Warlord? That’s stretching the definition a bit. He started off as a merchant who was renowned for his honest dealings. He and his followers had to resort to warfare for their own survival.
Jesus “I bring not peace but a sword” wouldn’t be cool with that? The early Christians just lucked out that the Roman empire was fairly tolerant about religion.
My answer to the OP- Messianic Judaism for the Jews, a mildly Charismatic & more compassionate Evangelical Christianity for us Goyim.
Anyway, we’ll find out by Christmas of 2012 (not the anniversary of His birthday but of His conception).
So tolerant that they freakin’ CRUCIFIED Him & later waged war on the Church off & on from the 60s AD up to Constantine in 312.
You’re saying that as a devout Christian. There’s no reason to believe that the real world Jesus and his followers were any different from David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. That ended up in a whole bunch of deaths, and yet you wouldn’t say that the US is anti-Christian or intolerant.
I would agree Islam would be the best fit… it is intended to be a return to the earlier teachings of Judaism and Christianity and is probably more in line with the circumstances at the time he lived.
Yeah, except for the underage polygamy, weapons stockpiles & self-immolation, Jesus was JUST LIKE David Koresh.
:rolleyes:
And the Waco tragedy was more a matter of government bungling than deliberate persecution, while the persecution of Christians by Rome occurred off & on for about 250 years.
And my opinion as a devout Christian is a good as anyone else’s here.
Tho if I had to amend my answer to the OP, I might say “moderate Mennonite”, though I believe that He wasn’t a pacifist.
But wasn’t the crucifixion of Jesus more a political move of the part of the Romans? They didn’t care what you believed, as long as you paid your taxes and didn’t start trouble. Jesus did, so the Romans took an interest. I’m not an expert, but that was always my understanding of the whole thing from the Roman POV. And the persecutions were trying to stamp out the brushfire of Christianity. It wasn’t “personal”.
And I always felt that Jesus wouldn’t be Catholic, I dunno why, that he’d see it as too complex or convoluted for what he was teaching. No offense. Here’s another vote for Mennonite/Amish.
Well I think the bible states pretty clearly that he is going to come back and establish a totalitarian dictatorship. The Catholic church creates the prime apparatus for him to seize control once he returns. So his throne that he returns to could very well be the throne of St. Peter.
I generally don’t believe that Jesus was a pacifist either. He claimed his covenant would upset the old world order, and it most certainly did. The Jews were expelled from Israel within living memory of when Jesus is supposed to have lived. Pilate crucified Jesus because the Pharisees demanded it and for no other reason. It was politically expedient and he didn’t want a civil war to break out in Judea.
The idea that the Romans were tolerant to Christianity is just contrary to any accepted history that I’ve ever read. I don’t think that claim can even be taken seriously.
The modern conception of Jesus as some sort of hippy New Agey, peace and love type, is a bit overwrought and doesn’t fit terribly well with many of the things that he said.
Have you read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon?
Jesus was a Jew. He would be a Jew. He might also align himself with something like Marxism, but I suspect he would find Marx too moderate & easygoing. Mao might be more to his liking.
So, yeah, observant Jewish Maoist.
Jesus would be a Unitarian. He would be less concerned about the specific practices and foibles, for lack of a better word, of each of the major religions, and more interested in the message of being good to each other and the planet
I would say Buddhism, just because of the philosophical similarities. I am a Christian, but I do believe that the church has defied the teachings of Jesus to the point where the real Jesus would find it a lot more cozy in Buddhism’s living room.
I say that here, but I would never say that in a room full of Christians.
Technically, if you’re alone, that’s true. 
“If there is to be salvation, there must be a salvationary church. Without a salvationary church, without a church built on the Mosaic-Johannist salvationary theory and in the Mosaic-Johannist salvationary style, it is impossible to lead the Jewish race and the broad masses of the gentiles in defeating Romanism and its running dogs.”
Why would he adhere to a discredited economic theory that has been abandoned even by its strongest proponents?
Not necessarily, as Muslims believe in the second-coming of Christ as well.
Regarding my earlier posts, I didn’t mean to be argumentative. I just think “warlord” is a poor word to describe Muhammad and that Jesus probably has no problem with warfare.
A mixture of all three, pretty much.
A big reason why I believe Jesus would most identify with Islam is because the three Abrahamic faiths had their origins in the M.E., and most of the M.E. today is Muslim, which is pretty demonstrative of the cultural compatibility that would exist between them. Christianity and Judaism aren’t as “pure” as Islam seems to be, in the sense that Islam has retained much of its semetic character for over a thousand years, even throughout its massive global expansion.
I didn’t include the eastern religions since most, if not all of them were already in existence and in their advanced stages, while Jesus walked the earth. If he wanted to become a Hindu or Buddhist, I’m sure he would have done so if he’d liked. Besides, other than a few moral similarities, I don’t see any real compatibility between the God of Abraham, and the concept of divinity in Buddhism/Taoism.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot to watch Jesus tossing mats around in the mosque?