The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[Limnor]

I suppose what I find interesting is that non believers will frequently say, “If Jesus were alive/here” and then point out what He would think, what He would do, how He would judge, etc…as though they know the purposes and mind of Jesus from a book that they themselves distrust to give an accurate/complete description of Him and what He taught in its entirety, etc.

Excuse me, what?

John Chapter 21 (KJV)

24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
.

I interpret this: “book that they themselves distrust to give an accurate/complete description of Him and what He taught in its entirety, etc.” as projection.

Although a more abrupt interpretation to match the subtleness of the attempt to implant an idea might be along the lines of “did God really say?”

[PseudoPaul]

Do you think He is alive today? And if the answer is yes, would you not think that there would be a religion that would carry His name throughout the world doing so in His name? And that a church claiming to be His would carry His name?

No, of course not. He was crucified by Rome. Even if he had somehow escaped death that way (not plausible) he would have died of old age in the first century.

If he had survived, that religion would be a form of eschatological Judaism, focused on redistributive justice and the overthrow of tyranny by divine action. Certainly not Christianity.

[PseudoPaul]

I come out at about the same place. Modern Christianity ignores Jesus’s instructions about how his followers should live their lives. I’d never heard the term “vampire Christianity,” but it fits.

I suppose what I find interesting is that non believers will frequently say, “If Jesus were alive/here” and then point out what He would think, what He would do, how He would judge, etc…as though they know the purposes and mind of Jesus from a book that they themselves distrust to give an accurate/complete description of Him and what He taught in its entirety, etc.

This, as THOUGH He were alive and resurrected in the flesh. And yet they don’t hold that belief in many instances. I’m not sure I understand that.

I hear folks saying what he would NOT do. Still, how do they know? It’s easy, I guess, to put words and actions into the mouth/mind of someone you think has been dead for 2000 years or didn’t exist in the first place.

A made up Jesus.

Regards,
MG

We can make reasonable inferences from the most plausibly historical sayings found in the synoptic gospels.

[malkie]

I come out at about the same place. Modern Christianity ignores Jesus’s instructions about how his followers should live their lives. I’d never heard the term “vampire Christianity,” but it fits.

I suppose what I find interesting is that non believers will frequently say, “If Jesus were alive/here” and then point out what He would think, what He would do, how He would judge, etc…as though they know the purposes and mind of Jesus from a book that they themselves distrust to give an accurate/complete description of Him and what He taught in its entirety, etc.

This, as THOUGH He were alive and resurrected in the flesh. And yet they don’t hold that belief in many instances. I’m not sure I understand that.

I hear folks saying what he would NOT do. Still, how do they know? It’s easy, I guess, to put words and actions into the mouth/mind of someone you think has been dead for 2000 years or didn’t exist in the first place.

A made up Jesus.

Regards,
MG

Here's an explanation, and purpose for non-believers doing so.

From the sayings attributed to Jesus, in a book that Christians generally believe in, you can anticipate what reaction Jesus might have to certain situations, if, for the sake of argument, he existed and said these things.

On that basis (perhaps to be inferred from the context of what the non-believer is saying) it may be possible to determine that so-called believers do not actually believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, or that their actions appear to be opposed, in varying degrees, to what one might reasonably expect Jesus to approve of.

Having written this out I now see that PseudoPaul (whom I sometimes think of as "sudo Paul") has said it much more concisely.

Still, what surprises me is that it's necessary to explain this at all, as a smart believer like MG ought to be sufficiently aware and self-aware to already understand it.

It might be argued that the Jesus of many "believers" is every bit as much of a "made up Jesus", when you look at their attitudes and actions.

[huckelberry]

I agree that the basic Christian doctrine of the Atonement seems like a non sequitur to most of the teachings that have been attributed to Jesus. This struck me years ago in a Bible study that went very slowly through the Sermon on the Mount. We tried to pay attention to all the contexts and connection words, so we noticed that the frame of the Sermon says that Jesus is preaching the gospel. Today that means proclaiming that Jesus died for our sins. Yet that wasn’t what Jesus said. His headline item was some stuff about the poor being blessed.

It does seem probable that the Atonement became this foundational doctrine as a way to rationalize the catastrophe of Jesus’s death. The Gospels do have Jesus say a few things that point toward the Atonement, but they are few enough, and isolated enough, that they could well be later insertions. They wouldn’t have to be deliberate fraud; the nearly inevitable garbling in recopying, and in oral transmission before written copies, can coalesce innocently around things that seem to make sense.

I still wonder about the Eucharist, though. It’s a weird tradition but it seems to have taken hold early as the essential Christian activity. That seems like a more likely outcome if the Eucharist was actually based on something Jesus did say, at a climactic moment, than if it was just invented by an otherwise rather uncreative community. Attributing too much creativity to the post-Jesus Christian community seems like projecting history backwards, as if the cultural behemoth that Christianity later became somehow summoned itself into existence like the plot of a bad time travel movie.

I have always wondered why Jesus got himself crucified. He seems savvy enough to have known the risks he was running. Why didn’t he just retreat to Galilee and let things cool down, go guerilla mode, play the long game? One plausible explanation is that he really did have a messiah complex and really did think that he might have to die as part of some divine plan.

He may not have had that in mind from the start, but it might well have grown on him. So I’m inclined to think of the Atonement, at least in some proto-version, as not a post-Jesus concept, but rather a late-Jesus concept.

Physics Guy, I share your view here. I think the action called cleansing the temple would mark a crucial step in that development. It was a radical move that lead to his arrest. It called into question the then current sacrificial operation
It was not just money changers, the temple was to be a house of prayer.

Jesus clearly lived in the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic expectations but using those traditions to decide what Jesus really thought limits his ability to think for himself with any originality. I think it makes more sense to listen to what is reported of Jesus to get a picture of him not limiting him to conventional apocalyptic preacher.

[huckelberry]

Do you think He is alive today? And if the answer is yes, would you not think that there would be a religion that would carry His name throughout the world doing so in His name? And that a church claiming to be His would carry His name?

No, of course not. He was crucified by Rome. Even if he had somehow escaped death that way (not plausible) he would have died of old age in the first century.

If he had survived, that religion would be a form of eschatological Judaism, focused on redistributive justice and the overthrow of tyranny by divine action. Certainly not Christianity.

One could view Christianity as aiming this way for the past 2000 years. How to put that into action is not so clear however.people wish for justice and are hoping Jesus will return divinely establishing it. There is also a hope people will internalize Jesus aims over time growing closer to the goals.

[PseudoPaul]

No, of course not. He was crucified by Rome. Even if he had somehow escaped death that way (not plausible) he would have died of old age in the first century.

If he had survived, that religion would be a form of eschatological Judaism, focused on redistributive justice and the overthrow of tyranny by divine action. Certainly not Christianity.

One could view Christianity as aiming this way for the past 2000 years. How to put that into action is not so clear however.people wish for justice and are hoping Jesus will return divinely establishing it. There is also a hope people will internalize Jesus aims over time growing closer to the goals.

Christianity can and has had those qualities (eschatological, justice, etc), but it leaves out the Judaism. And adds the atonement theology, which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

[MG 2.0]

I have always wondered why Jesus got himself crucified. He seems savvy enough to have known the risks he was running. Why didn’t he just retreat to Galilee and let things cool down, go guerilla mode, play the long game? One plausible explanation is that he really did have a messiah complex and really did think that he might have to die as part of some divine plan.

Those that served with Him and those that He associated with during His ministry seemed to wonder along with you.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r ... &FORM=VIRE

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Whether Jesus existed or not is a red herring.

I don't believe so. It makes ALL the difference. Along with whether He lives today and was resurrected.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Do you think He is alive today? And if the answer is yes, would you not think that there would be a religion that would carry His name throughout the world doing so in His name? And that a church claiming to be His would carry His name?

No, of course not.

Of course...why?

Regards,
MG