What is the concept of God philosophically?

[ThinkOfOne]

allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves.

I think the Jefferson Bible is a good resource for someone lookin' to do that.

Actually, the point of the Jefferson Bible was to remove words attributed to Jesus that Jefferson believed were not actually said by him (see quotation below) and many of the things said ABOUT Jesus. Allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves, on the other hand, is about how to interpret His words rather that what should be included/excluded. Interpreting Jesus' words through the lens of what those other than Jesus had to say about those words is folly.

Monticello Apr. 13. 20.
among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.

From <https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1559>

[ThinkOfOne]

allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves.

I think the Jefferson Bible is a good resource for someone lookin' to do that.

From what I gather, the point of the Jefferson Bible was to remove words attributed to Jesus that Jefferson believed were not actually said by him (see quotation below) and many of the things said ABOUT Jesus (especially the mythology (miracle, etc.) the NT writers wrapped around His words. Allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves, on the other hand, is primarily about how to interpret His words rather that what should be included/excluded. Interpreting Jesus' words through the lens of what those other than Jesus had to say about those words is folly.

Monticello Apr. 13. 20.
among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.

From <https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1559>

[Martin Peter Clarke]

allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves.

I think the Jefferson Bible is a good resource for someone lookin' to do that.

They certainly aren't Jesus' words. They are mainly 'Mark''s and Quelle's words of Jesus' words, written 40 years after they were set. 'John''s words another 20, and those aren't authentic at all in the huge monologues.

Even if they were all Jesus' words preserved by the Holy Ghost, what good would they do? Or, rather, especially if they were? As natural transcendent Judaism, spoken by Jesus around 30AD, they would be most impressive, showing that he was a remarkable man of highest moral and emotional and analytical intelligence, many decades ahead of his time. The greatest ever relative to contemporary culture, and working class to boot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry. The latter. Deconversion.

I can understand this, I think. (Though I admit to being a great admirer many Catholics).

I am curious though to know more about how you now view “invincible ignorance”.

[henry quirk]

Allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves, on the other hand, is about how to interpret His words rather that what should be included/excluded. Interpreting Jesus' words through the lens of what those other than Jesus had to say about those words is folly.

I see your point. However I see Liza's, er, Martin's...

They certainly aren't Jesus' words.

...as well.

How are we to interpret his words when all we have are what others recall him sayin'?

[ThinkOfOne]

Allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves, on the other hand, is about how to interpret His words rather that what should be included/excluded. Interpreting Jesus' words through the lens of what those other than Jesus had to say about those words is folly.

I see your point. However I see Liza's, er, Martin's...

They certainly aren't Jesus' words.

...as well.

How are we to interpret his words when all we have are what others recall him sayin'?

Ultimately what is of importance is not the words themselves, but the underlying concepts conveyed by those words. As such, whether or not Jesus actually said them is similarly unimportant.

By and large, those underlying concepts are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent. What's more, much of it is remarkably deep and quite profound. This is not true of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they merely echo those concepts. At worst, they deviate from those concepts and at times substantially so. Jefferson seemed to understand this.

Liza?

[Lacewing]

Jesus did not "think of himself as uniquely the son of God". Nor did Jesus think of Himself as being literally a son of God. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. I can lay it out for you if you're interested.

Jesus is poorly understood and poorly represented. Especially by Christianity. It's tragic. It's the underlying reason why so many Christians throughout history and even today are so "unlike Christ". Perhaps, especially today.

It was one of the major themes across the four gospels: many of the Jews did not understand Him; most of the time His "disciples" did not understand Him. The vast majority of Christians today do not understand Him.

Those have been my impressions too. Even as a kid growing up in a Christian church, I noticed that well-meaning people were attributing things to Jesus that weren't aligned with the things he had apparently said -- and they were doing it because they could better understand the things they were making up. His concepts were too deep... and his love and awareness too great, perhaps... for people to fathom.

I remember feeling sadness at the realization that he felt alone, even among those who would have understood him best. And it seemed especially tragic (and even horrific) that people were twisting his message into something else. Then people put forth the story about this supposed separate god/entity, sacrificing his only son to save mankind... rather than admitting that it was a sad waste that Jesus was murdered because mankind was too stupid and threatened by enlightened thinking!

The fact that this distorted nonsense is being carried on even today is baffling! So much willful blindness. Although I try to have compassion for fearful people who are trying to do the right thing... there is much more going on that has nothing to do with the example that Jesus set... and it's dark and dangerous.

As Jesus apparently said, 'Forgive them, they know NOT what they do.' How TRUE.

[Lacewing]

Ultimately what is of importance is not the words themselves, but the underlying concepts conveyed by those words.

Yes, and the supposed actions and attitudes... revealing depth and authenticity.

A person's communication can only be interpreted on the level of the receiver... which may be quite shallow. You can't tell what someone will do with communications.

[For example, like someone who misinterprets what is being said by people on this forum and then builds entire arguments against that. It's his own distorted creation that he insists people refute to his satisfaction. I think this echoes how religious distortion operates: it doesn't really listen or understand -- it seeks only to comfort and validate itself by pretending to know that which it has made up.]

As such, whether or not Jesus actually said them is similarly unimportant.

By and large, those underlying concepts are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent. What's more, much of it is remarkably deep and quite profound. This is not true of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they merely echo those concepts. At worst, they deviate from those concepts and at times substantially so.

Yes, it is fascinating to consider Jesus' words in a broader perspective... free of religious distortion and constraints. There is SO MUCH MORE beyond religious constraints! And it is not to be feared. It is the distortions that 'could be feared' most of all.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Ultimately what is of importance is not the words themselves, but the underlying concepts conveyed by those words.

Yes, and the supposed actions and attitudes... revealing depth and authenticity.

A person's communication can only be interpreted on the level of the receiver... which may be quite shallow. You can't tell what someone will do with communications.

[For example, like someone who misinterprets what is being said by people on this forum and then builds entire arguments against that. It's his own distorted creation that he insists people refute to his satisfaction. I think this echoes how religious distortion operates: it doesn't really listen or understand -- it seeks only to comfort and validate itself by pretending to know that which it has made up.]

As such, whether or not Jesus actually said them is similarly unimportant.

By and large, those underlying concepts are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent. What's more, much of it is remarkably deep and quite profound. This is not true of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they merely echo those concepts. At worst, they deviate from those concepts and at times substantially so.

Yes, it is fascinating to consider Jesus' words in a broader perspective... free of religious distortion and constraints. There is SO MUCH MORE beyond religious constraints! And it is not to be feared. It is the distortions that 'could be feared' most of all.

They come with religious distortion and restraint. His. He gave us hell and damnation. Or his authors did. As well as the social gospel which is totally ignored. But what does any of this have to do with the concept of God philosophically? Apart from his? I.e. religious distortion and restraint.

[Belinda]

Allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves, on the other hand, is about how to interpret His words rather that what should be included/excluded. Interpreting Jesus' words through the lens of what those other than Jesus had to say about those words is folly.

I see your point. However I see Liza's, er, Martin's...

They certainly aren't Jesus' words.

...as well.

How are we to interpret his words when all we have are what others recall him sayin'?

I know of three historical sources.I previously recommended the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminar who answer your question better than any of us. Your question is one about historical records and sources not philosophy. Why do you ask a bunch of half-baked philosophers instead of reading what the people say who probably know the answer?

* Jesus was a Jew , so he would not step completely outside the broader Jewish theist canon .

*
Mark is the most historically reliable Gospel to ne written down as Mark is the shortest Gospel from only forty years after Jesus died.

* There are in existence actual codices of early Biblical material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_unc ... in%20Paris.

*
Parables and stories in the Gospels reflect the sort of lives ordinary people lived, such as farmers, fishermen, travellers, employees, employers, and temple religion. Apart from the historicity of Jesus himself a lot is known about Palestinian life under Roman occupation.The Romans were reliable record keepers for purposes of administration.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves.

I think the Jefferson Bible is a good resource for someone lookin' to do that.

If we only use the Jefferson Bible then we have an early humanist manifesto.

If we use the Red Letter Bible's eponymous red letters, and their minimal context, then we still have a basis for Jesus' concept of God.

Which is not Love.

[Ben JS]

A rant, prefaced as a rant upon originally posting:

From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/bring ... y/49166/11
-

Someone experiences love,
and then some f---head says,
‘No, man. You experienced God.’
Then they spew all these conditions.
They make love conditional -
jump through these hoops to be worthy.
God demands blood,
God has some list of stupid rules.
God hates the gays.
Don’t touch your genitals, demon.
Oh btw, Hell’s a thing - eternal torture.
No redemption, no forgiveness -
but this is an expression of love.
Fear me. Question nothing.
This is the truth,
but we rewrote a few things.

WTF? Really dude, WHAT THE FUCK?

Love is love.
Truth is truth.
Stop redefining these terms and inserting this bullshit.
Why is the concept ‘God’ necessary for this equation?

The fire that burns your family to death doesn’t love you.
The wave that drowns the town doesn’t have your interests at heart.
Existence is callous - indifferent to us.
Only the living care, and 99% of them don’t care about you either.

How much mental gymnastics does one have to go through,
in order to say that the cosmos gives a shit about us?
As there a countless examples of brutal cruelty & suffering.
What kind of twisted all-powerful fuck thinks this is the ideal creation?

[...]

You know what truth’s good for?
Empowering us to counteract the callous nature of existence.
Alleviating suffering, as God seems busy -
God seems to let many fall through the cracks for some reason.
All part of the plan, remember. The loving plan.

[henry quirk]

Ultimately what is of importance is not the words themselves, but the underlying concepts conveyed by those words.

What are those underlying concepts?

Liza?

Just a joke...Martin understands.

[henry quirk]

Why do you ask a bunch of half-baked philosophers instead of reading what the people say who probably know the answer?

Becuz my interest is mild and conversations with half-baked philosophers suffices.

[Belinda]

Why do you ask a bunch of half-baked philosophers instead of reading what the people say who probably know the answer?

Becuz my interest is mild and conversations with half-baked philosophers suffices.

At least you address the question I asked so thanks for that.
It often suffices for me too, but not all the time.