Either Jesus was totally oblivious walking into Jerusalem (stupid.). Or he was ready to take his Cult to the next level.
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.
Neither did Jesus, at least the one taught by Christianity anyway.
In fact, he did. And the NT reaffirms in no uncertain terms that Jesus was, in fact, “a ransom sacrifice.”
I’m not sure of the significance of “begotten” in your post, but Jesus clearly identified himself as God’s Son, never God.
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…
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.
Since he was a practicing Jew, he most likely believed in the Jewish concept of hellfire - Gehenim, which would correspond to the Islamic Jahannam.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the gospels he did:
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.
Cite?
I really don’t know where it came from exactly. So I won’t cleave to it.
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.
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.
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!”
Yes, Nixon was a Quaker . . . wait . . .
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”.
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 by Diogenes in this thread is an accurate depiction of “hell” as was commonly understood by both Jesus and his followers. In the same thread, in this post my thoughts were these:
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)
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. "
*
Then I am interested in your cites on this. AFAICT, Jesus repeatedly identified him self as God’s Son. Do you read differently?
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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…
“To a certain extent”, I said that would be so. But I would also say that to a certain extent, differences must make differences.
But simply the existence of the more common criticisms doesn’t mean rarer ones aren’t true.
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.
“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.
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.
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.”