If Jesus came back today, which religion would he most identify with?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@the raindog

From my reading, your latter point is made clear; that in fact the obligations to God and to State were to “remain clearly separate.”

-snip-

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.

But surely voting and taxation provides several problems along these lines? It is a duty to vote, and even if it wasn’t it is perhaps the best way to get secular authority to act in accordance with divine authority. Couldn’t an argument be made that civil disobedience on what is a relatively small scale is less effective in doing God’s work than voting? If interactions with the world allow for charitable work and personal good deeds, what about voting for similarly Christian works is unacceptable?

Likewise, with taxation - presumably there are some causes to which tax money goes that are un-Christian in nature. As long as some of your money goes towards them, isn’t that a reason to practice civil disobedience?

This is what i’d consider a considerable problem between the 1st Century applications of Christianity and current applications. Ancient Christians would have civil disobedience or passive acceptance as their only options. Current Christians can change things on a scale unknown to ancient peoples (although I suspect you might argue not unknown to Jesus ;)). When one’s general duty is to do good in the world, it doesn’t make sense to hold to ancient standards that are effectively neutral instead of current ones which might actually help.

You’re referencing Matthew 5:36, 37, IIRC.

I’m afraid I don’t know which part i’m referencing, but i’m certain your knowledge of the Bible is greater than mine.

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.

I believe your coinage also swears by God. But I don’t see the problem being that using the money is taking any vow; but it is affirming that one accepts the vow affixed to the money. However, I spent the last couple of hours thinking this one through and i’ve come to the conclusion someone can accept the use of something without accepting everything that thing represents. So I agree with you on this.

But what about contracts? Insurance forms and the like?

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.”

I’d forgotten about affirmation instead of taking an oath. So fair enough.

[blinkthrice]

@Thudlow Boink

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?

That still doesn’t amount to a clear endorsement of crucifixion/atonement doctrine as taught by standard Christianity, the majority of which does indeed have its roots with Paul, and his interpretations of Jesus’ teachings.

The fact is that after the crucifixion, there was no standard consensus on what exactly happened to Jesus, and for the first three decades after Jesus left the earth, “christianity,” if you want to call it that, existed as a Jewish SECT practiced within the confines of the synagogues. They prayed like Jews, fasted like Jews, kept the same laws as Jews, etc. What made them unique was their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, while the great majority of Jews did not. As an example of groups such as these who considered Paul to be a blasphemer, you can reference the Ebionites, whom the Church would in turn declare to be heretics for their insistence on holding fast to the law. “Conservatives” you might say.

[mswas]

@the raindog

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.

There was no such thing as Jews. There was a place called Judea that was run by a tribe that are the ancestors of what we call Jews. The notion of religion was not present in the way you understand it. Everyone believed the same thing in the tribe so he believed in the beliefs of his tribe. He wasn’t the member of a religion.

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.

Yes, and part of that was to be part of a community. I’m just saying that no religious community is going to have a monopoly. People from every religion will likely be getting it right while others from the same religion may be getting it entirely wrong.

If the various denominations hewed to his teachings, would there be divisions?

Unlikely.

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.

Well ‘necessary’ is irrelevant. It happened. So I guess on some level it was 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.

Yes, I would agree.

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.

I don’t. I would appreciate it if you’d show me the examples you’re thinking of.

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.

His religion wasn’t structured, his tribe was. Yes they had a priest class, but the whole tribe held the same belief system.

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.

I don’t mean arguing in general is fruitless, it’s not. Arguing about whose more authentic to Christ’s teachings as a sect, is fruitless.

[raindog]

@mswas

There was no such thing as Jews. There was a place called Judea that was run by a tribe that are the ancestors of what we call Jews. The notion of religion was not present in the way you understand it. Everyone believed the same thing in the tribe so he believed in the beliefs of his tribe. He wasn’t the member of a religion.

I hope we don’t denigrate into semantics and arm wrestling over terminology.

That the Israelite nation, from the time of Moses at the very least, were organized around their ethnic heritage is beyond dispute. Not that only, the Israelite Nation held as a belief that they were ‘annointed’ by God and were God’s chosen people. Their laws were said to be given directly by God himself. (the Mosaic Law was 600 or so laws that governed virtually every facet of Jewish life. In Moses case, he is reported to be the only human to have “seen” God) While the Israelite nation was splintered into the twelve tribes and reformulated, they always distinguished themselves from the other nations.

The Israelites were governed as a Theocracy. They held the view that the ultimate Governor was God himself, and Moses etc was simply his press secretary. The included laws on intermarriage/ intermingling, war, trade and a host of other things.

We can split hairs as to whether this constitutes a “religion” or not, (as we currently think of what a religion is) but I submit that’s a waste of time. The fact is, the Israelites believed and acted as a distinct separate “nation” and their “religion” was inseparably intertwined with their ethnic heritage and identity; so intertwined that their “religion” was not an outside element of daily life but central to who they were. (and respectfully, I haven’t shared what I understand, and I doubt you’d know that)

The Laws that Jesus followed were hundreds of years old by the time he was born. The statement “Everyone believed the same thing in the tribe so he believed in the beliefs of his tribe” is logical. The Laws were seen to have a central authority/author and had a high level of continuity and agreement.

Yes, and part of that was to be part of a community. I’m just saying that no religious community is going to have a monopoly. People from every religion will likely be getting it right while others from the same religion may be getting it entirely wrong.

I would agree with that, as long as you’re not implying that, as result, they are all essentially the same. Jesus himself said there would be Christians that he would reject in the strongest possible terms. (Matt 7 IIRC) (and other cites as well)

This undermines the popular “all roads lead to the same place” philosophy. Jesus placed a great responsibility on Christianity to “get it right.”

Well ‘necessary’ is irrelevant. It happened. So I guess on some level it was inevitable.

I would agree. A third consideration, (besides necessary and inevitable) I suppose, is whether it is acceptable. IOW, did the bible anticipate that deviation was inevitable; and did it essentially give a pass to this behavior?

I submit that Jesus, and the bible, both anticipated this deviation and condemned it.

I don’t. I would appreciate it if you’d show me the examples you’re thinking of.

Sure. I’ll have a bible with me tomorrow.

His religion wasn’t structured, his tribe was. Yes they had a priest class, but the whole tribe held the same belief system.

This starts looking very circular to me. The tribe (and it’s perceived identity) and it’s “religion” were inseparable; so much so that I would agree that they didn’t perceive they they “had” a religion they belonged to as much as their “religion” was who they were. (if that’s what you were saying) So sure, the tribe was highly structured; structured around the Mosaic Law!, a group of Laws that was believed to be given by God himself. (and I can’t think of another religioun that is as structured as the Judaism practiced by Jews in 29 CE.)

[mswas]

raindog If you think that the distinction I made is not an important one, there is no conversation to be had. It’s not splitting hairs, it’s the basic thrust of the conversation.

[mswas]

In a way you can say that Christianity invented modern religion, that is belonging to a particular sect of belief divorced from one’s ethnic group. Judaism was, as I said the belief system of the Israelites and didn’t exist as a ‘religion’. The Roman Gods were simply redacts of the Greek primarily, and Persian and Egyptian deities. Back then they weren’t really vying for primacy over ‘The Truth’, they viewed Gods as in battle and themselves as either caught in the middle or actually servants of their particular God.

That is why Pilate’s “What is truth?”, is so important. To him Christ’s God was simply one among many. He didn’t see anything special about the religion of the Jews, they like everyone else lopped off the heads of the rival deities icons when they conquered.

The notion of a God that had a particular sense of ‘belonging’ to that God was rather foreign to the pagans. Gods were capricious things that used you for their pleasure and discarded you when they were done. The idea of a covenant between Men and God was pretty unique to the Jews, and was certainly unique when the idea was expanded beyond the kinship group by Jesus.

[devilsknew]

Truly, if you want to get to the Logos of Christ, he was the martyr that made the tyranny believe. He was the criminal that overthrew his prosecutor. Totally through nonviolence, mind you and some hundreds of years later. He illuminated the plight of those treated cruelly or unjustly.

All too often, the Christian in America that I see, is the prosecutor.

So, you can look to Christ in those we’ve murdered through capital punishment or summary death for transitory prejudices, politics, and inhumanity.

[cosmosdan]

My reading of the NT and the words attributed to Christ leads me to believe Christ preached that the condition of the inner person as reflected in a person’s actions was more important than doctrine and tradition. The true intent of the heart rather than what we do for show and to protect our self and social image.

Believing that I’d agree that Buddhism has a lot in common with what JC taught about how we should live. I just did two days of driving and took the time to listen to some Christian radio. What I heard tells me that Christianity is also paying a lot of attention to the day to day living we do and how the teachings of JC apply. Things like basic honesty, compassion, forgiveness, moral courage etc.

I also think the Bahais are teaching a lot of real life applications that ring very similar to the words of Jesus. They teach that several prophets were messengers of God in a progressive revelation for mankind.

[devilsknew]

@mswas

Not Buddhism because Buddhism is a very negative religion. Christianity and Buddhism are very similar but in the way mirror images are similar. They are approaching the same goal by walking in opposite directions. The Christian loses the self by finding the Divine. The Buddhist finds the divine by losing the self.

Christianity is a a very negative religion. It’s a Death Cult. The worst part is that Jesus teachings and way hasn’t superceded his legends.

[cosmosdan]

@the raindog

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.

I went by my study and my interpretation of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels. I don’t think that renders the rest of the NT invalid but it is a valid approach for this thread. If we understand the history and source of the NT we see that Early Christians certainly were the arbiters of what was valid and what was not because it was they * {not Jesus Paul or Peter} who decided which of the many writings being circulated would be declared canon. Most, not all, modern Christians have decided to go along with what those early Christians decided and given the NT a level of authority that is completely man made. In a sense becomes arbiter in a second hand fashion because they have decided to accept the decisions made by other men 2000 years ago about what is valid when they have it in their power to question it. I think the Gospel of Thomas is a valid source for this discussion but most Christians would not accept it as authoritative. It’s also interesting to note that doctrine was one of the criteria for which writings were declared canon. This group of men , learned though they were, had their own concept on what “correct” beliefs were just as so many differing factions of Christianity do today. If the books we draw from as authoritative seem to support blood sacrifice of Jesus it may be a doctrine that those men* supported and looked for in the books they canonized or rejected You yourself recognize that Jesus did not clearly acknowledge it. I remember reading that there seemed to be some hesitation in accepting James because of the comments about faith being dead without works.

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.

I think the fact that they did disagree and in the scriptures tell us that the followers disagreed over which teacher of Jesus was best to follow, shows us something about the nature of mans spiritual growth. Jesus told the apostles before he died that there was a lot they weren’t ready for. Even now 2000 years later we see pretty drastic differences in people who all sincerely believe they are following Jesus and his teachings.
I think there can be a very compelling case made that the apostles did the best they could but their own understanding of Jesus teachings were limited by their humanity and personal experience {which included the social structure of their time}
I question that Jesus specifically chose Paul to lead the church. Are you getting that from the road to Damascus experience? What specifically about that experience grants him that authority?

Christians are free to assume that the Bible and the specific writings included are the prime authority for our relationship with God and salvation but that is an assumption and article of faith that is without any real foundation other than their own assumption. Nothing in the Bible declares that to be the case.
{but thats another thread}

[raindog]

@mswas

In a way you can say that Christianity invented modern religion, that is belonging to a particular sect of belief divorced from one’s ethnic group. Judaism was, as I said the belief system of the Israelites and didn’t exist as a ‘religion’. The Roman Gods were simply redacts of the Greek primarily, and Persian and Egyptian deities. Back then they weren’t really vying for primacy over ‘The Truth’, they viewed Gods as in battle and themselves as either caught in the middle or actually servants of their particular God.

That is why Pilate’s “What is truth?”, is so important. To him Christ’s God was simply one among many. He didn’t see anything special about the religion of the Jews, they like everyone else lopped off the heads of the rival deities icons when they conquered.

The notion of a God that had a particular sense of ‘belonging’ to that God was rather foreign to the pagans. Gods were capricious things that used you for their pleasure and discarded you when they were done. The idea of a covenant between Men and God was pretty unique to the Jews, and was certainly unique when the idea was expanded beyond the kinship group by Jesus.

Well, I don’t know that I would disagree with much of this, however I don’t see how that would influence the premise of the OP.

It would seem that we are in agreement, although using alternative ways of saying it. It seems pretty clear to me that the Jews did not see some external “religion” or “church” to which they belonged. Their lives centered around their [as they perceived it] “covenant arrangement” with God. I’m pressed to see a distinction between ‘tribal structure’ and ‘doctrinal’ or ‘religious structure’, particularly where there was no distinction between church and state.

Their relationship with God was central to their identity, and, as stated, the Mosaic was amazingly comprehensive. This board has commented many times about dietary matters (i.e. pork etc) but few may realize that those same laws governed sexual relations, marriage, business and trade and even things like menstration and handling of human waste----all said to be from God, and governed by the Chief Priests.

I would point out one thing: While Jesus displayed compassion and kindness towards non-Jews he is not said to be the one to ‘expand [the message] beyond the kinship group’. This change—opening Christianity to Gentiles—was the work of Peter, Paul and friends. In Jesus human life and ministry, he was sent exclusively to the Jews.

[foolsguinea]

I’m reading Hyam Maccoby’s Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance. This thread seems, um, awfully naive.

Jesus not political? What is all the “when you come into your kingdom” talk then? He accepted the label of “Anointed,” which implies kingship. And–oh, I don’t know. False prophets don’t have to make sense, right?

[raindog]

@foolsguinea

I’m reading Hyam Maccoby’s Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance. This thread seems, um, awfully naive.

Jesus not political? What is all the “when you come into your kingdom” talk then?

Cite and context, please

He accepted the label of “Anointed,” which implies kingship.

Cite and context, please

And–oh, I don’t know. False prophets don’t have to make sense, right?

Cite and context, please.

[Clothahump]

If Jesus came back today, which religion would he most identify with?

If the story in the bible is true and Jesus actually existed, what no one seems to take into account is that he was a practicing Jewish rabbi who wanted the Jewish religion to clean up its act.

[mswas]

@devilsknew

Christianity is a a very negative religion. It’s a Death Cult. The worst part is that Jesus teachings and way hasn’t superceded his legends.

We are not using positive/negative in the same way. You are making a value judgment and I am speaking of Praxis. Christianity achieves it’s aims by adding something to the individual. Buddhism achieves it’s aims by taking things away from the individual.

IE
Transformation through God’s Covenant
Transformation through the cessation of desire

[mswas]

@Clothahump

If the story in the bible is true and Jesus actually existed, what no one seems to take into account is that he was a practicing Jewish rabbi who wanted the Jewish religion to clean up its act.

That’s been my overall amusement at this thread. Coming back is an integral part to the Christian religion, where coming back implies he abolishes all ‘belief’ for an objective and discernible rulership. So the idea that Christ would submit to another religion is rather kind of funny. Christianity is sort of meaningless without the notion of the life and the covenant, as in God is really real and you have a relationship to him through Jesus.

[devilsknew]

@mswas

We are not using positive/negative in the same way. You are making a value judgment and I am speaking of Praxis. Christianity achieves it’s aims by adding something to the individual. Buddhism achieves it’s aims by taking things away from the individual.

IE
Transformation through God’s Covenant
Transformation through the cessation of desire

Jesus probably has more in common with the aescetic, like Buddha, in practice than your average Christian.

@mswas

Christianity achieves it’s aims by adding something to the individual. Buddhism achieves it’s aims by taking things away from the individual.

I don’t think you have much of a practical understanding of Buddhism. Buddhism achieves much by the eightfold path which is not unlike Jesus’ practice. In fact Buddhist thought and tenants very likely influenced Jesus, with its preexistence to his campaign.

You mean the Christianity that in practice communes with the dead through a cannabilistic ritual and Deifies a crucified body, and blindly follows a religous terrorist?

[monavis]

What if Jesus came back as a woman and said He wasn’t impressed with any modern religion?
Monavis

[Malthus]

@Clothahump

If the story in the bible is true and Jesus actually existed, what no one seems to take into account is that he was a practicing Jewish rabbi who wanted the Jewish religion to clean up its act.

Yup.

There are in fact two “Jesuses” under discussion: the (probable) actual historical person who was born approx. 0 AD, lived and died in Judea; and “Jesus” as a construction of the Gospels and later Christian (& Gnostic!) traditions.

The problem is that we only “know” the first Jesus through the lens of the second; and how much the two resemble each other is mostly a matter of guesswork.

My personal opinion is that the historical Jesus (and I do think such a person existed) was a Jewish reformer of the rabbinical school of Judaism - in opposition to the centralized priestly cult. Thus, he would as a matter of course turn towards modern Judaism, in which the rabbinical form has long been triumphant.

[Find_Friends]

@monavis

What if Jesus came back as a woman and said He wasn’t impressed with any modern religion?

Imagine that he came back as a woman and was crucuified all over again,

but instead of saying, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” [del]he[/del] she said,

Hmmmphh! – MEN!!!

:smack: Oh, waitaminute – I’m remembering old NatLamp’s! :o

---

And suppose what really started the path to execution was when “Jessica” said she wasn’t impressed with any modern men?

• “Jack”