God and Jesus are twins?

[wileycoyote]

I've assumed that this bit of Mormon doctrine came about because of imperfections in Joseph's teachings and little things he might have said to kind of cover his tracks as he made the switch from teaching the trinity to teaching a seperate father and son. Is there more to it, or is it just his mistake and their explanation?

[meinmachine]

Joseph developed his concept of the godhead over time,-just like so many of his other theological tidbits- given this, it is natural to find inconsistences of his opinions as they were evolving. I think he tried to personalize god by making him more human. It is hard to relate to a non-physical being, so making god like any other person, makes him more relevant and intimate to its believers.

Here is the good news for Mormons. There is little to any actual evidence that Jesus existed. So Joseph Smiths version of events is just as credible and just a likely as any of the other Christian cults. But if you want to believe that your god is “all in one”, or “one for all”, then more power to you.

I think if I want a god to pray to I am going to pray to the Greek gods. They seemed to be more liberating and a little less pretentious. All Hail Zeus!

On second thought I'll stay a non-theist. Now I don’t have to worry about Cyclops, Hydra, or some overly amorous goddess. (Or god! Yikes!) :)

[elder_nomo]

There is little to any actual evidence that Jesus existed.
OK, Meinmachine, you've got me intrigued. I am not a christian, but I was under the impression that there was little dispute that Jesus was an actual person.
Tell us more, please....

[helemon]

All Hail Zeus!


All Hail JeZeus! not hard to see where the name Jesus came from is it.

[helemon]

OK, Meinmachine, you've got me intrigued. I am not a christian, but I was under the impression that there was little dispute that Jesus was an actual person.
Tell us more, please....

It would seem that there have been numerous people who lived lives similar to the one attributed to Christ in the NT. Christ's life appears to be more of an archetypal story that has been present in a variety of cultures. So much for C.S. Lewis knowing when he was reading a fairytale or an actual history of a real person.

http://www.bluehoney.org/Jesus.htm

[free thinker]

In the first vision movie we showed when I was in the mission field, god an jesus looked like identical twins. Including matching beards of exactly the same length and texture. Kinda like ZZ Top. :D


Anyway I figure they have beards cuz that is more aescetic. But if jesus comes again soon he will be a businessman in a nice Gucci suit. Have to look the part. Especially if you want to be jesus to the mormons. They dont want some jewish itenerant running around 50 E North Temple in flowing robes. This is a place of business after all.

free thinker

[helemon]

OK, Meinmachine, you've got me intrigued. I am not a christian, but I was under the impression that there was little dispute that Jesus was an actual person.
Tell us more, please....
See this site:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html

Clean shaven image of Jesus
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/jc-6th.jpg

[meinmachine]

OK, Meinmachine, you've got me intrigued. I am not a christian, but I was under the impression that there was little dispute that Jesus was an actual person.
Tell us more, please....

I will find some references for you all on Tuesday. I am away from my regular resources today and tomorrow. I can tell you that there are no known contemporary records of Jesus as a person or as a messiah. All references to him were written years after his supposed life and resurrection. It has been well documented on this site how the myths of Jesus are not new, in fact they are numerous and pre-date the Jesus by centuries.

Jesus or someone who helped organize the Christian cult “may” have existed in name only, but certainly the characteristics of him described in the Bible, are not verifiable. The fact is that any supposed contemporary evidence of Christ’s life has never stood up to scrutiny. You may remember the Ossuary of the brother of Jesus. This, if proven to be legitimate, would have been the first bit of indirect evidence that Christ or his family existed. The Ossuary was sold to a Canadian museum for a large sum of money. Christians from around the world heralded it as the proof everyone was waiting for that Jesus was a real person. Academics in Israel thought it was a fraud. Christian “Academics” were convinced it was legitimate. Upon coming to Canada the RCMP (Mounties) got involved, apparently the sellers were a suspicious lot. Under further review from Canadian and international experts the Ossuary of the Brother of Christ was confirmed a clever fake. Charges were laid and a major Canadian museum lost a lot of money. Why did the Museum want the Ossuary? To have swarms of Christians pay to come see it of course! Poor dumb Canadians! :o But more info later....

[miss taken]

Meinmachine, by 150AD there was already a strong tradition for the existence of Jesus. I don't doubt that the NT canon has been changed and ammended to fit later ideologies, but there is good evidence to suggest that at least some of the authentic beliefs and words of Jesus (Greek form of Joshua Helemon, nothing to do with Zeus) have survived.

The evidence from the early christian fathers suggest that Paul's writings were regarded as canon first, but that some form of gospel existed with sayings of Jesus, either in oral or written form is little doubted by those that study the matter in far greater depth than Helemon (with all respect to you Helemon)

Now, whether he is the son of God, or an itinerant teacher is another matter. That is a matter of faith.

Joshua ben Joseph no doubt existed, a son of Mary, the devil is in the detail (as always)

Josephus is probably interpolation, but interesting non the less.

Look up or do a google on....
Clement
Ignatius
The Didache
Papias
Eusebius
Polycarp
Shepherd of Hermas
Tertulian
Justin Martyr
Iranaeus
and of course Origen.

[meinmachine]

Meinmachine, by 150AD there was already a strong tradition for the existence of Jesus. I don't doubt that the NT canon has been changed and ammended to fit later ideologies, but there is good evidence to suggest that at least some of the authentic beliefs and words of Jesus (Greek form of Joshua Helemon, nothing to do with Zeus) have survived.

The evidence from the early christian fathers suggest that Paul's writings were regarded as canon first, but that some form of gospel existed with sayings of Jesus, either in oral or written form is little doubted by those that study the matter in far greater depth than Helemon (with all respect to you Helemon)

Now, whether he is the son of God, or an itinerant teacher is another matter. That is a matter of faith.

Joshua ben Joseph no doubt existed, a son of Mary, the devil is in the detail (as always)

Josephus is probably interpolation, but interesting non the less.

Look up or do a google on....
Clement
Ignatius
The Didache
Papias
Eusebius
Polycarp
Shepherd of Hermas
Tertulian
Justin Martyr
Iranaeus
and of course Origen.


Your points confirm what I claimed, there simply is no direct evidence from any contemporary source that proves Jesus the person actually lived. He probably did exist, because of the indirect evidence that supports his influence over the Christian cult. I do not contend that point, but it may well be that he did not exist in any way like the gospels describe. The Christian faith, as some scholars believe, may be a creation of Paul that combined Pagan elements with Jewish traditions. Just another of many religious leaders that have claimed to in direct conversation with god, and thereby teaching the “real truth”. Joseph Smith anyone?

Historic Christianity makes for an interesting comparison with Buddhism. Siddhartha Gotama emerged from India, teaching a new way of approaching the subject of enlightenment. His offshoot expanded throughout Asia after his death. All of what he taught was written down hundreds of years after the fact. There were so many versions of what he taught that councils were set up to establish an official cannon. Of course, like Christianity there were so many versions and adherents to them that offshoots of Buddhism emerged. Ultimately there is little direct evidence the Siddhartha actually existed. (There is more than is available for Jesus) When archeological evidence (as was found a few years ago) links a location, period and family name there is great excitement. It gives the rare and hard proof of the very existence of the central figure to the story.

Christianity, like Buddhism is a world wide philosophy / religion. Similarly, much of what its founders taught is probably obscured with the mists of time. At this point it impossible to tell what the original teachings were. It is likely, probably most likely, that what is taught today in both schools of thought is the creation of later teachers. This is why I stated that Joseph Smiths variation of the Christian cult is every bit as “real”, since it is just a recreation of the old fables.

It is so nice to be free of all these lies. Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, same sh*t different pile.

[miss taken]

Your points confirm what I claimed, there simply is no direct evidence from any contemporary source that proves Jesus the person actually lived. He probably did exist, because of the indirect evidence that supports his influence over the Christian cult. I do not contend that point, but it may well be that he did not exist in any way like the gospels describe. The Christian faith, as some scholars believe, may be a creation of Paul that combined Pagan elements with Jewish traditions. Just another of many religious leaders that have claimed to in direct conversation with god, and thereby teaching the “real truth”. Joseph Smith anyone?

Historic Christianity makes for an interesting comparison with Buddhism. Siddhartha Gotama emerged from India, teaching a new way of approaching the subject of enlightenment. His offshoot expanded throughout Asia after his death. All of what he taught was written down hundreds of years after the fact. There were so many versions of what he taught that councils were set up to establish an official cannon. Of course, like Christianity there were so many versions and adherents to them that offshoots of Buddhism emerged. Ultimately there is little direct evidence the Siddhartha actually existed. (There is more than is available for Jesus) When archeological evidence (as was found a few years ago) links a location, period and family name there is great excitement. It gives the rare and hard proof of the very existence of the central figure to the story.

Christianity, like Buddhism is a world wide philosophy / religion. Similarly, much of what its founders taught is probably obscured with the mists of time. At this point it impossible to tell what the original teachings were. It is likely, probably most likely, that what is taught today in both schools of thought is the creation of later teachers. This is why I stated that Joseph Smiths variation of the Christian cult is every bit as “real”, since it is just a recreation of the old fables.

It is so nice to be free of all these lies. Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, same sh*t different pile.

Hi Meinmachine, except for the last couple of sentences. I pretty much agree with everything you have said.

[free thinker]

I am currently watching the series "Rome" on HBO. It is considered very historically accurate.( Except the British accents of course.)

When comparing figures like Cato, Julious Cesar, Pompei etc. to the historical Jesus, one can see the disparity. The former were definately historical figures, while the latter is questionable, based on a preponderance of evidence.

free thinker

[meinmachine]

Hi Meinmachine, except for the last couple of sentences. I pretty much agree with everything you have said.

Sorry about that, I came off a bit offensive to those that might hold faith in one of the mentioned theologies. I should have said I am glad to be rid of all of these things, to me they are all dung, and serve no purpose other than to fertilize my mind!

[miss taken]

Sorry about that, I came off a bit offensive to those that might hold faith in one of the mentioned theologies. I should have said I am glad to be rid of all of these things, to me they are all dung, and serve no purpose other than to fertilize my mind!

No problem meinmachine!
I like this board because of the diversity of beliefs and attitudes. Boring world, if everyone thought the same, and other peoples opinions always make me think!!
Mary

[elder_nomo]

Thanks to all for the links and the interesting discussion. I have learned a lot!

[meinmachine]

Here is a link you might find interesting.
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Rob