# If Jesus came back today, which religion would he most identify with? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699 "2008-08-03T13:43:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/81 "2008-08-05T07:06:56Z")
Either Jesus was totally oblivious walking into Jerusalem (stupid.). Or he was ready to take his Cult to the next level. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/82 "2008-08-05T13:41:34Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] Either Jesus was totally oblivious walking into Jerusalem (stupid.). Or he was ready to take his Cult to the next level. [/QUOTE] The New Testament, if you believe it, has several passages in which Jesus said he _had_ to be crucified in order to fulfill prophecy and to redeem the sins of mankind. He knew what was coming. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/83 "2008-08-05T14:31:53Z")
[QUOTE=blinkthrice] This is a bit confusing to me. JW dont believe in hell [/quote] Neither did Jesus, at least the one taught by Christianity anyway. > [@](#): > > and believe in the crucifixion as a ransom for mankind’s sins (something Jesus himself never taught), etc. In fact, he did. And the NT reaffirms in no uncertain terms that Jesus was, in fact, “a ransom sacrifice.” > [@](#): > > Jesus never explicitly called himself the “begotten” son of God either. I’m not sure of the significance of “begotten” in your post, but Jesus clearly identified himself as God’s Son, never God. > [@](#): > > Oh, and dont the JW eat pork? Yes, they do. And so would have Paul, Peter, and the first century Christians, by and large. > [@](#): > > Other than their views on the trinity doctrine, I dont see anything which would separate them far enough from mainstream Christianity, not enough to consider them closest to Jesus’ teachings, anyway. I’d be pleased to show you more… ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/84 "2008-08-05T14:56:05Z")
[QUOTE=blinkthrice] Like what, exactly? Differences of course do exist, but if a rabbinical authority of Judaism as significant as Maimonides can declare Islam to be valid in terms of its belief system, and even consider it permissible for a Jew to pray in a Mosque under certain conditions, I don’t think these differences between the two faiths are at all that stark. It would be anathema for a Jew to pray in a Church, by contrast. [/QUOTE] Maimonides said that it’s permissible to pray in a mosque because Muslims aren’t idolators and don’t worship a false god, while it’s impermissible to pray in a church because Christians are and do. And Jewish/Muslim conceptions of God are pretty similar…but that doesn’t mean there aren’t big doctrinal differences. ---
**Author:** ![blinkthrice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@blinkthrice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkthrice)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/85 "2008-08-05T15:02:19Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] Neither did Jesus, at least the one taught by Christianity anyway. In fact, he did. [/quote] Since he was a practicing Jew, he most likely believed in the Jewish concept of hellfire - _Gehenim_, which would correspond to the Islamic _Jahannam_. > [@](#): > > And the NT reaffirms in no uncertain terms that Jesus was, in fact, “a ransom sacrifice.” Again, most of the NT is based on the writings of Paul. Jesus himself never told his followers he was going to sacrafice himself on behalf of humanity’s sins, or that they should after his death fashion a new religion around that sacrafice. In fact, he prayed for God to save him from being crucified. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure of the significance of “begotten” in your post, but Jesus clearly identified himself as God’s Son, never God. Begotten would imply that he was the “son of God” in the sense that you and I are, assuming you are a male, sons of our parents, as opposed to a metaphorical understanding of this relationship. > [@](#): > > Yes, they do. And so would have Paul, Peter, and the first century Christians, by and large. > > I’d be pleased to show you more… Right, but Paul and Peter aren’t Jesus. The thread asks which religion Jesus would most identify with, and if Jesus lived his life according to the law, and the law says no pork, I don’t really think he’d approve of people chowing down on ham sandwiches in his name just because “Paul said it’s ok.” The bottom line is, Jesus kept the law and considered it sacrosanct, while Paul obliterated it and declared it to be a curse - which I consider to be highly problematic. Remember, Paul was considered to be a heretic by many early groups of “christians,” and for good reason IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/86 "2008-08-05T15:05:13Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] Neither did Jesus, at least the one taught by Christianity anyway. [/QUOTE] Jesus clearly believed in some sort of punishment in the afterlife, though. The story of Lazarus and the rich man, who was tortured with fire in the afterlife, is pretty clear. There is a decent argument that the story was just another parable, but in order for it to make any sense at all you have to first accept the abstract concept of punishment and reward in the afterlife. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/87 "2008-08-05T15:30:53Z")
[QUOTE=blinkthrice] Again, most of the NT is based on the writings of Paul. Jesus himself never told his followers he was going to sacrafice himself on behalf of humanity’s sins [/QUOTE] In the gospels he did: [QUOTE=Matthew 20:17-19] Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!” [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Matthew 20:28] the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. [/QUOTE] You could argue that the gospel writers, writing after the fact, put words in Jesus’s mouth, but you can’t blame this one on Paul. [QUOTE=blinkthrice] Remember, Paul was considered to be a heretic by many early groups of “christians,” and for good reason IMO. [/QUOTE] Cite? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/88 "2008-08-05T17:27:12Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] A passage from where? It doesn’t sound quite like anything in the Bible–the closest thing I can think of is Luke 8:38-39: [/QUOTE] I really don’t know where it came from exactly. So I won’t cleave to it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/89 "2008-08-05T17:29:16Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] That’s a good point, although I take certain parts of the Bible and quotes from Jesus to mean that while he valued the individual’s ideas of spirituality and did not necessarily prefer an organised structure and dogma, he did want to foster some level of working together. Communities of believers rather than communities of belief, if that makes sense. That’s why I went with the Quakers. [/QUOTE] Yea I don’t know much about Quakers other than that they ended up having a lot of power and influence in this nation’s political scene. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/90 "2008-08-05T17:48:15Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Yea I don’t know much about Quakers other than that they ended up having a lot of power and influence in this nation’s political scene. [/QUOTE] Well these days, the Quakers are kind of like the Unitarians; you believe whatever you want. But in a Unitarian church, a minister gets up and talks about it, while in a Quaker meeting, you all sit in a room, and every now and then, an individual stands up and says something and sits back down. Or at least that’s my understanding. Both are committed to non-violence, both would usually be associated with politically liberal stuff for the most part, although you get the occasional libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/91 "2008-08-05T18:15:51Z")
A Cardinal burst into the Pope’s office. “Your Holiness! I’ve got good news and bad news! I just got a call! Our Saviour has come again!” The Pope said, “But that’s wonderful! We’ve been waiting and praying for that for 2,000 years! How could there possibly be any bad news?!” “The call came in from Salt Lake City!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/92 "2008-08-05T18:19:00Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Yea I don’t know much about Quakers other than that they ended up having a lot of power and influence in this nation’s political scene. [/QUOTE] Yes, Nixon was a Quaker . . . wait . . . ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/93 "2008-08-05T21:09:01Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] A Cardinal burst into the Pope’s office. “Your Holiness! I’ve got good news and bad news! I just got a call! Our Saviour has come again!” The Pope said, “But that’s wonderful! We’ve been waiting and praying for that for 2,000 years! How could there possibly be any bad news?!” “The call came in from Salt Lake City!” [/QUOTE] In the version I knew, it was god on the phone, and when the Pope enquired about God’s message, the cardinal answered “We aren’t sure yet. He’s speaking Arabic”. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/94 "2008-08-06T03:32:30Z")
[QUOTE=blinkthrice] Since he was a practicing Jew, he most likely believed in the Jewish concept of hellfire - _Gehenim_, which would correspond to the Islamic _Jahannam_. [/quote] I’d be interested in you expanding your thoughts on this, particularly the distinction of Sheol/Sheohl, Hades/Haides and Gehenna/Geena and how it is applied in the bible, and how it was understood by those at that time. So as to save time, here is some of the discussions we’ve had on the topic. [This post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6502676&postcount=9) by Diogenes in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=331528&page=1&highlight=sheol) is an accurate depiction of “hell” as was commonly understood by both Jesus and his followers. In the same thread, in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6506616&postcount=63) my thoughts were these: > [@](#): > > **posted by raindog 8/25/05:** **“Hell-Sheohl/Haides” as distinct from “Hell-Gehenna”** > I believe that **DtC** is 100% correct on all counts. > > A thoughtful consideration of the word **“hell”** as it’s rendered in the bible, complete with it’s correct historical and linguistic context renders the popular notion of hell unsupported in the bible. > > For example, the \*\*KJV \*\*renders **sheohl** , \*\*“hell” \*\*31 times, however it renders the same word \*\*sheohl \*\*, **“grave”** 31 times and 3 times **“pit.”** Further, **haides** is rendered **“hell”** 10 times. > > Further, **King James Version** renders **sheohl** as **“hell,”** **“the grave,”** and **“the pit”** ; **haides** is rendered both **“hell”** and\*\*“grave”\*\*; **geenna** is also translated **“hell.”** > > **Today’s English Version** transliterates **haides** as **“Hades”** and also renders it as \*\*“hell” \*\*and **“the world of the dead.”** But besides rendering **“hell”** from **haides** it uses that same translation for **geenna**. > > **The Jerusalem Bible** transliterates **haides** six times, but in other passages it translates it as **“hell” and as “the underworld.” It also translates geenna as “hell,”** as it does haides in two instances. > \*\* > Collier’s Encyclopedia\*\* (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning “Hell”:\* “First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation" > \* > highlights mine > > Further, how is the word “hell” used in the bible?----specifically the times it is rendered from either haides or sheohl---- > **What is the condition of those in hell?** > > **Ec 9:5,10** “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,\* the place to which you are going.” \*_(Note: “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB; “the grave,” KJ, Kx; “hell,” Dy; “the world of the dead,” TEV.) > \*\* > **Ps. 146:4** “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts_ do perish.” (Note:“Thoughts,” KJ, 145:4 in Dy; “schemes,” JB; “plans,” RS, TEV.) > > This indicates “hell” is non-sentient death. > **Do the wicked go to hell?** > > **Ps 9:17** “The wicked shall be turned into hell,\* and all the nations that forget God.” \*\*(Note: “Hell,” 9:18 in Dy; “death,” TEV; “the place of death,” Kx; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.) > \*\* > **Do the upright go to hell?** > > **Job 14:13** Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell\*, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” > > (God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8.) (Note: _The grave,” KJ; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.) > \*\* > **Acts 2:25-27** “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” > \* > (The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?) (Note:_ “Hell,” Dy; “death,” NE; “the place of death,” Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” AS, RS, JB, NW.) > > \*\* > Does anyone ever get out of hell?\*\* > > **Rev 20:13, 14** “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell\* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” > > (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.) \*_(Note:_ “Hell,” Dy, Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.) > > * * * > > Further, do the wicked suffer eternal fiery torment, or simply eternal punishment?\*\* > > **Mt 25:46** “These shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal. " > > As noted by \*\*DtC,\*_it refers to “lopping off,” or “pruning” (Greek, kolasin) > \* > ( **The Emphatic Diaglott** reads **“cutting-off** ” instead of “punishment.” A footnote states: “Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.”)_ > > **2 Thess 1:9** reads: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction\* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” > > (Note: \*“Eternal ruin,” NAB, NE; “lost eternally,” JB; “condemn them to eternal punishment,” Kx; “eternal punishment in destruction,” Dy.) > > **Simply stated, “hell” is the common grave.** This is both linguisticly and contextually correct in the bible. When you die, you will go to the grave; to hell. The bible says, "The soul that sins shall die.” **(Ezekiel 18:4, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition)** It also declares: “The wages of sin is death.” **(Rom 6:23)** > > They experience death–punishment—,not torture. The scriptures supporting the notion that “hell” ----as used contextually by the words sheohl or haides/hades—is nothing more than non-sentient death in a grave is clear. Hell is simply the grave. > > Part of the confusion comes from the various translations that not only use all 3 words---- **Sheohl/Haides/Gehenna-** – as interchangeable, but render them in different ways, (see above) apparently to meet a preconceived belief or set of beliefs. If the translations are stripped of those biases, and the words are set in their proper context\*, the meaning of hell **(sheohl/haides)** becomes much more clear, as well as the distinction that gehenna has vis a vis sheohl/haides. > > (\*In 1901, the Americans producing the **American Standard Version** (1901) were in disagreement with their British counterarts and their use of **Sheohl** in the **English Revised Version** and their use of " **pit", “grave” and “hell”.** The Americans transliterated sheohl in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated haides in the NT in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geenna (English, “Gehenna”) is rendered “hell” throughout, as is the case with many other modern translations) > > **Gehenna,** while sharing some of the qualities (metophorically) of **haides/sheohl** had some important distinctions, notably the quality of eternal, or permanent destruction or annihilation. > > Simply put, you will get out of (the **sheohl/haides** ) hell; either to salvation or to destruction. You were born, you sinned, you died. At some point, you will be resurrected to account for your life. ( **John 5:28,29** and many, many others) > OTOH, if you make it to **(hell) gehenna,** you won’t be going anywhere. (The good news is that you will be dead, destroyed, not rotating on a spit) > > In either case, your condition at that time becomes permanent. You will either be rewarded with [eternal] life, or [eternal] destruction or annihilation. As noted by **DtC** , “eschatological belief that the righteous would be given eternal physical life in a restored paradise on earth while the unrighteous would be cast into Gehenna “in sight” of this “paradise”…” > > And where do some of these people heading off into destruction (gehenna) come from? From Hell! From their graves. **John 5:28,29** says "28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. " > **(Also see Acts 24:14, Rev 20:13)** > > In my view, to come to an accurate understanding as to what “hell” is it is necessary to: > > 1)See the use of the word \*\*Sheohl \*\*and **Haides** rendered consistently througout the translation. With the proper use/translation it becomes the many times that thes words were used to connote the common grave. Look above; is it any wonder why \*\*“hell” \*\*is confusing when the 3 words are treated as the exact same, and even then translated entirely differently even within the same translation? > > 1. See the different ways that \*\*“Geenna/Gehenna” \*\*were used, and in what context. **It is especially important to see the ways it was used vis a vis sheohl/haides and the contextual differences between how Gehenna was used versus Sheohl/Haides.** IMO, of all the biblical topics discussed on this board, the topic of hell has been discussed most comprehensively. (and the fact is, we didn’t scratch the surface of the information that is available on the topic.) In the end, I don’t believe a comprehensive, thorough review of the use of hades. sheol or gehenna in the bible makes any compelling argument that the Jews, Jesus or his followers believed in a burning, tortuous, burning hell. It is simply not found in the bible. (and that includes considering **Luke 16** ) > [@](#): > > Again, most of the NT is based on the writings of Paul. Jesus himself never told his followers he was going to sacrafice himself on behalf of humanity’s sins, or that they should after his death fashion a new religion around that sacrafice. In fact, he prayed for God to save him from being crucified. This is incorrect. While Paul was the most prolific writer in the NT, there is no indication that his writings were in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did, in fact, indicate that he would sacrifice his life, although I would agree that he never indicated that they should/would , \*" fashion a new religion around that sacrafice. " \* > [@](#): > > Begotten would imply that he was the “son of God” in the sense that you and I are, assuming you are a male, sons of our parents, as opposed to a metaphorical understanding of this relationship. Then I am interested in your cites on this. AFAICT, Jesus repeatedly identified him self as God’s Son. Do you read differently? > [@](#): > > Right, but Paul and Peter aren’t Jesus. The thread asks which religion Jesus would most identify with, and if Jesus lived his life according to the law, and the law says no pork, I don’t really think he’d approve of people chowing down on ham sandwiches in his name just because “Paul said it’s ok.” The bottom line is, Jesus kept the law and considered it sacrosanct, while Paul obliterated it and declared it to be a curse - which I consider to be highly problematic. > > Remember, Paul was considered to be a heretic by many early groups of “christians,” and for good reason IMO. Your case is only valid if one agrees to sever Paul and Peter _(et al!)_ from Jesus. The bible clearly considers the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. It also considers the abrogation of portions of the Law Code. The prohibition of some foods—like pork—was a very small part of the overall change. If one accepts that the Law Code should still be in effect for Christians it has significance that goes far beyond dietary matters. (like animal sacrifices, a part of the Law Code) The consequence of your line of reason is that the bulk of the NT is invalid because it isn’t specifically commanded by Jesus himself. (who, of course, didn’t write the gospels) I don’t think that can be played out to anything but an unsatisfying stalemate. Either you accept that Paul, Peter were acting with Jesus’s direction and approval or you do not. For those who do not, it seems clear to me that it places the Christian in the untenable position of being arbiter over what is valid and what is not. So the “validity” of Paul et al to speak for Christ and Christianity will ultimately be answered by what is essentially an informed faith. From my reading, it is absolutely clear that Paul conversion on the road to Damascus was accepted as having happened. That Paul was chosen By Jesus himself and appointed to a ministry was accepted by **his direct disciples** —the men who walked with Jesus. It is clear that there were divisions in the early church, and matters had to be worked out, and…some of those disputed were recorded in the texts. Still, I don’t think a compelling case can be made that Paul’s ministry and message were in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, nor can a compelling case be made that Jesus would have rejected Paul’s teachings----the teachings of the very man he specifically chose to lead the church in the immediate aftermath of his death. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/95 "2008-08-06T03:39:01Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Jesus clearly believed in some sort of punishment in the afterlife, though. The story of Lazarus and the rich man, who was tortured with fire in the afterlife, is pretty clear. There is a decent argument that the story was just another parable, but in order for it to make any sense at all you have to first accept the abstract concept of punishment and reward in the afterlife. [/QUOTE] Indeed, and I agree. But what the “punishment” and “reward” is is the question. (including what constitutes an “afterlife”) I posted a response to this, which says, in part, that the ultimate punishment that Jesus both taught and believed in was eternal destruction; eternal non-sentient death. Even the Lazarus account, in careful consideration does not make a compelling case for a tortuous, eternal, burning hell. Taken with the larger context of the OT/NT (including Jesus’s own words and the context of the conversations he had with his followers) it is clear that neither Jesus or his followers believed in a burning hell. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/96 "2008-08-06T04:07:53Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I would tend to disagree that’s the best question to ask. Jesus and his disciples, as you point out, lived in the first century. The times they lived in didn’t allow for the average person to move to the other side of the world, for massive amounts of goods to be transported the same, and in most cases was under a political system vastly different. Certainly if the Christianity Jesus taught is truthful, then to a certain extent it is ageless, unaffected by worldly concerns - but to ignore the changes we’ve undergone in 2000-odd years entirely seems to me to be silly. [/quote] Silly how? In other words, if Jesus’s words and teachings are truthful, and ageless, in what ways has modernity imposed upon the Christian? It would seem to me that there may be an issue with some of the Mosaic Law that modernity might make impractical (if not illegal!) but that is only valid if one refuses to accept the NT, and specifically the abrogation by Paul of parts of the Law Code. (purportedly by Jesus’s direction and support) But that’s not the issue that’s lamented when people complain about the state of Christianity today is it? Of course not. No, the [valid, in my view] criticism of Christianity today often speaks to things like war, greed, materialism (think X-mas) hypocrisy over doctrinal issues like homosexuality, “prosperity” Christianity and a thousand other criticisms. > [@](#): > > I would say the better question (and the question I used to answer this myself) would be “Which religion today practices Christianity closest to the Christianity _preached_ by Christ, his disciples, and the church?” and that to an extent we need to adapt that to modern times. Entirely a personal and subjective adaption, of course, but I think that’s unavoidable. I can accept that question, but I see it a distinction without a difference, for there was no difference between the Christianity _practiced_ by Christ, and the Christianity _preached_ by Christ. IOW, he _walked_ his _talk._ So if we take the Mosaic law off the table (and I recognize the OP did not) I’m hard pressed to find things off the top of my head that modernity requires us to adapt to. What would those be? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/97 "2008-08-06T04:36:26Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] I think that’s the wrong question too. Christ seemed to be preaching a way of living, not a religion. Religion puts the social organization before the spiritual message. As soon as it becomes about group identity you are equally far from the original message. Churches are obsessed with maintaining their worldly presence. The very notion of Christ’s teachings was to not concern oneself with the things of the world for they are transient. [/quote] I think you’re treating the ‘way of life’ and the ‘religion’ as mutually exclusive. Jesus was a Jew, part of the Jewish religion and if he was the Messiah, was, at least in his lifetime, sent only for the Jews. He was partial to Judaism, and made it clear that his assignment was to/for the Jews. It is true that Jesus taught that one should not get caught up in worldly affairs. He did, however, teach that one should put “kingdom” or spiritual interests first, and those admonishments came with specific structure or requirements. > [@](#): > > [Like with evolution as humans we are all equally evolved, all of the Christians today are equally far from Christ’s message due to the passage of time. It’s more about living life a certain way and finding community in that. Therefore the worldly divisions we know of as denominations are, in and of themselves, the barrier to his teachings. If the various denominations hewed to his teachings, would there be divisions? Both Jesus and his followers recognized that there would be counterfeits, and warned of them. To the extent that any part of Christianity is “far from Christ’s message” is no fault of Christ or Christianity, but to those denominations that _have chosen to follow a different path._ There is nothing in our “evolution” that makes this necessary or inevitable. Interestingly enough, the primary criticism Jesus had of the religious establishment of his day was that they had in fact deviated from true worship. It’s an apt criticism of Christianity today. > [@](#): > > There is a particular passage that I think describes it, but I cannot remember what it is. It is about a man from another tribe who wants to drop everything and follow Jesus. He tells him that no he cannot follow him, that he should go back to his people, live among them and teach them what he has learned from within their culture. There are 2 accounts that come to mind that your recollection speak to. Rather than guessing wrong the one you’re thinking of, post it here if you remember it. > [@](#): > > This is the core of the universalizing methods. He knew that every culture would accrete it’s own particular bias upon what he was teaching, so it is ‘The Way’, and not the social grouping that is important. There is no indication that Jesus took a laissez-faire approach to structured religion. (in this case Judaism) He did not repudiate Judaism. He indicted the religious leaders for their unwillingness to hew to the Law Code. He exposed hypocrisy. He gave meaning and vitality to Judaism, but that does not mean that he taught that religion was unnecessary. He was cleaning it up, he wasn’t throwing it out. > [@](#): > > So in otherwords some Catholics might get it better than others, while some Pentacostals get it better than others, but arguing about whether Pentacostals or Catholics get it right will send you into a recursive spiral. > > That’s why I still hold to ‘Taoism’. Arguing is indeed fruitless. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus’s teachings make it clear that a Christian has an obligation to know what is required of a Christian, and to follow it. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/98 "2008-08-06T12:56:22Z")
If He came back today he would not like Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism at all. He would just want to people to believe in Him and love their neighbors. Of course he would get crucified in a totally modern and rad way, but like whatever… ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/99 "2008-08-06T13:41:16Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] Silly how? In other words, if Jesus’s words and teachings are truthful, and ageless, in what ways has modernity imposed upon the Christian? [/quote] “To a certain extent”, I said that would be so. But I would also say that to a certain extent, differences must make differences. > [@](#): > > It would seem to me that there may be an issue with some of the Mosaic Law that modernity might make impractical (if not illegal!) but that is only valid if one refuses to accept the NT, and specifically the abrogation by Paul of parts of the Law Code. (purportedly by Jesus’s direction and support) > > But that’s not the issue that’s lamented when people complain about the state of Christianity today is it? Of course not. > > No, the [valid, in my view] criticism of Christianity today often speaks to things like war, greed, materialism (think X-mas) hypocrisy over doctrinal issues like homosexuality, “prosperity” Christianity and a thousand other criticisms. But simply the existence of the more common criticisms doesn’t mean rarer ones aren’t true. > [@](#): > > I can accept that question, but I see it a distinction without a difference, for there was no difference between the Christianity _practiced_ by Christ, and the Christianity _preached_ by Christ. IOW, he _walked_ his _talk._ Ah, well, this would be an entirely personal view on my part; I believe that if Jesus did exist, he was (as a human, in whatever part) a partially flawed being, and that at times he may have allowed his human-ness to affect him away from his pure goodliness. Entirely personal opinion which I would not ask you to accept. > [@](#): > > So if we take the Mosaic law off the table (and I recognize the OP did not) I’m hard pressed to find things off the top of my head that modernity requires us to adapt to. > > What would those be? “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s”. Jesus preached under a totalitarian regime, which the common people had no say in. Under that system, it meant one should fulfil one’s earthly duties as well as one’s divine ones. But today we (at least) aren’t under totalitarian governments, but democratic ones. When we ourselves help decide what it is that we render unto our Caesars, the whole system can be whacked - for example, we might attempt to vote towards our religious obligations, making Caesar and God rendered to equally. If it’s acceptable to vote to apply our religion to government in that way, is it also acceptable to attempt to create a theocracy in preference to a democracy that won’t fulfil God’s wishes so clearly? Or does the seperation of the two in the quote imply that Jesus wanted the two to remain clearly seperate? Jesus says that, rather than swear by God, we shouldn’t swear at all - which arguably means problems in the handling of American money, since it swears by God. This would be aside from oaths in court or the signing of contracts which could equally be affected. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699/100 "2008-08-06T15:32:56Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] …snip…“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s”. Jesus preached under a totalitarian regime, which the common people had no say in. Under that system, it meant one should fulfil one’s earthly duties as well as one’s divine ones. But today we (at least) aren’t under totalitarian governments, but democratic ones. When we ourselves help decide what it is that we render unto our Caesars, the whole system can be whacked - for example, we might attempt to vote towards our religious obligations, making Caesar and God rendered to equally. If it’s acceptable to vote to apply our religion to government in that way, is it also acceptable to attempt to create a theocracy in preference to a democracy that won’t fulfil God’s wishes so clearly? Or does the seperation of the two in the quote imply that Jesus wanted the two to remain clearly seperate? [/quote] From my reading, your latter point is made clear; that in fact the obligations to God and to State were to _“remain clearly separate.”_ This point is reinforced not just by Jesus, but by Paul, Peter and others. I don’t have a bible with me at the moment but there are \*\*numerous \*\*cites that show that a Christian was to be a good citizen in as much as they were to obey the laws of the land, and to ‘be in subjection to the authorities.’ The one exception was when Man’s Law conflicted with God’s Law. In that case the Christian practiced civil disobedience. (and suffered the consequences) \*\* In practical terms, modernity does not conflict with the responsibilities of the Christian any more than it did under Roman rule.\*\* A Christian pays his taxes, obeys the laws of the land, and respects secular authority without regard to the type of government he lives under. (Jesus made no distinction to Roman rule, nor did Paul, who had a lot to say on the matter) However, in both biblical examples and historical examples the Christian did not involve himself in worldly affairs—in effect the Christian was _in_ the world, and _living_ in the world, but was to keep _separate_ from the world. (here too, the cites are numerous and not obscure or arcane) I see no case for the type of political involvements that modern Christianity involves itself in. A careful reading of the bible indicates that Jesus and his Apostles would have never involved themselves in worldly politics the way some Christian groups do. This type of involvement is in _contrast_ and _contradiction_ to the principles and practices of Christ and his followers. > [@](#): > > Jesus says that, rather than swear by God, we shouldn’t swear at all - which arguably means problems in the handling of American money, since it swears by God. This would be aside from oaths in court or the signing of contracts which could equally be affected. You’re referencing **Matthew 5:36, 37** , IIRC. There is no affirmative quality to using paper money. One makes no claim of allegiance, nor vow. If a Christian had to, it would seem to me that it would be incumbent to respectfully refuse. JWs have in the past refused to recite the pledge of allegiance, or sign political allegiance part cards, as some examples. In the end, a Christian must follow man’s law, however, if this law conflictss with God’s law a Christian must refuse, not “adapt.” I have friends who went to prison for respectfully refusing to fight in Viet Nam. In court, as another example, a Christian may respectfully say, “Based on Matthew 5:36,37, and my deeply help personal views, I assert that I will tell truth, under penalty of law for perjury.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-jesus-came-back-today-which-religion-would-he-most-identify-with/458699.md?page=6)