What would American Christians do with Jesus?

[Don Allen]

As the practicing agnostic I'am, my sister (a practicing Christian, with a very open mind) and I frequently debate some different aspects of religion and over the weekend she posed an excellent question for debate.

Would American Christians follow the words of Jesus if he were alive to preach today?




I deleted my observations, felt they were to slanted, i'm more interested in others opinions.

[Ruv Draba]

I think that question might require some more definitions and qualifications, Don. Presumably you mean the character in the Bible, and not a possible historical prophet on whom the Biblical character may have been based. If it's the former, then you're adding miracles and charisma and fairly unambiguous recognition by most devout Christians. That is likely to change behaviour. You're also asking punters to guess personality and motive from scripture, which may be asking for a bun-fight and hurt feelings.

If it's the latter -- a prophet about whom Mithraic myths were told -- then we might get some very different answers. We know how the US treats a spectacle. :tongue

[Lhun]

Christians today don't follow what was written in the new testament over a thousand years ago (i'd argue that any historical person resembling jesus actually existed) so why would they follow any modern prophet?
Even self proclaimed "literalists" of all religions pick and choose which parts they take literally and follow, which parts they treat as metaphorical and which part they pretend don't exist. Ever seen someone on a corner with a "God hates mixed fiber clohtes" sign? If it was Sasha Baron Cohen it doesn't count.

[Ruv Draba]

Christians today don't follow what was written in the new testament over a thousand years ago [...] so why would they follow any modern prophet?I think that's a big call, Lhun.

Even self proclaimed "literalists" of all religions pick and choose which parts they take literally and follow, which parts they treat as metaphorical and which part they pretend don't exist.That's even bigger. Some religions don't actually ask much of anyone except they try. Some ask more, but accept that more can't or won't always be given.

It's hard to imagine that the major prophet of any religion returning would have no impact at all. Setting aside what 'returning' actually means and how one would confirm that, even a widespread belief that Jesus, Mohammad or Gautama Buddha say, were present in person would surely cause a lot of excitement. Even I as an atheist and a skeptic about all things magical would be keenly interested, if only for the social impacts.

Bear in mind the number of people who attend the Pope's addresses, or undertake Haj each year... the attendance alone would be of interest. Regardless of what we think of practicing faithful today, one can only imagine that if they take their prophets seriously, their devotion would increase.

One can also only imagine that with the number of inter-faith rivalries and antipathies, any major prophet appearing would cause big concerns with other faiths.

[JimmyB27]

It's hard to imagine that the major prophet of any religion returning would have no impact at all. Setting aside what 'returning' actually means and how one would confirm that, even a widespread belief that Jesus, Mohammad or Gautama Buddha say, were present in person would surely cause a lot of excitement.
I think belief would be the difficult bit. Imagine some guy turns up in New York city and says he is Jesus Christ returned to Earth. He's going to need some serious messiah powers to back up that claim, or he's going straight to the nut-house.
And even if he started multiplying fishes, there's going to be us heathens turning to Derren Brown to figure out how he did it.

[Ruv Draba]

I think belief would be the difficult bit. Imagine some guy turns up in New York city and says he is Jesus Christ returned to Earth. He's going to need some serious messiah powers to back up that claim, or he's going straight to the nut-house.It depends on how you managed it. Bear in mind that the US is already full of Christian faith-healers and Old Time preachers. I see them on early morning TV even here in Australia.

Charismatic Christianity is one of the few kinds of Christianity on the rise. One doesn't really need to make personal claims when one has a throng to do it for one. As I recall, in the New Testament the character of Jesus didn't just show up and say 'I'm heeeeere!' the first time either. In fact he had quite a decent marketing machine going before he announced that he was anyone special.

[Wayne K]

When he starts healing sick people for free, that's when they'll declare him crazy and lock him up.

[defyalllogic]

When he starts healing sick people for free, that's when they'll declare him crazy and lock him up.
no no no, that's when they start charging admission and getting people to sponsor his dedicated spot on the Today show.

[Diana Hignutt]

Same things folks allegedly did the last time: kill him.

[JimmyB27]

It depends on how you managed it. Bear in mind that the US is already full of Christian faith-healers and Old Time preachers. I see them on early morning TV even here in Australia.

Charismatic Christianity is one of the few kinds of Christianity on the rise. One doesn't really need to make personal claims when one has a throng to do it for one. As I recall, in the New Testament the character of Jesus didn't just show up and say 'I'm heeeeere!' the first time either. In fact he had quite a decent marketing machine going before he announced that he was anyone special.
Hmm....I wonder if someone could successfully pass themselves off as the second coming and get a significant following.

[Scoody]

Same things folks allegedly did the last time: kill him.

Um...Those weren't Christians, Cupcake.

[Diana Hignutt]

Um...Those weren't Christians, Cupcake.

That's why I said "folks", darling.

[Al Ross]

What would happen to Jesus if he appeared here? He would be ridiculed, ignored and finally put in an asylum. Hey, maybe he already in one of the many asylums out there in the wild called society.

The clerics, priest, holy man preachers etc etc are not ready nor want any Jesus on earth. They want him far away so they can have their little power. Their congregation who follows their wortd, using his name for their own glory on earth.

[Ruv Draba]

Hmm....I wonder if someone could successfully pass themselves off as the second coming and get a significant following.I'm not sure what 'significant' means, but we know that it's not hard to build large, charismatic religious sects in some place outside the USA.

[Scoody]

Hmm....I wonder if someone could successfully pass themselves off as the second coming and get a significant following.

Last time that happened was a couple of years ago and the guy was elected President. I guess someone can still pull it off.

[Deb Kinnard]

Do as it says in the old joke: "look busy."

[Diana Hignutt]

I'm not sure what 'significant' means, but we know that it's not hard to build large, charismatic religious sects in some place outside the USA.

Agreed. Happens all the time. Even in the States, perhaps less significantly.

[Don Allen]

The reason I edited my op, was because I started thinking about this from the political standpoint, and came to the same conclusions as many of you. It's an amazing question because it infers that Christians, (assuming for a moment anyone would believe him) would welcome Christ with open arms, but I started thinking, wait a second. Politically it would be safe to assume that Jesus was far left which would fly in the face of the Christian right. Healthcare, the second amendment, welfare, would all be issues of contention. Abortion would not, as I would suspect Jesus would find a lot of common ground on that issue. But, it really does beg the question as to what philosophy Christians would follow if he returned.

[Al Ross]

Don't forget wars waged by so called Christians. I do not thing Jesus would like that.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Why American Christians? Do you think we'd treat him differently than other countries might?

[Don Allen]

Why American Christians? Do you think we'd treat him differently than other countries might?

Funny you asked that, I did, and yes I came to the conclusion when thinking about the question that others may be more forgiving, less judgmental, and more willing to follow his word as opposed to their interpretation of his teachings. Of Course I could be totally ass backwards, but from my experience with some European friends who I would say are quite the religious sort, seem to separate their beliefs from their politics much better than we do.
Which is really odd when you consider the constitution and the expressly written notion that we are suppose to separate church and state by law.

[Scoody]

Don't forget wars waged by so called Christians. I do not thing Jesus would like that.

Of the 23 armed engagements going on in the world today, 22 of them involve Muslims fighting someone else.

Name the last war that Christians went to war in the name of Jesus. I'll ignore the crickets chirping.

[Don Allen]

Of the 23 armed engagements going on in the world today, 22 of them involve Muslims fighting someone else.

Name the last war that Christians went to war in the name of Jesus. I'll ignore the crickets chirping.

I may be wrong, but I think he may have been referring to the "turn the other cheek" adage.

[DeleyanLee]

I saw the title of the thread and immediately thought: "Expect him to cut his hair, trim his beard, put on a suit and get a real job."

As to the meat of the OP, I honestly don't know. If he descends from Heaven as an adult, then I'd think what his thoughts on Christianity in America today would determine how he approached announcing himself to all and sundry.

I mean, if he's all up in arms about how things are corrupted from his original teachings and destroying things like he did the moneychangers in the temple, that's not going to go over too well. America just doesn't take well to such things. If he agrees with the way things have turned out, it'll be a different reception.

Also depends on who he approaches also, I guess. I mean, if he connects with any one church over the others, I don't think that'll sit well either.

As far as politics go--that's the kind of stuff I have nightmares over, honestly.

[Don Allen]

I saw the title of the thread and immediately thought: "Expect him to cut his hair, trim his beard, put on a suit and get a real job."

As to the meat of the OP, I honestly don't know. If he descends from Heaven as an adult, then I'd think what his thoughts on Christianity in America today would determine how he approached announcing himself to all and sundry.

I mean, if he's all up in arms about how things are corrupted from his original teachings and destroying things like he did the moneychangers in the temple, that's not going to go over too well. America just doesn't take well to such things. If he agrees with the way things have turned out, it'll be a different reception.

Also depends on who he approaches also, I guess. I mean, if he connects with any one church over the others, I don't think that'll sit well either.

As far as politics go--that's the kind of stuff I have nightmares over, honestly.


Now you see, even with a bit of tongue and cheek, you make an excellent observation. He would have to be smart enough to blend and not be that nut at the football games with the John sign.

[Scoody]

Politically it would be safe to assume that Jesus was far left which would fly in the face of the Christian right. Healthcare, the second amendment, welfare, would all be issues of contention. Abortion would not, as I would suspect Jesus would find a lot of common ground on that issue.

I would disagree. Jesus did not believe in welfare as he dispised charity that was not from the heart. He did not demand that a government or anyone take from someone whether they liked it or not and give to someone else. If you gave, even a pitance, but your heart was in it, God would reward you for it. Having an amount confiscated from your pay and given to someone else Jesus would find repulsive.

The Second Amendment? Jesus says to turn the other cheek. Does not say to turn it more than once.

Abortion? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

[Ruv Draba]

Of the 23 armed engagements going on in the world today, 22 of them involve Muslims fighting someone else.A pity that you didn't supply a link listing the armed conflicts, Scoody. But I have one here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts).
There are presently seven armed conflicts causing 1,000 deaths per year or more. They are in India, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Mexico and the Sudan. The US by the way, has had involvement in nearly all of them, and has been militarily responsible for one (Iraq) and financially responsible for at least two more (the Afghanistan civil war and the Mexican drug war). There are some twenty others with fewer than 1,000 fatalities per year, but many of them are ethnic or political and not specifically religious.

There is quite a high representation of Muslim countries among the listed armed conflicts, but religion follows geography and so too does national wealth and infrastructure. If we divide it geographically, we find disproportionately high conflicts in South America, Asia and Africa, and disproportionately low in Europe and North America. One interesting correlation is that the countries that hold empire tend to have few conflicts on their home soil, while the countries subjected to empire tend to have more.

Sometimes one has to look harder for cause than simple xenophobia.
Name the last war that Christians went to war in the name of Jesus. I'll ignore the crickets chirping.As per my earlier comment, wealthy nations tend not to war for religion when they can do it for empire. But how often have the major churches of wealthy nations resisted their nation's push for empire? How often have they incited it, or simply remained silent and benefited?

[Don Allen]

I would disagree. Jesus did not believe in welfare as he dispised charity that was not from the heart. He did not demand that a government or anyone take from someone whether they liked it or not and give to someone else. If you gave, even a pitance, but your heart was in it, God would reward you for it. Having an amount confiscated from your pay and given to someone else Jesus would find repulsive.

The Second Amendment? Jesus says to turn the other cheek. Does not say to turn it more than once.

Abortion? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

Suffice to say that governmental welfare for the poor didn't exist in Roman times as it does today, therefore your contention that Jesus wouldn't approve is without merit (hence the bolding) Especially since we live in a democracy which votes to have money set aside for the poor and underprivileged. It is not confiscated, thereby your assertion is wrong.

The Second Amendment philosophy would, I'm assuming, be contrary to his message of peace. Since to bear arms assumes a defensive and offensive posture which is the prelude of violence.

I stand that he would be anti-choice,, I don't even understand the context of the quote you list.

[ChristineR]

My gut reaction is that they would treat his delusions.

However, the truth is we don't know very much about the historic Jesus, and even the earliest surviving references are full of theological and historical contradictions and problems. One probable correct historical Jesus has him being a claimant to the Jewish Messiah who surrounded himself with twelve followers, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. If that's the correct answer, then I suspect most people would just ignore him.

If he really was preaching armed resistance to the existing government, he might get himself in trouble with the law. If he was in fact just a theological teacher, I suspect he'd just become a rabbi and write some books. If he was a miracle worker, then the world would check him out with scientific methods and be amazed.

But it's impossible to say without first deciding what you think the historical Jesus was.

[MacAllister]

I'm a bit troubled by a handful of things, here.

First, the built-in assumption that American Christianity is a single monolithic culture is extremely problematic, and more than a bit offensive.

Second, the idea that it's appropriate for people outside the religions in question to use this thread to grind political/religious axes is nothing but flamebait looking for a target.

Third, there's been little effort so far to provide anything approaching textual support for some of the assertions made, so the thread is slowly but surely degenerating into a fairly defensive morass of blatantly subjective personal opinions masquerading as political or religious supported argument.

While I recognize the exercise as an attempt to examine the controversy that occurs around supposedly shared tenets of what we so cavalierly call Christianity, wars have been fought over some of those same questions. If you don't believe me, just look at ongoing Catholic/Protestant conflict throughout history.

Since CG is currently out of pocket, I'm gonna close this one before it blows up.

[ColoradoGuy]

I'm going to reopen this thread because, as Mac said, Don's opening question is worth thinking about. However, there are several kinds of comments that are not useful -- flame bait, as Mac also said. For example, a snide (and self-satisfied) barb that Jesus would not recognize current Christianity (defined loosely or not at all) is not cleverly profound -- it is self-evident. The question is not unique to Christianity, either. For example, what would the Buddha say about his splintered and opinionated followers were he to return? It's not even a strictly religious issue. What would Adam Smith say about today's squabbling economists, or Marx and Engels say about what their disciples have done with their theories?

The interesting part of the question, the core that Don is getting at, I think, is how any religious institution can both grow (and presumably evolve) and stay true to the ideals of its founder(s)? Some attempt this by vesting doctrinal authority in successors to the founder; the Catholic Pope is an example of this approach. Others attempt to enable the devout to interpret for themselves what the founder meant. There's freedom in that, but also built-in chaos. The Reformation provided many examples of what happens then. The extreme example of this approach is perhaps my own faith of unprogrammed Quakerism, which completely removes the clergy (or, as is often said, completely removes the laity). Still others (perhaps the majority) try to steer a middle course by investing some, but not all, authority in clergy, synods, conferences, and the like.

So discuss away. But no snide cracks about how "unchristian" today's Christians are. Most are well aware of that.

[Lhun]

I think that's a big call, Lhun.I don't.
That's even bigger.Hardly. I'd ask you to show me one example of a believer in any religion, ever, who followed all commands to the letter, but i know it's impossible. It can easily be demonstrated that, over time, as ethics evolved, so did the interpretations of various religious texts, to make them fit in. It is not actually religions which provide the ethics for their followers, it's the followers who try and fit their sense of ethics into the religious writing.
(I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it's clear i'm only talking about the major book religions here. Obviously the others do not have a book not to follow)
It's hard to imagine that the major prophet of any religion returning would have no impact at all. Setting aside what 'returning' actually means and how one would confirm that, even a widespread belief that Jesus, Mohammad or Gautama Buddha say, were present in person would surely cause a lot of excitement. Even I as an atheist and a skeptic about all things magical would be keenly interested, if only for the social impacts.I took the OP to mean the return of Jesus without any proof, i.e. the arrival of a prophet claiming to be Jesus (which just happens to be a true claim). If that's not what was meant, i'd first want to talk about what kind of proof he provided, since imo that would be the most important thing in determining the reaction of people in general. I.e. raising a few corpses is pretty good proof of something "supernatural" going on (and that he's not just delusional) but it doesn't exactly prove that he's Jesus. Could be Mithras for all we know.

[Bartholomew]

This seems obvious to me, but no one else has said it.

If Jesus was suddenly a physical entity, I imagine we'd pester him to write something. The Book of Jesus seems like it'd fit nicely into the New Testament.

[Ruv Draba]

I'd ask you to show me one example of a believer in any religion, ever, who followed all commands to the letter, but i know it's impossible.That's trivially easy. A religion may have no commandments at all, such as the religious philosphy of Thelema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema). But there are others too that either don't have taboos, or their injunctions aren't considered binding. Some Buddhist or Unitarian sects for instance. Or if you consider secular humanism a religion (I don't, but some do), that might also count.

[Ruv Draba]

If Jesus was suddenly a physical entity, I imagine we'd pester him to write something. The Book of Jesus seems like it'd fit nicely into the New Testament.Or... might even replace it. And the clunky prologue that preceded it. :)

[Ruv Draba]

The interesting part of the question, the core that Don is getting at, I think, is how any religious institution can both grow (and presumably evolve) and stay true to the ideals of its founder(s)?A darn good question. But it poses the thought experiment: if Jesus -- the character as-written in whatever version of the Bible you prefer -- had appeared for the first time in any developed country today... So imagine that world history were substantially the same -- with Western empires founded on some other religion -- say a liberalised offshoot of Judaism, so the Ten Commandments were intact... but technology and human knowledge otherwise unchanged.

Would he still have been sacrificed? Assassinated? Why? How? How would the world react? And how would that change Christianity?
What would he teach? For how long? In what languages? Why? Would he write anything down this time? Why or why not?
How many disciples would he admit? Why that number? From what walks of life? Why? How many would be male? Female? Jewish? Gentile? Divorced? Gay? Criminal? Adulterers? Alcohol or drug-dependent?
What would he have to say to people of religions he'd never seen -- like Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Animism? Why?
What would he tell the countries that were colonised by Western powers, and are still finding their nationhood?
What would he tell people like African Americans, whose ancestors had been enslaved? Why?
What would he tell scientists about the origin of the earth, and the development of humanity? Why?
In the light of all that (whatever your answers are), how much Christian rite and belief do you think exists because of Jesus, and how much is there because of when and where he is believed to have lived?

[Lhun]

That's trivially easy. A religion may have no commandments at all, such as the religious philosphy of Thelema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema). But there are others too that either don't have taboos, or their injunctions aren't considered binding. Some Buddhist or Unitarian sects for instance. Or if you consider secular humanism a religion (I don't, but some do), that might also count.Not having commandments to follow is not at all the same things as following commandmends.

[wrangler]

i think he'd fit in nicely if he kept his mouth shut about the real meaning of christmas.

[Ruv Draba]

Not having commandments to follow is not at all the same things as following commandmends.Many cultures have taboos, and not all are religious. Cultures which have taboos sometimes break them. This happens in both secular and sectarian life. Sometimes the taboo is more in word than in deed.

But the taboo doesn't necessarily define the culture or its values. It's just custom made sacred. To judge the devotion people have to a culture, we need to look further than just adherence to taboos; else it's like judging a marriage by who the couple doesn't sleep with. :)

[AnkleSneeze]

The religious leaders of his day were squabbling about interpretations and human philosophies, more worried about their political standing with the current power structure than pleasing their maker. (Mark 7:7) They had replaced the scripture with their own set of rules and interpretation. The simple message of love God and love neighbor totally missed them.
People are ignorant today, ask them to explain the model prayer (lord's prayer, our father etc) Matt 6:9,10.and they can't begin to do it.(Dan 2:44)
The bible interprets itself for a person who is humble, honest, and spiritually hungry. Jesus is already 'here' and people are totally ignorant of him because his 'coming' was not what they expected since he has not returned in the flesh but the spirit.(1 Pet 3:18) Nor is his message one that fits with popular opinion. (Matt 24:37-39, Matt 7:13,14)
The clergy have turned the majority of people against God by their hypocrisy, backing of corrupt human governments, and greed for personal gain. They teach love but cave to nationalism. (John 13:35)

[ColoradoGuy]

It's easy to find an excuse to not search for truth and many people have found excuses not to do so. Some of which I see here.
That's unfair.

[AMCrenshaw]

It's easy to find an excuse to not search for truth and many people have found excuses not to do so. Some of which I see here.


Matthew 7:3

Matthew 16:18


:)

[flutecrafter]

As the practicing agnostic I'am, my sister (a practicing Christian, with a very open mind) and I frequently debate some different aspects of religion and over the weekend she posed an excellent question for debate.

Would American Christians follow the words of Jesus if he were alive to preach today?




I deleted my observations, felt they were to slanted, i'm more interested in others opinions.
Much like christians in any other country, yes, we would follow him.
Some with much trepidation as they realized how many things they
had misunderstood from His Word and their church traditions.
Some with great rejoicing that He is here with them.
Some with confusion as to why He was here when His word
says the next appearance is at the end of times on Earth.

Now as to how the Church would do.... that depends upon the individual
fellowship. Some have a larger percentage of actual christians within
their membership than others do.

Mark

[swansongunsung]

I am a Christian. My faith dictates my life. But I believe faith is something each individual has to discover for him- or herself. The following is what I believe.

Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago. Why did he die? Because God was angry with the human race. Jesus interceded on our behalf. He gave his life for us.

What has happened since then? Have we shown ourselves worthy of Jesus's confidence? Hardly. We have churches that are abominations, we are destroying God's earth. and God's Ten Commandments are treated with contempt.

Jesus will return. And we are very lucky, because we do not deserve it. Jesus will save us. And everyone will see that he is The Messiah. It will no longer be a question of faith. But there will be a price for being saved in this way. Humanity will realize, because they do not yet know, what the terrible cost has been of continuing to sin during the last 2000 years.

Just my two cents...

[Bartholomew]

I am a Christian. My faith dictates my life. But I believe faith is something each individual has to discover for him- or herself. The following is what I believe.

Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago. Why did he die? Because God was angry with the human race. Jesus interceded on our behalf. He gave his life for us.

What has happened since then? Have we shown ourselves worthy of Jesus's confidence? Hardly. We have churches that are abominations, we are destroying God's earth. and God's Ten Commandments are treated with contempt.

Jesus will return. And we are very lucky, because we do not deserve it. Jesus will save us. And everyone will see that he is The Messiah. It will no longer be a question of faith. But there will be a price for being saved in this way. Humanity will realize, because they do not yet know, what the terrible cost has been of continuing to sin during the last 2000 years.

Just my two cents...

I'm sorry. :(

[DrZoidberg]

As the practicing agnostic I'am, my sister (a practicing Christian, with a very open mind) and I frequently debate some different aspects of religion and over the weekend she posed an excellent question for debate.


Excuse my ignorance but what is a practising agnostic? Do you go to church on alternate Sundays?

[Zoombie]

I'd prolly track him down, say hi, ask him how the big man is doing up there, ask him to tell Einstein that quantum theory has, for the most part, been proven true.

In all seriousness, though, Americans aren't a bunch of blood thirsty lunatics. If someone like Jesus showed up, he'd be a good and kind and caring and noble person, and that kind of person attracts other people seeking to do good.

Now, the problem is that a single nutjob with a gun can do way more damage than a legion of Roman soldiers, though I'm pretty sure the Roman soldiers would give us a run for their money...

Either way, I'd stay an atheist.

Cause I'm contrary that way.

[Paul]

All religious groups can only disconnect to the original impulse, if that impulse comes from one individual. It has to. THis is the achilles heel of truth / the mystique understanding of the universe - it's an individual journey - impossible to communicate fully.
I've often wondered why Buddha and Mohammad came down off the mtn, or Jesus out of the desert. Truth is an individual experience - nontransferable.

Religious groups form because of a human desire for certainty - a reasonably robust viewpoint is better that facing uncertainty.
In short, the return of the original can never fit into the resultant religion and never could.

[Paul]

The religious leaders of his day were squabbling about interpretations and human philosophies, more worried about their political standing with the current power structure than pleasing their maker. (Mark 7:7) They had replaced the scripture with their own set of rules and interpretation. The simple message of love God and love neighbor totally missed them.
People are ignorant today, ask them to explain the model prayer (lord's prayer, our father etc) Matt 6:9,10.and they can't begin to do it.(Dan 2:44)
The bible interprets itself for a person who is humble, honest, and spiritually hungry. Jesus is already 'here' and people are totally ignorant of him because his 'coming' was not what they expected since he has not returned in the flesh but the spirit.(1 Pet 3:18) Nor is his message one that fits with popular opinion. (Matt 24:37-39, Matt 7:13,14)
The clergy have turned the majority of people against God by their hypocrisy, backing of corrupt human governments, and greed for personal gain. They teach love but cave to nationalism. (John 13:35)

Some nice quotes.
But I have a big problem with the embolded bit. Always was amazed at that use of language by some people I've encountered.
The technique (or habit) of suggesting the bible as an entity onto itself - a sentient being, I find fascinating.
Because the next assertion is "if only you would listen to what the bible is telling us/you"
Is a beautiful piece of footwork, because it's no longer me, the mere fallible human telling you what truth is, but rather the bible itself.
And therefore how could one possibly ignore the all-knowing sentient being which 'speaks' to us?
The frail hand of man is removed from the equation, only Oz himself remains.
Fascinating.

[semilargeintestine]

Ever seen someone on a corner with a "God hates mixed fiber clohtes" sign? If it was Sasha Baron Cohen it doesn't count.

That's because Jews don't care if other people try to follow commandments that don't apply to them, nor do we openly berate Jews who don't with public protests. However, you will not find a single Orthodox Jew wearing wool and linen together, as they follow ALL of the commandments (except the ones that are not applicable to them, such as the ones only for men/women/priests/kings/etc).

[semilargeintestine]

Some nice quotes.
But I have a big problem with the embolded bit. Always was amazed at that use of language by some people I've encountered.
The technique (or habit) of suggesting the bible as an entity onto itself - a sentient being, I find fascinating.
Because the next assertion is "if only you would listen to what the bible is telling us/you"
Is a beautiful piece of footwork, because it's no longer me, the mere fallible human telling you what truth is, but rather the bible itself.
And therefore how could one possibly ignore the all-knowing sentient being which 'speaks' to us?
The frail hand of man is removed from the equation, only Oz himself remains.
Fascinating.

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure whether everyone who uses that technique is doing it purposely to make the argument more credible because I've known people who actually believe the Bible (at least the Torah) is an evolving, eternal document that speaks for itself. But, I'm sure that there are many missionaries using that same technique on people knowing exactly what they are doing.

[swansongunsung]

Although I am a Christian, I believe, like many people do, that the Christian message has become distorted over time. I also believe that many other religions are based on true beliefs, or even revelations, but these beliefs and revelations have sometimes been misinterpreted.

I am not a Jehovah's Witness. I never have been. Nevertheless I believe they are correct in holding the following belief.

Witnesses believe that the world is under the control of Satan and his demons, that they mislead people, and are the cause of human suffering. However, they do not believe that individual rulers or governments are under Satan's direct control

I believe Jehovah's Witnesses will be rewarded for their especially strong faith, even if they are wrong about many things. They were the only Christian church in Germany to openly resist Hitler and the Nazi's, for example. And they paid a terrible price. They were rounded up and placed in the camps with the Jews and the Gypsies.

[mccardey]

You know what I think this question lacks? A specific America - and a specific Christ.



(disclosure: I'm neither Christian nor American. But I really do believe there are quite lovely things about some forms of Christianity - and Islam and Judaism and all the other isms as well; I'm a sucker for tribes - and can I say right here that I loved my six weeks in America. I heart NY I really really do...)

Also - Swansong; the Calvinists in Holland were pretty good, too.... "The Heart Has Reasons" by Klempner is a wonderful book....

[larocca]

Crucify

[swansongunsung]

Also - Swansong; the Calvinists in Holland were pretty good, too.... "The Heart Has Reasons" by Klempner is a wonderful book....
I'll check them out. Thanks.

[swansongunsung]

You know what I think this question lacks? A specific America - and a specific Christ.
A specific Christ? In which way? The Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or the Second Coming? (unless you do not believe in this)

I believe the Christ of the Second Coming will seem very different from Jesus of Nazareth, because he will be instrumental in Armageddon, the final fight against Satan.

[semilargeintestine]

This isn't meant to offend anyone, I just thought it hilarious given the thread.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/20090323.gif

[mccardey]

specific Christ? In which way? The Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or the Second Coming? (unless you do not believe in this)


In that way (see above - Nazareth, or the Second Coming). Believers tend to believe that their own understanding of Christ and all he stands for is the correct one - and that goes for those who believe he was a non-divine political insurrectionist trying to overthrow Roman rule, as well as those who believe in a more theistic interpretation and the shades in between. So we'd need to know which definition of Christ was appearing, wouldn't we? ;)

But I was only splitting hairs, anyway. From what I've seen of New York, if they found him standing on street corner struggling with a map, they'd come up and say "Can I help you? Where are you trying to get to?" - followed by "That's such a cute accent! Where are you from? You're kidding!" And then if he was a bit lost and hungry as well, they'd probably lead him down to the Edison deli and order a big bowl of the best barley soup in the world and quietly pay the bill on their way out... I'm so in love with New York

Now if he came to Australia, it might be different. If he came to Australia the barley soup at the Edison deli gives way to a beer in a pub, and then god only knows what would happen once he began the thing with the loaves and fishes....

[semilargeintestine]

What part of NY are you in? If he came to Manhattan, he'd be ignored. Maybe someone would throw change at his feet. Maybe.

[mccardey]

What part of NY are you in? If he came to Manhattan, he'd be ignored. Maybe someone would throw change at his feet. Maybe.

I'm not in New York. I'm in Australia. But I went to New York for the first time last year, and was overwhelmed by how friendly everyone was. I was expecting much more of a Seinfeld kind of welcome.

I think Manhattan-ites just like to sound tough to keep too many people from moving in...

Also - it's not just me. My kids had spent time there over the last few years and raved about it. That's why I went. Then I came back and raved about it too....

There's no point trying to change my mind, I'm afraid. New Yorkers are gorgeous.

[semilargeintestine]

That's just because you're Aussie. They're nice to me too. It's the accent. ;)

[swansongunsung]

I think the Second Coming is not so far away now. Armageddon too. Strangely enough, Jehovah's Witnesses have started to show unusual behaviour in a few European locations, with regard to a few specific individuals. They are well known for having predicting, in the past, the End of The World on certain specific dates, but they have always got it wrong. This time they are not making any public announcements.

These "specific individuals" are not candidates for the role of the Messiah, or anything like that. Quite the reverse.

I do not believe that Armageddon will be as "bad" as some people fear. It wil not wipe out 99% of the human race, for example. The real cost will be revealed when humanity realizes what Satan has done, using them as his instrument.

Some people are better informed than others. Some of them have even employed the phrase "The Enemy Within" and they have known exactly what they were talking about.

"The Enemy Within"

What could that be about, I wonder? Al-Qaeda? Definitely not. Al-Qaeda may be an instrument, but no more than that.

George W Bush and Tony Blair made the joint decision to go to war in Iraq. The actual decision was made very quickly. They received certain very specific information about Saddam Hussein and his two sons. They prayed. The slept on it. And the following morning their mind was made up. They hoped that WMDs would turn up to "justify" their attack, of course. But WMDs had nothing to do with their decision.

They understood the meaning of the phrase "The Enemy Within" extremely well.

Only God, and Jesus Christ, can save us from this "Enemy Within" and he will. Whether Jesus Christ returns in America, the plains of East Africa or the mountains of the Himalayas, is immaterial.

Just my two cents...

[STKlingaman]

Parade him through the streets in
a tub of Lime Jello?

Hummmm . . . maybe pudding
everyone loves pudding.

Oh wait, in these health conscious times
Low fat yogurt?

[AnkleSneeze]

Paul you had a good comment I felt I should explain.

When I said "the bible interprets itself" I wasn't inferring that it was an entity that performed some kind of mystic reaction. I was referring to the way you can look at any large document and understand that when it makes a statement or uses a term you can be helped in your understanding this by examining that same document in other places to help understand the passage.

(Acts 17:2,3) 2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and [saying]: “This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to YOU.”

For this to work a person would have to accept that the bible was one letter penned by some 40 human secretaries recording the divine word as guided by God. (1Tim 3:16)
I believe in truth and that it can be found otherwise there would be no reason for anything because every thing we know would be capricious and arbitrary.

However one cannot discount the role of God in coming to the correct understanding.
(John 6:44) 44 No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him. . .

False information abounds.
(2 Peter 2:1-3) 1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.
(2 Timothy 4:2-4) . . .. 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.

[Don Allen]

Excuse my ignorance but what is a practicing agnostic? Do you go to church on alternate Sundays?

Actually every fourth sunday, and dressed as a Wicken Buddhist Jew, that way I can be philosophical, yet earthly, while sill getting a chance to wear the little beenie I like so much.

[Don Allen]

I'm going to reopen this thread because, as Mac said, Don's opening question is worth thinking about. However, there are several kinds of comments that are not useful -- flame bait, as Mac also said. For example, a snide (and self-satisfied) barb that Jesus would not recognize current Christianity (defined loosely or not at all) is not cleverly profound -- it is self-evident. The question is not unique to Christianity, either. For example, what would the Buddha say about his splintered and opinionated followers were he to return? It's not even a strictly religious issue. What would Adam Smith say about today's squabbling economists, or Marx and Engels say about what their disciples have done with their theories?

The interesting part of the question, the core that Don is getting at, I think, is how any religious institution can both grow (and presumably evolve) and stay true to the ideals of its founder(s)? Some attempt this by vesting doctrinal authority in successors to the founder; the Catholic Pope is an example of this approach. Others attempt to enable the devout to interpret for themselves what the founder meant. There's freedom in that, but also built-in chaos. The Reformation provided many examples of what happens then. The extreme example of this approach is perhaps my own faith of unprogrammed Quakerism, which completely removes the clergy (or, as is often said, completely removes the laity). Still others (perhaps the majority) try to steer a middle course by investing some, but not all, authority in clergy, synods, conferences, and the like.

So discuss away. But no snide cracks about how "unchristian" today's Christians are. Most are well aware of that.

I actually reread this post several times, because the words expressed, and questions raised are literally in another realm of discussion and you sir, need to be publicly commended for the rationalization.


To rephrase not nearly as eloquently, the question becomes: Would any religious hierarchy be able to accept the basic tenets of it's own origin?

...And the answer is unquestionably NO. Because all religions have bastardized their origins to some extent, if not completely.


...So, the true question, (oddly enough we may be seeing the signs of this in the Catholic church) is: Would we ever see a fracture of such magnitude between a religions hierarchy and it's parishioners based upon it's original framework, that a sort of renaissance would literally embrace it's creator and basic original tenets? Phew.... if you can understand what I mean...

[ChristineR]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus would actually do if he did come back.

Maybe he would fulfill the prophecies of the New Testament, however, that would be tricky since the prophecies deal with the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and they're gone and probably not coming back.

If he was reborn with the same genetic code but a different environment, I imagine he'd just be a normal little boy. If he came back as a demi-god, he could do whatever he wanted and people would take him pretty seriously.

The answer would depend on whether he was teleported with time travel, or whether he had some clue as to what's going on now, tons of endless questions like that. As it is, you can't say what Americans would do with him unless you know what he'd be doing.

[aadams73]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus would actually do if he did come back.


He'd twitter his second crucifixion.

And put the pictures on Facebook.

[ChristineR]

He'd twitter his second crucifixion.

And put the pictures on Facebook.

Does anyone out there still crucify people? He might be arrested and tried for terrorism though, depending on exactly where and what he did. Could end in execution, I guess.

[Don Allen]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus would actually do if he did come back.

Maybe he would fulfill the prophecies of the New Testament, however, that would be tricky since the prophecies deal with the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and they're gone and probably not coming back.

If he was reborn with the same genetic code but a different environment, I imagine he'd just be a normal little boy. If he came back as a demi-god, he could do whatever he wanted and people would take him pretty seriously.

The answer would depend on whether he was teleported with time travel, or whether he had some clue as to what's going on now, tons of endless questions like that. As it is, you can't say what Americans would do with him unless you know what he'd be doing.



You're right in so much that in order to ponder the question you have to be willing to accept a whole bunch of assumptions. IMO, it's a question of who Christians identify with most, the current church, or the biblical teachings and literal words of Christ. In addition there are certainly political considerations as well.

[ColoradoGuy]

...So, the true question, (oddly enough we may be seeing the signs of this in the Catholic church) is: Would we ever see a fracture of such magnitude between a religions hierarchy and it's parishioners based upon it's original framework, that a sort of renaissance would literally embrace it's creator and basic original tenets? Phew.... if you can understand what I mean...
Good question, and I think I do understand what you mean. In fact, I think the original Protestants, in their own view of themselves, were doing exactly as you describe -- getting past the hierarchy and back to the roots of Christianity. Of course they soon got into various doctrinal controversies of their own, complete with hurled anathemas and and the occasional persecution. But in spite of that, I think the yearning for renewal, of getting back to the basics of the founder(s), is a frequent lament. How can you preserve the initial fire of an emerging religious movement? Hierarchy and structure are inherently deadening. More than that, they can attract the wrong sort of person to the movement -- the person who thrives on structure and definitions.

[Ruv Draba]

I think that human ideals have changed as we've learned what's available and what's feasible. I don't think that religions hold to their ancient ideals, nor do I think that they should.

For a farmer, Eden was an agrarian paradise -- a self-tending garden where everything was always in season, and you could eat whatever you wanted. But we have supermarkets, in which the greengrocery is already picked, husked, washed, wrapped and ready to serve. And they're next to the clothing stores. Now that more than half the world is urban, many people wouldn't live in Eden these days unless it had cable.

I think our ideas of kindness and equity have changed too. In ancient times, honouring your parents meant never questioning or challenging them unless they broke the mores of the day. If they played favourites, so be it. If they hit you, it was deserved. Life was cheap, law was harsh and parents taught children to fear authority, as they themselves feared authority, and nobody thought it should be different. But nowadays, we'd consider that appalling. Authority that's feared can't be trusted. If it can't be trusted, it should be challenged and overturned. We not only believe that, we teach it to our children. Justice is no longer about maintaining a stable, predictable status quo, but about giving people equity in their own futures.

Unsurprisingly, our notions of morality, ethics, divine authority and paradise have changed to suit these views. So if the ideals and visions have mutated, what's left in common?

I think it's basic human needs -- a desire to love, to be cherished, to be hale and healthy, well-fed and sheltered, to be safe and free of fear, and surrounded by people we recognise and like. Really simple ape tribe-stuff.

Against that backdrop, admonishments like 'be kind to people', 'hold your temper in check' and 'share what you have' will never go out of fashion. They're also admonishments common to virtually all the ancient religions. Really, I think that all that modern religions have in common with their ancient forms is the same thing they have in common with each other.

[Don Allen]

Good question, and I think I do understand what you mean. In fact, I think the original Protestants, in their own view of themselves, were doing exactly as you describe -- getting past the hierarchy and back to the roots of Christianity. Of course they soon got into various doctrinal controversies of their own, complete with hurled anathemas and and the occasional persecution. But in spite of that, I think the yearning for renewal, of getting back to the basics of the founder(s), is a frequent lament. How can you preserve the initial fire of an emerging religious movement? Hierarchy and structure are inherently deadening. More than that, they can attract the wrong sort of person to the movement -- the person who thrives on structure and definitions.


Right, which beckons the famous quote "be true to thine self" and RUV makes a good point as well when he articulates the differences in time and human evolution,,,, and applying religious concepts as best as possible to current standards of living. But, back to you CG, is there not a defining responsibility of hierarchy to preserve those basic concepts of which any religion is founded in much the same way the United States desperately try's to maintain the basic concepts of the "Bill of Rights".. ...Which is where I see Christianity failing with many of it's most ardent subscribers. Because the Church doesn't maintain the structure as written, nor does it interpret, it over the centuries has made wholesale changes based upon the times, as Ruv has suggested. So, could we say, that it is the church hierarchy that may be conflict with Jesus' teachings if he were alive today..


...and think about this for a second, wasn't the Jewish hierarchy at odds with Jesus in his own time??? We really should be drinking.....

[ColoradoGuy]

. . . But, back to you CG, is there not a defining responsibility of hierarchy to preserve those basic concepts of which any religion is founded in much the same way the United States desperately try's to maintain the basic concepts of the "Bill of Rights".

I think the real issue here is that there isn't agreement as to what those basic concepts are, at least as they are put into practice. There never has been such an agreement, really, which is why already in late antiquity there was a need for councils, agreed-upon creeds, and so on. People were trying to define just what it meant to be a Christian. There isn't any Christian equivalent of the Bill of Rights. There's the Bible, of course, but passages can contradict one another. And, since the Reformation, there hasn't been the equivalent body to the Supreme Court to adjudicate disagreements. Plus, as soon as Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire, politics entered the scene in a big way.

[Pat~]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus would actually do if he did come back.

Maybe he would fulfill the prophecies of the New Testament, however, that would be tricky since the prophecies deal with the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and they're gone and probably not coming back.

If he was reborn with the same genetic code but a different environment, I imagine he'd just be a normal little boy. If he came back as a demi-god, he could do whatever he wanted and people would take him pretty seriously.

The answer would depend on whether he was teleported with time travel, or whether he had some clue as to what's going on now, tons of endless questions like that. As it is, you can't say what Americans would do with him unless you know what he'd be doing.

Very late to this thread, and will have to go back and read earlier posts, but to add my opinion to the mix, in answer to your question, when Jesus comes the second time it will be for a different purpose, and in a different sort of persona (for lack of a better word) than the first time. The prophecies in the OT referring to the Messiah speak of a suffering servant as well as a glorious king. Jesus is a Shepherd-King, just as the famous king who foreshadowed him (David). His first advent was conspicuously humble--a baby born in a stable to an unwed Jewish teenager, with only shepherds and stable animals to welcome him. He hung out with prostitutes and tax gatherers, and while He attracted great crowds due to His miracles and the revolutionary things He said, His life modeled that of a 'servant' who washed His disciples' feet, and who was obedient to the Father to the point of death on a cross, so He could redeem the world He loved. In the three years of His ministry prior to His death, His focus was on teaching His disciples who He was as He directed them to the OT prophecies about His life and what would happen to Him, and also teaching them what it meant to be a Christ-follower--giving them a living picture of what Christ-like Love looks like.

But with His resurrection/ascension, He entered His second phase--that of glorious King. He appeared to over 500 people after His resurrection, and told His disciples what to expect in both the immediate and far-off future (persecutions and His second coming). He very clearly told them that His second advent would be as their conquering King, who would finally defeat their enemy and set up His kingdom here on earth. (The prophecies of the NT were thought by some at various times in history to possibly represent the Roman Empire--but scholars agree that the language of the book of Revelation is far too symbolic to say that with any certainty, and there are several other interpretations of what the various prophetic passages might represent.)

He'll come not as a baby the second time (according to Biblical belief), but His 'genetic code' was not even that of a 'normal baby boy' the first time, if you believe the Biblical account. It says he was genetically the son of Mary, but not of Joseph, being impregnated by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.

[Pat~]

Suffice to say that governmental welfare for the poor didn't exist in Roman times as it does today, therefore your contention that Jesus wouldn't approve is without merit (hence the bolding) Especially since we live in a democracy which votes to have money set aside for the poor and underprivileged. It is not confiscated, thereby your assertion is wrong.

The Second Amendment philosophy would, I'm assuming, be contrary to his message of peace. Since to bear arms assumes a defensive and offensive posture which is the prelude of violence.

I stand that he would be anti-choice,, I don't even understand the context of the quote you list.

But Jesus also said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." And, He flew at the moneychangers in the Temple with a whip, driving them out in the days before His death. I don't see Jesus as passive in response to evil--He was passive in response to personal affronts and insults directed at Him because of His humility, but not toward evil. Too, if Jesus as depicted in the Bible is the same as God, then He was one and the same with the God who ordered Joshua to kill all the Canaanites of the land after they entered the Promised Land, and the one who helped David in his battles as a warrior. God is not a pacifist.

[Ruv Draba]

Right, which beckons the famous quote "be true to thine self" and RUV makes a good point as well when he articulates the differences in time and human evolution,,,, and applying religious concepts as best as possible to current standards of living.I sometimes joke 'be true to yourself -- unless your self is messed up'. :tongue It's easy to find a personal code we can live with, but which does little good for anyone else. It's much harder to find a code that we can live with that also makes our lives beneficial to others.

Social mores are a strange mix of the necessary (don't steal), the convenient (queue in an orderly fashion) and the arbitrary (wear a tie to work). But all of these are subject to change. Stealing doesn't matter when resources are abundant and cheap. Many people will happily use a bar bathroom as though it were a public convenience, say.

we say, that it is the church hierarchy that may be conflict with Jesus' teachings if he were alive today..With or without religious institutions, our society has changed. If there were no monotheistic faith today and a humanitarian monotheistic prophet were to appear and preach, you can bet that the religion that emerged wouldn't look much like the ones we presently have. To appeal to modern humanitarian thought it would have to take into account notions of democracy, self-determination, educated compliance rather than blind obedience, the accountability of authority in service to its people, the impact of poverty, employment and abuse on antisocial behaviour. Its morality would have to include environmental and transgenerational sense of good and ill -- something the ancients barely thought about. It couldn't make value-judgements about moral worth based on ethnicity or social class, and would have to recognise the role of disadvantage in antisocial behaviour. Almost certainly it would need to include notions of continuing improvement rather than some system of 'final grade', because all of those are how we now think.

as soon as Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire, politics entered the scene in a big way.Arguably, politics played a big part in the formation of Judaism and subsequently Christianity from the outset. The Old Testament is hugely political, and parts of the New Testament are clearly trying to build a new or reformed social order and not simply help people become better people. However I believe that the shape of that social order has been a matter of contention since the earliest NT writings and I don't think it ever crystallised.

[Pat~]

A darn good question. But it poses the thought experiment: if Jesus -- the character as-written in whatever version of the Bible you prefer -- had appeared for the first time in any developed country today... So imagine that world history were substantially the same -- with Western empires founded on some other religion -- say a liberalised offshoot of Judaism, so the Ten Commandments were intact... but technology and human knowledge otherwise unchanged.


Well, your questions are interesting, but what's also interesting is that the written record in Luke (the Bible, as mentioned above) says that He "came in the fullness of time"...in other words, He came when, in God's opinion, the time was ripe for the event, the message, and the subsequent carrying of that message to all parts of the world. Just one illustration--coming during the Roman Empire, He came into a situation historically where Christian followers would 1) be persecuted, and would flee Israel, and carry the message to surrounding countries, 2) a system of roads (but not impersonal air travel) was available to make this feasible, and 3) there was a universal language which most could understand. So...it kind of begs the question in a sense to entertain the specific list of questions you raised. But since the reason for His coming was that the Father had planned it from all eternity--and that Christ said Himself that "no one takes my life from me" but that He was giving it up of Himself, then yes, He'd still have been sacrificed. The OT background lays the groundwork for the sacrificial system God inauguerated for the forgiveness of sin. The prophecies of the OT speak not only of His death but also of His scourging, ("stripes" - see esp. Isaiah 53), and death on "a tree"--and also that death on a tree was the death of a "cursed" person. ("He became sin for us." He became humanity's curse.) So...I believe the events would've unfolded the same way, but then, I also believe He would have come at the same time in history--which was the fullness of time, the 'perfect' just-right time. I believe He'd teach the same things, because He came to communicate what the Father wanted communicated--the essentials. He didn't come to give His political views, or even His views on all our social-issue hot buttons. He came to communicate our spiritual need, and God's satisfaction of that. I believe He'd likely always have chosen 12 disciples, due to the symbolism of that number in the Israelite history and the symbol of the number itself in Biblical writing (a symbol of completeness or perfection if I remember correctly). I don't believe Jesus would physically write anything historically significant other than the Ten Commandments and perhaps the tracing in the sand. He came as the Living Word, far surpassing written communiques, and was interactive with those He came to reach. He was and is Relational. His disciples and followers and prophets could write down the essentials for Him; He was modeling who He was, and who the Father was--a relational God who loved and ministered to all kinds of people from all walks of life intimately. Jesus would and does say the same thing to people from all sorts of 'religions'--He keeps it simple. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) Why would He change His message if He came at a different time in history? That wouldn't make sense. Jesus doesn't care about our labels--what we call ourselves politically or religiously. He's apart from and far beyond that--"my Kingdom is not of this world" was His response to those types of questions. And, the rest of your list...those seem more like curiosity questions, the sort maybe believers might discuss with God in heaven one day, about "why this" or "why that"--but those are peripheral to His core message, and the main reason for God traversing space and time to humanly connect with mankind about the chasm between Himself and them, and the essential remedy for bridging that. I'm not sure what you mean about rite and ritual, except to say that those historically have been a means of expressing belief in Christ, but apart from the Sacraments He Himself told us to follow (baptism, communion), they're not necessarily defining to being a Christ-follower. They are a practice, but are not the substance of being a Christian or follower of Christ.


What would he teach? For how long? In what languages? Why? Would he write anything down this time? Why or why not?
How many disciples would he admit? Why that number? From what walks of life? Why? How many would be male? Female? Jewish? Gentile? Divorced? Gay? Criminal? Adulterers? Alcohol or drug-dependent?
What would he have to say to people of religions he'd never seen -- like Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Animism? Why?
What would he tell the countries that were colonised by Western powers, and are still finding their nationhood?
What would he tell people like African Americans, whose ancestors had been enslaved? Why?
What would he tell scientists about the origin of the earth, and the development of humanity? Why?
In the light of all that (whatever your answers are), how much Christian rite and belief do you think exists because of Jesus, and how much is there because of when and where he is believed to have lived?

[AMCrenshaw]

But Jesus also said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." And, He flew at the moneychangers in the Temple with a whip, driving them out in the days before His death. I don't see Jesus as passive in response to evil--He was passive in response to personal affronts and insults directed at Him because of His humility, but not toward evil.

(you've actually conflated two words which mean different things: namely, "passive" and "pacifist" -- iirc, the only living thing he destroyed was a fig tree and he had plenty of other opportunities to kill his enemies).

of course, our takes on this story are different. i think the sword was a symbolic gesture, meaning he believed he was the king of the kingdom of heaven, and his kingdom would be comprised of misfits and lepers, but also idiot fishermen. more lord this lord that imagery. he was telling stories after all. additionally i'd say there's a bit of evidence that suggests jesus' message was as much political as religious, simply considering the language. as a jew, i imagine he was going to begin a kibbutz.

so, as ruv said, nowadays, that's a kibbutz with cable...and AC.

[Pat~]

(you've actually conflated two words which mean different things: namely, "passive" and "pacifist" -- iirc, the only living thing he destroyed was a fig tree and he had plenty of other opportunities to kill his enemies).

Not conflated; in my comment I'm saying I don't think Jesus was either a pacifist OR passive.


of course, our takes on this story are different. i think the sword was a symbolic gesture, meaning he believed he was the king of the kingdom of heaven, and his kingdom would be comprised of misfits and lepers, but also idiot fishermen. more lord this lord that imagery. he was telling stories after all. additionally i'd say there's a bit of evidence that suggests jesus' message was as much political as religious, simply considering the language. as a jew, i imagine he was going to begin a kibbutz.

so, as ruv said, nowadays, that's a kibbutz with cable...and AC.

I believe the sword in that reference largely was symbolic--but definitely symbolic of strife. In the context of the passage, Jesus was talking about the cost of discipleship--not about His kingly status or lording it over anyone. He was talking about how it might cost His disciples the unity of family ties in choosing to follow Him. The beginning of Matthew 10, He calls His disciples to Him, and speaks to them about their ministry after He leaves, about some of the challenges they'll face. He then says this:

Matthew 10:32-39 (New International Version)

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[*this section is a quote from prophecy in Micah 7:6]

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

And, if He said "My kingdom is not of this world," I highly doubt His intention was to start a kibbutz. His earthly kingdom, as explained to His disciples, would come at His second coming.

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

[Ruv Draba]

Well, your questions are interesting, but what's also interesting is that the written record in Luke (the Bible, as mentioned above) says that He "came in the fullness of time"...in other words, He came when, in God's opinion, the time was ripe for the event, the message, and the subsequent carrying of that message to all parts of the world.Hi Pat -- it's good to see you contributing here. :)

I think I understand your view, and why my questions may not offer much wisdom for you. I guess you may understand then why your answers don't offer much insight for me either. Here's the spelled-out version though.

I don't believe that religions have the authority to proclaim their own dogma true -- otherwise they'd all be doing it. (Oh wait, they nearly all do). Ultimately it's for individuals to decide the truth of religions claims based on their best wisdom.

That being so, I don't think religions can insist that their sociology can only be interpreted through their own dogma. That can work among the faithful -- provided they can agree what the dogma mean -- but among we infidels it's an artificially narrow way to see things, and it relies on too many assumptions.

That doesn't invalidate your opinion of course; I'm just at a loss how to discuss it with you this time around.

[Bartholomew]

Not conflated; in my comment I'm saying I don't think Jesus was either a pacifist OR passive.


Matthew 5:38-40

"There's a saying; 'An eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, 'Do not resist an evil person.' Whoever strikes your left cheek, turn to him the other also. And whoever takes you to law and take your tunic, suffer to him also your cloak.

[Pat~]

Hi Pat -- it's good to see you contributing here. :)

I think I understand your view, and why my questions may not offer much wisdom for you. I guess you may understand then why your answers don't offer much insight for me either. Here's the spelled-out version though.

Hi, Ruv. :) Hopefully you didn't misinterpret my comments; your questions are intriguing--not that they lack interest or thought, but simply that in context with the purposes/timing of His coming as spelled out in Christianity's foundational record, they won't go anywhere meaningful in trying to discern answers about a hypothetical "other" coming with an "other" message. Kind of like they somewhat negate themselves...if that makes sense.

I don't believe that religions have the authority to proclaim their own dogma true -- otherwise they'd all be doing it. (Oh wait, they nearly all do). Ultimately it's for individuals to decide the truth of religions claims based on their best wisdom. I don't believe institutions of man have intrinsic authority to proclaim they alone have the handle on ultimate Truth. In other words, I'm not a Christ-follower because I place my faith in the absolute authority of ANY particular church, current-day religious leader, or religious organization. I'm a Christ follower because after much study, and countless readings of the written record, I have decided, on faith, that Christ was indeed who He claimed to be. The cohesiveness of history and scripture and natural revelation all have given me a overwhelming sense of evidence pointing to that. That is not to say I believe because I have "proof"--no one does, though some have made some pretty valiant efforts to do so over the ages (eg. Acquinas' Summa Theologica). But all of us make up our mind about these things based on what to us seems to be the preponderance of evidence. The differences are in what each person believes to be evidence, and the weight we give those evidences. I do believe that if there's a God, He is the authoritative voice on Truth. That said, I'd also agree that some of our faith in that God down here on earth is going to have some mystery and be an incomplete knowledge of Him. God communicates but He is also "other." Thankfully, I don't need to have every one of those mysteries about the intricate workings of God answered in my little pea brain in order to place my faith in the claims of Christ, which are quite basic, astounding, and, to me, convincing. In conjunction with that is my belief in the written revelation giving the history of the faith, mainly because to me, its internal reliability is astounding. I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God--and yet, since you don't, I wouldn't try to convince you to believe what I believe, using the Bible as "proof" of what I believe. That would be circular. But I will use it to explain what I believe, or perhaps clarify misconceptions. So...that is what my faith is grounded in--God's authority, not the Pope, not my pastor, not a denomination or any dogma of man served up to me on a platter.

That being so, I don't think religions can insist that their sociology can only be interpreted through their own dogma. That can work among the faithful -- provided they can agree what the dogma mean -- but among we infidels it's an artificially narrow way to see things, and it relies on too many assumptions. I honestly don't know what you're saying here, Ruv, unless you're saying that religion should not be state, mandating what others believe. I believe in the separation of church and state.

[AMCrenshaw]

Not conflated; in my comment I'm saying I don't think Jesus was either a pacifist OR passive.




Sans evidence, even from the scripture.


I believe the sword in that reference largely was symbolic--but definitely symbolic of strife.


Strife =/= violence. The passage probably has to do with one of Jesus' other sayings: no prophet is accepted in his home country.

In the context of the passage, Jesus was talking about the cost of discipleship--not about His kingly status or lording it over anyone.


Oh sure. He taught the kingdom of heaven was among and within us.

He was talking about how it might cost His disciples the unity of family ties in choosing to follow Him.


Again, I think he's going for more than just familial generations (ye generation of vipers, most likely); but I would agree that "family ties" is the most literal reading possible.


And, if He said "My kingdom is not of this world," I highly doubt His intention was to start a kibbutz. His earthly kingdom, as explained to His disciples, would come at His second coming.


I was being coy. But anyway when Jesus says 'my kingdom is not of this world' he may simply be referring to transcendence, which can mean from within, consistent with other sayings of his.

[Ruv Draba]

Hi, Ruv. :) Hopefully you didn't misinterpret my comments; your questions are intriguing--not that they lack interest or thought, but simply that in context with the purposes/timing of His coming as spelled out in Christianity's foundational record, they won't go anywhere meaningful in trying to discern answers about a hypothetical "other" coming with an "other" message.I understand, but think that there's a spectrum of Christian belief about this. I think it's possible to talk to some Christians about these hypotheticals, but also understand why if one's faith is more 'fatalistic' (i.e. believing that some/all things are part of a plan, with each thing happening in its season), it wouldn't make much sense. (I realise that you probably aren't deterministic, but fatalism is the best word I could find to describe the belief that human history is being managed as part of a plan.)

I of course don't think that everything is part of a plan. Partly that just appeals to how my mind works; partly it's because I see a lot of evidence of lottery-behaviour in nature; partly it's because I don't see any benefit in imagining that everything is part of a plan. So 'what if' questions are not only natural for me, they can help generate ideas that I value.

I'm a Christ follower because after much study, and countless readings of the written record, I have decided, on faith, that Christ was indeed who He claimed to be.Understood. Now I do have a question for you though -- what made you believe in historical fatalism? I mean, did you come to that view reluctantly or gladly, and why?

I honestly don't know what you're saying here, Ruv, unless you're saying that religion should not be state, mandating what others believe. I believe in the separation of church and state.I think I'm speculating that practical discussion of religious history or sociology may require dogmatic differences to be acknowledged, then set aside.

[Pat~]

Matthew 5:38-40

"There's a saying; 'An eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, 'Do not resist an evil person.' Whoever strikes your left cheek, turn to him the other also. And whoever takes you to law and take your tunic, suffer to him also your cloak.

Hi, Bart! First of all, know that I believe Jesus = God, and that the Bible supports that concept throughout. Jesus Himself claimed to be the "I AM" and "one with the Father" (read John) which infuriated the high priest and other Jewish leaders who accused Him of blasphemy. Yes, this verse is used by many who believe that Jesus was passive in response to evil. Or a "pacifist" who wanted us all to be pacifists as well. But I'd disagree with either blanket statement, esp. as being based on just one verse. Jesus and indeed, much of the NT, teaches us to have this kind of response because it teaches us the importance of personal humility, generosity, patience, and all the other evidences of loving and forgiving the fellow humans who individually treat you with ill will. The ability to respond this way when you've personally been wronged is a genuine fruit of the Spirit living out His character in the Christ-follower's life. God Himself is long-suffering; eg. several times in the OT waited years/decades/centuries before judging sin, in hopes that people would repent of evil. But...God is Just and God is Holy, by definition. He hates and fights evil, and it would go against His nature just to turn His back on it and never deal with it. What kind of loving, holy, or just God lets evil prevail unchecked to destroy the creation/people He cherishes? He will recompense and judge it, in His timing. In cases where there is great evil that can only be eradicated by war, I think the OT and Jewish history give plenty of examples of God sending folk to battle. But even the Canaanites in Israel had their judgment withheld for decades if not centuries before God finally had enough and decreed their destruction. But again, I see this verse and Jesus' own responses to being ridiculed, beaten and spit upon as a reflection of the character of Christ which we would hope to emulate in response to personal insult and assault--but not national.

[Pat~]

(I realise that you probably aren't deterministic, but fatalism is the best word I could find to describe the belief that human history is being managed as part of a plan.)

I'm a Christ follower because after much study, and countless readings of the written record, I have decided, on faith, that Christ was indeed who He claimed to be.

Understood. Now I do have a question for you though -- what made you believe in historical fatalism? I mean, did you come to that view reluctantly or gladly, and why?
How did you get from my deciding Christ was who He claimed to be, to my believing in historic fatalism? (could you define what you mean by that last term?)


I think I'm speculating that practical discussion of religious history or sociology may require dogmatic differences to be acknowledged, then set aside.

Dogmatic differences...does that mean that strong opinions need to be simply acknowledged, but can not be part of a practical discussion about religion, history, or sociology? In other words, go ahead and have strong opinions, convictions, beliefs about the nature of things, but don't mention any of them when describing why you believe what you believe about these subjects? Sounds like a vacuous discussion, IMHO. I'm secure enough to hear other people's strong opinions, and interested in hearing them, if respectfully brought up.

That said, it's almost 3 AM here, so will have to turn in for the night (I was staying up to take some meds). Catch you later. :)

[Ruv Draba]

How did you get from my deciding Christ was who He claimed to be, to my believing in historic fatalism? (could you define what you mean by that last term?)I understood you to mean that seminal metaphysical events in Christian history -- past and future -- could not happen any other way than the way they have happened or have been prophesyed to happen. I understand you to believe that the Christian God is not to be negotiated with, is incapable of learning or changing its mind, already has criteria for these events that won't be swayed, and that humanity will inevitably meet its part of those criteria at some point. So parts of our religious history are governed by fate -- hence my use of the term fatalism.

Dogmatic differences...does that mean that strong opinions need to be simply acknowledged, but can not be part of a practical discussion about religion, history, or sociology?No, I mean that I think dogmatic differences that reframe the subject discussed may make it virtually impossible to agree what we're discussing, and therefore render most of the discussion impossible.

I just know you have interesting and passionate opinions on this, Pat. I'm very happy to read them, and ask your personal feelings about it, but don't think I can debate them because of your starting premise. Since you didn't ask me to debate them that may not concern you at all, but I thought I'd let you know. :)

[Don Allen]

Pat, your knowledge of the bible is both humbling and impressive. I wouldn't even presume to debate you, (remember Clint Eastwood, "A good man knows his limitations")
However, I would be interested in your thoughts on todays "Christian" rationalizing the teachings of the Jesus,, and the challenges posed by the church's reformations and failings, as well as expressing your opinion as to how Jesus of today might rationalize, (or even would he) try to equate his original gospel to the dialog of the present.

Please keep in mind that I know we're talking hypothetical opinionated scenarios, so I'm not looking for a Link, I'm genuinely interested in strong faith based individuals opinions as these are no doubt challenging times for a host of different religions, not just Christianity.

[DavidZahir]

My initial response to this thread:

Given how he acted last time, methinks if Jesus showed up today in the United States, he would be spending most of his time with the homeless, with AIDS patients (the lepers of our age), preaching to Arabs and Illegal Aliens, and would probably count among his disciples either a Defense Attorney or a Journalist. Far Right Fundamentalists would hate him with a passion. The Far Left would never ever forgive him for disagreeing with them about anything at all. Somebody would try to find a reason to arrest him, preferably on some truly serious charge. Given the relative scarcity of executions in this country, methinks if he were dwelling anywhere in the United States other than maybe Texas his Passion would involve assassination. Arguments over who did it will quickly involve into a cottage industry, almost certainly finding their way into some t.v. show like Fringe.

And within a generation people would spend a huge amount of time arguing over whether to name a street after him or whether his life deserved a national holiday. A certain loud minority would insist he was never killed, another than he was a dupe for the CIA, while another would question his birthplace and/or parentage. Nothing whatsoever would change their minds.

[darkprincealain]

these are no doubt challenging times for a host of different religions

You are not kidding. This is certainly a rough period we live in, but perhaps only in different ways than in past times.

[Cyia]

I haven't read the thread, but the title made me think of something similar. The pastor at a church I went to years ago was talking about a meeting of deacons (elders? not sure which they used) where they were filling a position by application. One of the applications that came in mentioned that the man was Jewish, had been in jail numerous times, was frequently homeless, and was living under an assumed name, etc. After the board got rather incensed, the pastor told them he'd filled out the application for The Apostle Paul.

So, it seems that your average "religious" person (as opposed to "faith" person, because I think there's a difference in someone who believes a faith as opposed to someone who likes the trappings of it) likes their religious figures in the past tense.

[Ruv Draba]

I haven't read the thread, but the title made me think of something similar. The pastor at a church I went to years ago was talking about a meeting of deacons (elders? not sure which they used) where they were filling a position by application. One of the applications that came in mentioned that the man was Jewish, had been in jail numerous times, was frequently homeless, and was living under an assumed name, etc. After the board got rather incensed, the pastor told them he'd filled out the application for The Apostle Paul.

So, it seems that your average "religious" person (as opposed to "faith" person, because I think there's a difference in someone who believes a faith as opposed to someone who likes the trappings of it) likes their religious figures in the past tense.I enjoyed that story, Cyia, but in fairness the world of the apostle Paul was very different from ours. Our society doesn't normally jail religious dissidents, and today we don't normally conflate 'mendicant' with 'homeless' although in a literal sense, they are. It might be ironic too to reflect that any antisemitism among the deacons or elders could have their seeds in Paul's own writings. :)

[DavidZahir]

I am a Christian. My faith dictates my life. But I believe faith is something each individual has to discover for him- or herself. The following is what I believe.

Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago. Why did he die? Because God was angry with the human race. Jesus interceded on our behalf. He gave his life for us.

What has happened since then? Have we shown ourselves worthy of Jesus's confidence? Hardly. We have churches that are abominations, we are destroying God's earth. and God's Ten Commandments are treated with contempt.

Jesus will return. And we are very lucky, because we do not deserve it. Jesus will save us. And everyone will see that he is The Messiah. It will no longer be a question of faith. But there will be a price for being saved in this way. Humanity will realize, because they do not yet know, what the terrible cost has been of continuing to sin during the last 2000 years.

Just my two cents...
You see, this is a perfect example of what I find so odd and frankly unwarranted in Western Christianity--this obsession with sin and guilt. I'll reiterate my own belief which is that of the Orthodox Christian Church-God loves us without condition and without limit. Sin is a symptom of error and having a heart closed to the love of God. If your heart is truly open to that love, then you simply sin less and less as a consequence. This boiling contempt for humanity is not something of God. Nor do I believe the Crucifixion had anything whatsoever with appeasing God's wrath, not least because I don't see God as a sadist who demands suffering/revenge as some kind of just response nor do I accept that anyone else can bear responsibility for my sins, ever. Even if they want to.

So a more serious reply to this thread:

I believe Jesus would have a very hard time preaching today if he came to the USA. By that I don't mean that he would be tortured to death by the government, as happened in the Holy Land. Methinks he'd be fighting an uphill battle against the equivalent of Pharisees--those who see religion as a matter of rules coupled with the personal power to render judgments on said rules. There are those who'd heed his message, but methinks the bulk of his flock would be the rejected of our society--the homeless, the illegal immigrants, the gays, the transgendered, the Arab, the poor, etc. Not exclusively, though. Human life is rife with those who feel a keen spiritual hunger precisely because their physical needs are met. Others would follow because it was a fad.

Much would depend upon whether he actually identified himself as Jesus come again. Few, IMHO, who are likely to take that claim seriously are probably willing to accept the actual teachings of Christ. While not a pacifist, Jesus was hardly militant and certainly not pride-ful. His sermons were about forgiveness and tolerance and self-sacrifice and kindness. He nowhere extolled greed. There is no hint he hated money or comfort, that he was prejudiced against anyone at all, that he despised government, that he believed either gender superior to the other, etc. He would, in short, not fit into anyone's political agenda.

The first time he cured AIDS he'd be roundly condemned by some. But most, I suspect, would be mighty impressed and their hearts gladdened. We shouldn't forget that we're often a generous people. Methinks a lot of artists would want to meet him, including Tori Amos, Quentin Tarantino and Lady Gaga. Methinks the first President Bush would not, but the second might well. I think Dick Cheney, Glen Beck, Anne Coulter, Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh would want him arrested. Michael Moore might want to do a scathing documentary about him and his followers. God only knows what Oliver Stone might come up with. Ditto Mel Gibson.

Orly Taitz would find someway of trying to inject herself into the situation. Tila Tequila would try to date him. That sounds like a joke but I'm totally serious.

This will sound so strange, but if Jesus decided to appear on a talk show my guess is that it would be Craig Ferguson. Not sure why. Maybe because Ferguson is the least pretentious and comes from a history of personal horror and redemption which sometimes leads him to say very wise things from the heart.

I think he'd go to New Orleans. And Las Vegas.

[Use Her Name]

If Jesus was alive to preach today, it is doubtful that he would gather more than a handful of followers. Jesus the historical person would have vanished in time if it were not for his followers and book. If Jesus had not done what he did in ancient times, I rather think that we would live in a completely different world, and after a while people would have yearned for a message of peace-- It Existed and pre-dated Jesus in the form of Mithras, also Buddhism existed at the time.

I feel that there would not have been the crusades, the inquisition, or any of the nasty things Christians had done, either. As far as art and buildings, they were co-opted from Rome, so they would still be around. Rome did have decent emperors after Jesus's time. Claudius comes to mind and he was not a Cristian.

[semilargeintestine]

If Jesus was alive to preach today, it is doubtful that he would gather more than a handful of followers. Jesus the historical person would have vanished in time if it were not for his followers and book. If Jesus had not done what he did in ancient times, I rather think that we would live in a completely different world, and after a while people would have yearned for a message of peace-- It Existed and pre-dated Jesus in the form of Mithras, also Buddhism existed at the time.

It exists in Judaism too. Most of what Jesus "said" was taken directly from Judaism and then marketed to seem like new ideas. Most of the famous sayings of his from the NT were just paraphrases of stuff that had been in the Torah for a thousand years at that point. He was Jewish after all (assuming he existed).


I feel that there would not have been the crusades, the inquisition, or any of the nasty things Christians had done, either. As far as art and buildings, they were co-opted from Rome, so they would still be around. Rome did have decent emperors after Jesus's time. Claudius comes to mind and he was not a Cristian.

Excellent point.

[small axe]

I understand your question deals with 'American Christians' and that's being well discussed!

But to see the differences in Jesus' mission or reception, wouldn't we have to examine how Jesus would be received in a Theocracy though (as Judea was, with an overlay of Imperial Rome) not in a "Western secular" society?

Jesus was making his points by referring to pre-existing Sacred Scriptures ... and his Life and the "religion" that arose from his life and Teachings was based upon his fulfilment of culturally accepted Sacred Prophecies. (even amongst the pagans who became Christians, much was made of the claim that Jesus had been PROPHESIED and then ACTUALLY ARRIVED etc)

To have the same or comparable impact as Jesus had then, his teachings would have to be based upon the "fulfillment" of expected Prophecy (which only exist NOW among "American Christians" as being his SECOND COMING.)

In a science-influenced culture such as America is today (where even Christians are heavily influenced by Science and Technology -- don't delude ourselves on that) ... Jesus might have to be seen as fulfilling SCIENTIFIC expectations, rather than theocratic or Scriptural ones (of ancient Palestine) -- he'd have to be amazing us via "scientific miracles" and re-illuminating scientific dogma for an amazed crowd (rather than dealing in already-fulfilled Scripture or religious "miracles")

Imagine if EINSTEIN's theories and thoughts -- in his revolutionary re-imaging reality -- had a definite RELIGIOUS SUPPORT.

If E=MC2 were a religious statement, by the long-awaited prophecised messiah.

weirdness and hijinx would ensue

I respect the question, but have to consider the tangent here. "American Christians" and JESUS?

You pose a question in which -- if he's JESUS -- they'd know him.

If the question becomes "if a guy shows up saying the same words as Jesus said, but his words aren't linked to Jesus' own words, in the minds of American Christians ..." then that's the issue. Otherwise, you're saying he'd just be preaching a return to JESUS' WORDS.

Fundamentalists are doin' awright, these days.

This "different" Jesus would still be peeing off the religious hypocrites of ancient and modern days, sure.

But the STATE wouldn't be torturing and executing him. The religious Establishment wouldn't have that authority either.

What if BUDDHA came back to INDIA ???
There aren't many Buddhists left in the homesoil of Buddhism, relatively speaking ... buddhism went throughout asia and sort of fell into disuse in India (though I think Buddha was born in what is now NEPAL?)

What if MOHAMMAD came back to Saudi?
And preached some of his messages about all the "Children of the Book" co-existing in religious TOLERANCE. (Remember, the battles Mohammad fought with Jews THEN were basically secular wars between Jewish towns over TRADING and TAXES ... not religious war) heck, originally mohammad wanted muslims to pray towards JERUSALEM, not MECCA, I've heard.

What if NEWTON showed up in London? :) He'd be all ... "quantum WHAT?" ... but then he'd be "But I see you still haven't figured out GRAVITY have you? So hah!"

'It's a Universe of crystal spheres. It's elephants all the way down after that!' ;)

[Heatherwebb_writes]

You are not kidding. This is certainly a rough period we live in, but perhaps only in different ways than in past times.

These times are certainly different, but only in small technological ways. The human emotion never changes, nor does the vehicle used to express it.

It seems to me as if we're living through the dark ages again; where religions seek to control government and its people. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy and will be fought. Just look at the Bush administration and its radical religious following...the middle east and its leaders, Sarkozy in France, Afghanistan, etc. It's frightening times that we live in...but aren't they always?!
There's a great quote by Aristotle that speaks of living in dark times because of the unruly young. History repeats itself!

And Jesus would certainly choose the most unlikely place like he did the first time...what is the most lowly position we could think of?

[ColoradoGuy]

These times are certainly different, but only in small technological ways. The human emotion never changes, nor does the vehicle used to express it.
That's an assumption we commonly make, and in the shorter run -- say hundreds of years to a millennium or so -- it's probably true. Beyond that, however, I see no reason why evolutionary pressure can't work on human emotions. After all, how our brains make us feel ultimately must have a physical correlate.

[semilargeintestine]

And Jesus would certainly choose the most unlikely place like he did the first time...what is the most lowly position we could think of?

I don't understand what you mean by this. Why is Israel an unlikely place for the Jewish messiah to appear?

[kdnxdr]

As the practicing agnostic I'am, my sister (a practicing Christian, with a very open mind) and I frequently debate some different aspects of religion and over the weekend she posed an excellent question for debate.

Would American Christians follow the words of Jesus if he were alive to preach today?




I deleted my observations, felt they were to slanted, i'm more interested in others opinions.


After reading over the thread, well, at least 90%, I am not certain if it was clarified if the original question intended to address the first instance of Jesus physically on Earth or the second?

We all know that there is not one aspect of the subject of Jesus, or of Scripture, or of His supposed spoken words that is without controversy.

I'll respond to the question as determined by His Second Coming because for someone to be catagorized as a Christian, He would have already have been here. Also, I will take the position that "the words of Jesus" would be what ever he spoke upon His Second Coming.

Given those two considerations, I would say ANY and ALL believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Living, Almighty God would immediately recognize His voice/words and would bow/fall prostrate/worship. Secondly, those same believers would immediately obey, without doubt or questioning, whatever directives they were given by Jesus Christ.

Everyone else would do whatever they were going to do, including people who were "so-called" christians. Wearing a label does not determine identity.

[MacAllister]

(Just as a footnote, Charles M. Sheldon's 1896 book In His Steps (http://www.kancoll.org/books/sheldon/) is a classic take on this question, and quite readable.

[kdnxdr]

Thank you, MacAllister.

[Ziljon]

What a fascinating thread. I'm so impressed by the level of discourse. What a bunch of writers!

I'm surprised no one has already come up with the answer that popped into my head when I read the OP.

What would American Christians do with Jesus?

Wouldn't they immediately assume he was the anti-christ?

[MacAllister]

Thank you, MacAllister. I don't consider myself a Christian - but I do think this is a lovely book on many levels.

[darkprincealain]

These times are certainly different, but only in small technological ways. The human emotion never changes, nor does the vehicle used to express it.

It seems to me as if we're living through the dark ages again; where religions seek to control government and its people. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy and will be fought. Just look at the Bush administration and its radical religious following...the middle east and its leaders, Sarkozy in France, Afghanistan, etc. It's frightening times that we live in...but aren't they always?!
There's a great quote by Aristotle that speaks of living in dark times because of the unruly young. History repeats itself!

And Jesus would certainly choose the most unlikely place like he did the first time...what is the most lowly position we could think of?

I don't think we disagree, actually. I might disagree with you about the seriousness of the problems, but I wholeheartedly agree with you about what they are.

WRT seriousness, I feel that some of that is mitigated, at least in part, by the advances we've made in medicine, as well as the general ebb and flow of religions across borders. Things are getting better in certain areas and worse in others. Minority religions are probably less dominated than we might tend to believe. For example, I have my doubts that this (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf)
reflects what the same survey might have shown, maybe thirty years prior, in 1977. I guess I'd have to google a similar study to prove it, but the likelihood of finding a survey that is comparable is probably nil.

If in fact Jesus did choose to appear in an unlikely place, my first thought would be a third world country without adequate drinking water. I wonder if recent nonprofit commercials on TV might have skewed my view, there.

[semilargeintestine]

I can tell you that as of now, Jews make up 2.2 percent of the American population, as opposed to 1.7 in that survey. We really dominate everything, don't we? :D

[darkprincealain]

Three years can make a lot of change. Heck, three seconds can make a lot of change. :D

[Don Allen]

I understand your question deals with 'American Christians' and that's being well discussed!

But to see the differences in Jesus' mission or reception, wouldn't we have to examine how Jesus would be received in a Theocracy though (as Judea was, with an overlay of Imperial Rome) not in a "Western secular" society?

Jesus was making his points by referring to pre-existing Sacred Scriptures ... and his Life and the "religion" that arose from his life and Teachings was based upon his fulfilment of culturally accepted Sacred Prophecies. (even amongst the pagans who became Christians, much was made of the claim that Jesus had been PROPHESIED and then ACTUALLY ARRIVED etc)

To have the same or comparable impact as Jesus had then, his teachings would have to be based upon the "fulfillment" of expected Prophecy (which only exist NOW among "American Christians" as being his SECOND COMING.)

In a science-influenced culture such as America is today (where even Christians are heavily influenced by Science and Technology -- don't delude ourselves on that) ... Jesus might have to be seen as fulfilling SCIENTIFIC expectations, rather than theocratic or Scriptural ones (of ancient Palestine) -- he'd have to be amazing us via "scientific miracles" and re-illuminating scientific dogma for an amazed crowd (rather than dealing in already-fulfilled Scripture or religious "miracles")

Imagine if EINSTEIN's theories and thoughts -- in his revolutionary re-imaging reality -- had a definite RELIGIOUS SUPPORT.

If E=MC2 were a religious statement, by the long-awaited prophecised messiah.

weirdness and hijinx would ensue

I respect the question, but have to consider the tangent here. "American Christians" and JESUS?

You pose a question in which -- if he's JESUS -- they'd know him.

If the question becomes "if a guy shows up saying the same words as Jesus said, but his words aren't linked to Jesus' own words, in the minds of American Christians ..." then that's the issue. Otherwise, you're saying he'd just be preaching a return to JESUS' WORDS.

Fundamentalists are doin' awright, these days.

This "different" Jesus would still be peeing off the religious hypocrites of ancient and modern days, sure.

But the STATE wouldn't be torturing and executing him. The religious Establishment wouldn't have that authority either.

What if BUDDHA came back to INDIA ???
There aren't many Buddhists left in the homesoil of Buddhism, relatively speaking ... buddhism went throughout asia and sort of fell into disuse in India (though I think Buddha was born in what is now NEPAL?)

What if MOHAMMAD came back to Saudi?
And preached some of his messages about all the "Children of the Book" co-existing in religious TOLERANCE. (Remember, the battles Mohammad fought with Jews THEN were basically secular wars between Jewish towns over TRADING and TAXES ... not religious war) heck, originally mohammad wanted muslims to pray towards JERUSALEM, not MECCA, I've heard.

What if NEWTON showed up in London? :) He'd be all ... "quantum WHAT?" ... but then he'd be "But I see you still haven't figured out GRAVITY have you? So hah!"

'It's a Universe of crystal spheres. It's elephants all the way down after that!' ;)

You make some excellent points, and are correct in posing the same questions about other religions.

To explain my purpose in singling out "American Christians" is two fold.. First it has been my experience with European Christians that they hold their faith and beliefs much more inwardly than do Americans. (Remember this is for discussion and not meant as an indictment either way) By this, I mean that Europeans seem to keep their faith private and to themselves and their families, they don't wear it upon their sleeves to the degree Americans do. Again my experience..

So it occurred to me that a second coming of Jesus, would be welcomed at face value in other parts of the world as divine intervention worthy of events set forth in the Bible. Undoubtedly there would be issues, but for my arguments sake I would assume those issues would be echoed by Americans as well.

So secondly, in America there is so much philosophical conflict between the different faiths of the Christian order that I posed the question, not as entrapment of hypocrisy, but to understand the equivocal balance that Politics, social issues, and as you point out, even science would play against the stricter interpretation of Christ's words.. Not biblical mind you, but that of the man himself...