).

But wait a minute, below robertb makes the point that much of our culture was Christian in origin. So, now you are saying that it was eastern and predated Christianity?

No, I wasn't talking about the origin of our culture.

I was talking about the probability of Jesus being a spiritual master whose message was co-opted by the politically motivated (Constantine) and crafted into a story which even the apostle Paul had never heard.

The mythological Jesus story does not, in my view, preclude there being a real Jesus who had a message whose time had come.

I don't believe Christianity was what he intended at all, but it certainly was what the church fathers intended, wasn't it?

Chopra invites the reader to look inward to recognize the words of Christ which are consistent with general themes throughout his ministry. I found it easier to recognize which quotes from Christ seemed out of place or overtly self-serving for a large church wishing to consolidate its adherents through an overarching theme which would accommodate local customs and myths.

As always, your mileage may vary....

Anagrammy

PS. As far as origins of culture go, all our cultures originate in the East--Africa, if you want to go way back. The first appearance of what we now call Western thought appeared in Northern India, which gets the prize for being quite the locale for interesting new ideas.

Sorry for intruding...but this topic reminds me....

After I jumped the mormon ship and no longer was forcing myself to listen and oblige the dissonance, a friend recommended this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Lamb-Gospel-According-Christs-Childhood/dp/0380813815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334533190&sr=8-1

Okay... it's fiction and funny. But at the time, I found it cathartic, and... it "does" explain, err... posit I suppose, how Jesus and his philosophies came to be.

Enjoy, if you haven't already.

"I actually lean more toward believing he was trying to help people understand Eastern ideas of finding peace within yourself (the kingdom of god is within, the temple is your body, etc)."

Basically, teaching eastern philosophies.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 06:12PM by MJ.

According to the lore and docs found in India about Issa, he did live with and study with Buddhists, but he also lived with and studied with Hindu yogis. According to the lore, he was a great yogi, which yoga embraces and enhances the basic, most essential tenets of both Buddhism and Hinduism. But yoga moves beyond mere belief and philosophy, and gives actual tek to practice, to develop divine consciousness.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the lore and docs found in India
> about Issa, he did live with and study with
> Buddhists, but he also lived with and studied with
> Hindu yogis. According to the lore, he was a great
> yogi, which yoga embraces and enhances the basic,
> most essential tenets of both Buddhism and
> Hinduism. But yoga moves beyond mere belief and
> philosophy, and gives actual tek to practice, to
> develop divine consciousness.

Is there any possibility to getting links to this information? It is something that I very interested in learning more about! Thank you!!!!!

It's the same circular reasoning.

I was once in the park, minding my own business, reading a book, when a guy came up and invited me to join his Bible study group forming in one of the picnic shelters.

"No thanks. I don't believe the Bible."

"But it's the word of God."

"Says who?"

"It says so in the Bible."

"So what? If this book I'm reading said it was the word of God, would that make it so?"

"Huh?"

"What if the title of this book were 'The Only Real Word of God,' would you believe it? No. So why should I believe the Bible?"

"Um, I need to go."

Thank you for giving me a possible book title, should I ever decide to publish my philosophical ideas.

> “I am the way, the truth, and the life; NO MAN
> cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME.” — Jesus
> Christ (John 14:6)
>


Being a woman, apparently I don't have to follow Jesus. He says so himself - it only applies to men.

If he said that, then I see Jesus talking as the personification of love and compassion. No one comes to the father (enlightenment) without love and compassion.

It could also be that he was talking about his way as opposed the the way of the Pharisees. No one comes to the father (enlightenment) by being rule-bound.

I'm just throwing out some different ways to think about that statement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 12:37PM by summer.

No loving father that I know of would say "the only way to get to me is though Jesus".

That statment, John 14:6, is basicly the same as TSCC's claim that it is the one true church. We know that the message from TSCC that it is the one true curch (the one path to enlighenment and there are no others) is not about love.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 01:06PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No loving father that I know of would say "the only way to get to me is though Jesus".

For that reason, the statement also could have been added later.

Along those lines, everything said in the Bible about Jesus may be made up. For all we know, the “I am the way, the truth, and the life" part may have been the part added later. Seriously, to me the "add later" argument sounds a lot like "translated correctly"

Way to go, First take an explicit statment and try to make it into something not said, then say, well it may have been made up anyway.

And yes, by trying to claim that it could have been added later, you are saying that it was made up and not what Jesus said.

Of course that makes it nice, anything that one disagrees with or causes problems with belief can just be ignored, claiming, without evidence, that it was "added later". SWEET.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 04:08PM by MJ.

Well, an awful lot was added later. The virgin birth, the three wise men, the miracles, the resurrection. It wouldn't surprise me if they put some additional words in his mouth as well for their own reasons.

I do think that there was a real person behind the myths. A real spiritual master. I am fine with those who disagree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 06:31PM by summer.

In other words, you don't have the sligtest idea what, if anything, in the bible was actually said by Jesus, if there was such a figure, but you are going to beleive anyway. Thanks for confirming that.

You do not know if Jesus said "NO MAN cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME" or it was added later. Jesus may actually have said "NO MAN cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME". You do knot know. NOBODY DOES. You may believe, but not know.

So, Since you can not actually know what Jesus said, what moral standard do you use to devine what you believe Jesus really said?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 06:51PM by MJ.

You said that I don't have the slightest idea what he said or if there was such a person. I believe that there was such a person based on the evidence of the New Testament. You may not consider this to be persuasive evidence, but I do. I don't let some statements attributed to him which puzzle me detract from the majority of teachings attributed to him.

But you also say that a lot was added to it, your words "Well, an awful lot was added later. The virgin birth, the three wise men, the miracles, the resurrection. It wouldn't surprise me if they put some additional words in his mouth as well for their own reasons."

So how do you know that what you claim is, "the evidence of the New Testament" isn't one of the things that was, as you say "added later"?

What do you use to distiquish what "evidence" is origional, if any, and what was AS YOU SAY "added later"?

I think these are legitimate and fair questions



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 07:13PM by MJ.

I think that the myths are fairly easy to tease out of the accounts. Just because myths surround stories about a person, doesn't mean the person didn't exist. Johnny Appleseed, George Washington, the Buddha -- all have had myths pasted over the factual details of their lives.

As a previous poster once stated, "something happened" in that part of the world at that time. Something happened that propelled an awful lot of people to spread the word of Jesus throughout the world. I think that the something was a very charismatic man with something of value to say.

That does not mean that Moroni was real.

But you do not really answer the question, other than to claim some I think we can tease out something (purely a subjective judgment). But it isn't really an answer because I believe you can tease it all out to be a myth. I think the method of teasing out the myths is more about picking and chosing what one likes more than what truly happened. You give no concreat way of truly dicerning fact from fiction, so bottom line:

How, specifically, how would you know if Jesus said "NO MAN cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME.” Or not?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 07:32PM by MJ.

People didn't claim (that I know of) to travel with Moroni, to talk to him at length over a period of time, or to break bread with him.

I think the myths are easy to tease out because they are common to other traditions at the time. Christianity didn't invent them.

I don't know if Jesus said that particular statement or not. As I said, it's one of the statements that are attributed to him which puzzles me.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People didn't claim (that I know of) to travel
> with Moroni, to talk to him at length over a
> period of time, or to break bread with him.

Um, Joseph Smith claimed to have talked with Moroni, how is that REALLY different? BTW, we KNOW that Joseph Smith existed, do we really KNOW that any of the "people" that claimed to have walked with Jesus were real? No, not really. So, we have the word of someone we KNOW existested vs. what is claimed to have been said by people we are not really sure existed. Hmmmm, what has more credibility?

>
> I think the myths are easy to tease out because
> they are common to other traditions at the time.
> Christianity didn't invent them.
>

You mean like the 2,000 years of believing in Ra and the traditons in Egypt means that the God Ra is a real? How about all those traditions that people practiced around Zues, hell, there were people who claimed to have been fathered by Zues! That sort of logic can be applied to any religion or cult.

BTW, I agree with you, Christians did not make up those traditions, nor are they unique to Christianity. As I asked Robert below, I ask you now, what IS UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN that can not be found in cultures that predate Christianity?


> I don't know if Jesus said that particular
> statement or not. As I said, it's one of the
> statements that are attributed to him which
> puzzles me.


Then how do you know ANY statements atributed to him every came from him? Magicly tease it out using methods you can not explain? Or some idea that because a religion has traditions that validates the religion or religious characters as real?

For any statement in the bible or any other source you care to mention, as if there is any other source I will ask the exact same statment:

How, specifically, how would you know if Jesus said "<instert statment atributed to Jesus here>” Or not?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 08:49PM by MJ.

How, specifically, how would you know if Jesus said "<instert statment atributed to Jesus here>” Or not?

Do you just reject those that "puzzle you" or you disagree with? What does you being "puzzled" have to do in regards to if Jesus actually sait that or not? Perhaps you are puzzled because you have the wrong idea of who Jesus was. Being puzzled has nothing to do with the discussion as to the reality of what Jesus said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 08:53PM by MJ.

I think that he existed, MJ. I know that displeases you, but that's how it is. I find the teachings attributed to him compelling in the same way that I find the teachings of the Buddha or the Taoists compelling. What he taught comprises a (largely) coherent and consistent way of approaching the world. Do I understand everything that attributed to him? No. To me that doesn't render the body of his work any less compelling.

+10

And that one statement, John 14:6, proves that Christianity is not about morality.

The test to get into heaven is not "How moral are you?" The test is "Do you believe in Jesus". A moral person would be denied entrance to heaven if he did not believe in Christ.

Just more evidence that it is a con job, getting people to blindly follow a person, not about what is best for those people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 12:43PM by MJ.

Not exactly, its all up for debate depending on how you interpret the Bible. Some say by works, other say by faith.

Bottomline, the Bible contradicts itself and loses credibility.

How can I be judged by a book that is not a valid compass or GPS if you will? Especially, when we know that the bible says God is JUST.

Lets say the Bible were true, but severely flawed by man. At what point does God correct the flaws so that we may know the exact truth so that we can be fairly judge by whatever criteria he requires in order to return to him?

The mere fact that there are so many religions, shows me that the book is a totally inacurate and invalid tool or beacon for anything. I think Joseph Smith recognized this and saw the profit in continuing with the confussion for his own gain.

JS essentially debunked religion on the whole. For this, I thank the con man pederass that he was.

The statement made by John is reather explicite. I do not see much room for interpetation. And we are talking about this particular statment by John.

And this particular statement by John is basicly the same message from TSCC, There is one true way and if you don't follow it, you won't get the cake. Of course the cake is a lie. Other statments contradict John's statment, I agree, but the statement, in an of it's self is rather clear.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 02:04PM by MJ.

Oh boy...comparing JC to JS. I don't even know what to say. You have got to be kidding. Take the things JS did and tell me that JC did those things...like send other men off to do mission work and then he married their wives....or tell me when he had a gun/club or whatever in a firefight? Or tell me when he translated something from a freakin' hat. Again...you can't be serious. But I shall leave this post now as it is upsetting.

A problem for you? The fact that JS and JC are not identical does not mean that they were not trying to do the same thing when envolking the name of God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 02:01PM by MJ.

to be a fictional character, (or a real person whose name grew into a myth), then it's easy to not be offended by the comparison.

"Comparing the real JS to a fictional character? You've got to be kidding!"

One of the ironies of criticizing Jesus is most of us are cultural Christians. By that I mean our values and ethics are formed by a culture that has absorbed and secularized much of Jesus' teachings. This is not to say I accept the *doctrines* about Jesus and God churches have maintained but much of our ethics we owe Jesus and his early followers.

Though last I checked, democracy, freedom from religion, prohibitions against unwarented search, trial by jury, were not Christian traditions.

That's a good point, MJ. Not to mention Christianity left us a horrible legacy on sexuality, women's rights, and, of course, gay rights. I don't think all of that can be laid on Jesus directly, but nonetheless we inherited it from Christianity.

Democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, self determination, etc. from Christianity? Hardly.

We rejected much of the Christian model when we rejected the Christian "divine rights of Kings" dictatorship model.

Regardless of if it came from Jesus, if such a person existed, Christianity, for quite some time, has been a great detriment to much of what we here in the US treasure as basic values, basic rights, and the basic right to choose how we, as individuals, should live.

We got slavery, from Christian cultures, Suppression of women and gays, from Christian culture, "Divine rights of Kings", from Christian Culture, feudal government, from Christian cultures. All of which was REJECTED by our current culture thanks to the idea of Democracy inherited from the pagan culture of Greece.

Now, what EXACTLY did originate from Christianity, that actually came from Christianity that we can credit Christianity for adding to existing cultures?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 06:14PM by MJ.

Early Christians emphasized care of the poor and of the sick. Christians cared for the sick and dying during two major epidemics in the Roman Empire, resulting a higher survival rate among Christians.

Christians gave women higher status within their congregations than women had in Roman society in the same era. They promoted equality among men and women in regard to sexual behavior (*both* were to be faithful). Women favored Christianity because it encouraged men to treat women better. Christians opposed infanticide and abortion.

While we inherited the Roman legal system, Christianity emphasized the worth and dignity of humans and that God cared about their suffering, unlike the pagan gods, who were indifferent. This created in Christian society an ethic that we should strive to love one another and treat one another well.

For an outline of reasons for the success of Christianity--

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 06:21PM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Early Christians emphasized care of the poor and
> of the sick. Christians cared for the sick and
> dying during two major epidemics in the Roman
> Empire, resulting a higher survival rate among
> Christians.
>

Does not negate or even address my point.

> Christians gave women higher status within their
> congregations than women had in Roman society in
> the same era. They promoted equality among men and
> women in regard to sexual behavior (*both* were to
> be faithful). Women favored Christianity because
> it encouraged men to treat women better.
> Christians opposed infanticide and abortion.
>

And during the "Dark Ages"??? Afterall, that is the CHristianity we inherited. Opps, I forgot, it still does not address the issues I raised.

> While we inherited the Roman legal system,
> Christianity emphasized the worth and dignity of
> humans and that God cared about their suffering,
> unlike the pagan gods, who were indifferent. This
> created in Christian society an ethic that we
> should strive to love one another and treat one
> another well.

The worth and dignaty of the victems of the Crucades? The Equisitions? The Conquestion of South America? Whitch trials? You mean that sort of human dignaty? And again you have addressed the points that I have raised.

Or how about holding as sacrid texts that talk of rape, incest, murder, putting to death chilren, etc... That sort of human dignaty?

Doing a few good things does not made up for all the suffering. Oh, and did I say anything about Rome? Nope, GREECE, I did talk about.

And the views of Jesus when it comes to equality? Where were women? His trusted advisors or washing his feet?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 06:27PM by MJ.

Supression of Science. Well, some Chsristians are still trying to do that.

I wounder how many cultures around the world were actually distroyed in the name of the Christian God? Do you have any idea?

In regard to war, with several exceptions, religion has not been a prime motivator to go to war, although once war has become it has often been drafted into the cause.

For a estimate of the religion as a factor in major ancient and modern wars, go here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf

We can lay the wars motivated by Christianity at the feet of, well, Christianity. It shows that Christianity was no better moral guide than anything else.

But then there is still the inquisitions, the suppression of science, imprisoning Heretics, the repressive feudal system, dictator ship enforced by the "divine rights of Kings", slavery spread around the world by Christian cultures.. All things you have ignored in favor of trying to say that not all wars were started by Christianity ignoring that many were started in the name of Christiany. Wow, just wow.

Never mind that you also ignoring the fact that protections against unwarranted searches, freedom from religion, The right to chose what is best for ourselves, elimination of the feudal class system were all a rejection of prevailing Christian culture by the USA culture.

Sorry, but there really seems to be much more that has been rejected than has been kept.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 08:55PM by MJ.

Didn't Jesus instruct something like leaving family and go follow him? How is that not like a mission?

We don't really know how many of his followers Jesus was boinking. It's kind of naive to think he couldn't have made rules for his insiders like JS did, IMO. JS didn't have the luxury of having his history cleaned up 100 years after his death to make him seem perfect (although the Mormon church is trying its best to ditch anything ugly).

Didn't Jesus imply he was "King" of whatever?

He roamed around preaching, on the take- expecting his apostles to be living off faith and handouts.

Why be a carpenter (Jesus) or a farmer (Joseph) once you develop the preaching skill?

I wouldn't compare the two when it comes to selfishness. JS was completely selfish and self abosorbed, Jesus was the opposite.

Even Kim Jong-il claimed he was a god, as did some Egyptian leaders. At least JS didn't claim he WAS god.

I think in every age there are radical types who start up things like religions and both Jesus and JS fall in that category. See Hoffer's The True Believer for insightful thoughts about how mass movement arise and why.

The trick is linking "sacredness" to the claims. Then the tales that take off become protected and believed without any evidence required.

I'm not saying JS was anywhere near as significant as Jesus (if he existed). I am saying the patterns and model is there from people like JS to see how the process works.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2012 04:50PM by dagny.