Turning against Jesus

Speculation thread to pose a hypothetical:

Jesus comes down, preaches most of Mark, Mathew and Luke, ignores John and points to Trump saying, “He’s the one I warned you about.” He follows that up with a rant against guns, money and throwing children in concentration camps. He adds to it admonishments for scapegoating the meek and mocking the compassionate who speak out for them. When asked about fetuses, he shrugs and says. “They do not walk among you like all my children.”

Will the faithful follow his lead or would he be run out of town?

Somehow, I don’t see the MAGA crowd buying into this guy. And, that brings up a good point. Who exactly are they following? IMO, it certainly isn’t the Jesus described in M, M & L.

What if there was a real Jesus, and he said all that “socialist” stuff like feed the poor and shun the rich, love thy neighbor and care for the least among you, turn the other cheek and don’t cast stones, etc.? Has the “flock” turned against him?

"Then if any man shall say to you, See, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Why if they shall say to you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even to the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:23-27, AKJV)

The rest of your hypothetical boils down to "What would you do if Christ returned and preached progressivism, against his own doctrines?"

I suppose if he truly was the Christ and had established Zion, with all the power and authority of God, and I wasn't among the elect, I would plead for forgiveness and understanding, because I can't conceive of how to reconcile scripture with progressivism.

If Jesus retuned and seen Trump he would say "Hi Dad"

COTO said:

"Then if any man shall say to you, See, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Why if they shall say to you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even to the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:23-27, AKJV)

The rest of your hypothetical boils down to "What would you do if Christ returned and preached progressivism, against his own doctrines?"

I suppose if he truly was the Christ and had established Zion, with all the power and authority of God, and I wasn't among the elect, I would plead for forgiveness and understanding, because I can't conceive of how to reconcile scripture with progressivism.

Click to expand...

Please provide your personal definition of 'progressivism', and explain why it 'goes against Christ's own doctrines. "

gulfman said:

If Jesus retuned and seen Trump he would say "Hi Dad"

Click to expand...

You mean "Hi Dad. Why did you forsake me" ?

Logician Man said:

Please provide your personal definition of 'progressivism', and explain why it 'goes against Christ's own doctrines. "

Click to expand...

The OP suggests Christ would rebuke Christians (indeed, the whole world) for taking a pro-life stance, enforcing national borders, and failing to recognize Pres. Trump as (I'm assuming) the antichrist.

The Bible is crystal clear on the matter of personhood in the womb ("breath of life" apologetics notwithstanding) and on the importance of enforcing national borders (as well as upholding the law and obeying the law). Pres. Trump doesn't resemble the antichrist in numerous respects that are impossible to mistake. The signs and events prophesied to accompany the antichrist haven't accompanied Pres. Trump.

Most importantly, Christ wouldn't ignore the gospel of John (and, apparently, the entire Bible save for the synoptic gospels). Every part of the Bible is critical to its proper interpretation. If we ignore verses or even entire books because we can't reconcile them with our personal understanding of scripture, we can heap up for ourselves all kinds of false doctrines. "But [Jesus] answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4, AKJV) Note "every word" and not "the synoptic gospels and forget the rest".

gulfman said:

If Jesus retuned and seen Trump he would say "Hi Dad"

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Speculation thread to pose a hypothetical:

Jesus comes down, preaches most of Mark, Mathew and Luke, ignores John and points to Trump saying, “He’s the one I warned you about.” He follows that up with a rant against guns, money and throwing children in concentration camps. He adds to it admonishments for scapegoating the meek and mocking the compassionate who speak out for them. When asked about fetuses, he shrugs and says. “They do not walk among you like all my children.”

Will the faithful follow his lead or would he be run out of town?

Somehow, I don’t see the MAGA crowd buying into this guy. And, that brings up a good point. Who exactly are they following? IMO, it certainly isn’t the Jesus described in M, M & L.

What if there was a real Jesus, and he said all that “socialist” stuff like feed the poor and shun the rich, love thy neighbor and care for the least among you, turn the other cheek and don’t cast stones, etc.? Has the “flock” turned against him?

Click to expand...

You completely miss the whole point of Christian charity, which isn't just to feed people or clothe them or make them feel better. It's to save their souls, which requires a personal witness and can't be accomplished with a check from the government.

Jesus came to glorify God and show the way to eternal life. That was the reason for all the miracles, and that's the reason for Christian charity. Without it there might be charity, but it's not Christian charity.

COTO said:

"Then if any man shall say to you, See, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Why if they shall say to you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even to the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:23-27, AKJV)

The rest of your hypothetical boils down to "What would you do if Christ returned and preached progressivism, against his own doctrines?"

I suppose if he truly was the Christ and had established Zion, with all the power and authority of God, and I wasn't among the elect, I would plead for forgiveness and understanding, because I can't conceive of how to reconcile scripture with progressivism.

Click to expand...

The original Jesus was quite progressive. How does that message escape so many of his current followers?

LowDown said:

You completely miss the whole point of Christian charity, which isn't just to feed people or clothe them or make them feel better. It's to save their souls, which requires a personal witness and can't be accomplished with a check from the government.

Jesus came to glorify God and show the way to eternal life. That was the reason for all the miracles, and that's the reason for Christian charity. Without it there might be charity, but it's not Christian charity.

Click to expand...

That's more John than Mark, Mathew and Luke. Read the op you quoted to see why that matters in this context.

COTO said:

The OP suggests Christ would rebuke Christians (indeed, the whole world) for taking a pro-life stance, enforcing national borders, and failing to recognize Pres. Trump as (I'm assuming) the antichrist.

The Bible is crystal clear on the matter of personhood in the womb ("breath of life" apologetics notwithstanding) and on the importance of enforcing national borders (as well as upholding the law and obeying the law). Pres. Trump doesn't resemble the antichrist in numerous respects that are impossible to mistake. The signs and events prophesied to accompany the antichrist haven't accompanied Pres. Trump.

Most importantly, Christ wouldn't ignore the gospel of John (and, apparently, the entire Bible save for the synoptic gospels). Every part of the Bible is critical to its proper interpretation. If we ignore verses or even entire books because we can't reconcile them with our personal understanding of scripture, we can heap up for ourselves all kinds of false doctrines. "But [Jesus] answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4, AKJV) Note "every word" and not "the synoptic gospels and forget the rest".

Click to expand...

Note the word "Breath." Fetuses have no breath. That comes later, when they pop out of the birthing hole.

calamity said:

Speculation thread to pose a hypothetical:

Jesus comes down, preaches most of Mark, Mathew and Luke, ignores John and points to Trump saying, “He’s the one I warned you about.” He follows that up with a rant against guns, money and throwing children in concentration camps. He adds to it admonishments for scapegoating the meek and mocking the compassionate who speak out for them. When asked about fetuses, he shrugs and says. “They do not walk among you like all my children.”

Will the faithful follow his lead or would he be run out of town?

Somehow, I don’t see the MAGA crowd buying into this guy. And, that brings up a good point. Who exactly are they following? IMO, it certainly isn’t the Jesus described in M, M & L.

What if there was a real Jesus, and he said all that “socialist” stuff like feed the poor and shun the rich, love thy neighbor and care for the least among you, turn the other cheek and don’t cast stones, etc.? Has the “flock” turned against him?

Click to expand...

Nonsensical hypothetical.

During the time of Jesus, our reality today, and everywhere in between there is no example of theocratic socialism in this context, and as such there is no practical means of applying all the religious principles you jumble up into today’s political climate.

All the debates we have had on this notwithstanding, it is not reasonable to apply the principles of religious and social concepts from over 2000 years ago to the debates we have today along these lines. Governmental principles, social interactions, and the application of belief are no where in the same realm to draw comparisons on. Just based on the text from the period ending up in the Bible (all written by those who never met him) there are no real principles that would apply to either modern conservatism or modern liberalism. None. Our debates today on healthcare, immigration, abortion, socialism vs. capitalism, whatever else involve concepts and understanding that did not exist over 2000 years ago. So predictably, religion makes **** up to bridge the gap but that is no reason to join in and make up such a hypothetical.

For those that do believe, there is always ‘reasoning’ for why God (Jesus, what have you) has not returned yet no matter what we see and that tends to collide with the ‘end of the world’ prophecies that turned out to be false. That should alone tell you something.

OrphanSlug said:

Nonsensical hypothetical.

During the time of Jesus, our reality today, and everywhere in between there is no example of theocratic socialism in this context, and as such there is no practical means of applying all the religious principles you jumble up into today’s political climate.

All the debates we have had on this notwithstanding, it is not reasonable to apply the principles of religious and social concepts from over 2000 years ago to the debates we have today along these lines. Governmental principles, social interactions, and the application of belief are no where in the same realm to draw comparisons on. Just based on the text from the period ending up in the Bible (all written by those who never met him) there are no real principles that would apply to either modern conservatism or modern liberalism. None. Our debates today on healthcare, immigration, abortion, socialism vs. capitalism, whatever else involve concepts and understanding that did not exist over 2000 years ago. So predictably, religion makes **** up to bridge the gap but that is no reason to join in and make up such a hypothetical.

For those that do believe, there is always ‘reasoning’ for why God (Jesus, what have you) has not returned yet no matter what we see and that tends to collide with the ‘end of the world’ prophecies that turned out to be false. That should alone tell you something.

Click to expand...

:roll:

9 Quotes From Jesus On Why We Must Help The Poor

Notice there is no John on the list. Hence, my op is dead accurate.

Christians need to pay less attention to John and more to M, M & L, if they truly wish to follow Jesus, that is.

calamity said:

:roll:

9 Quotes From Jesus On Why We Must Help The Poor

Notice there is no John on the list. Hence, my op is dead accurate.

Christians need to pay less attention to John and more to M, M & L, if they truly wish to follow Jesus, that is.

Click to expand...

The question, predictably, is who is “we?” (Not a one of those quote suggests it is who you suggest.)

OrphanSlug said:

The question, predictably, is who is “we?” (Not a one of those quote suggests it is who you suggest.)

Click to expand...

You tell me.

Do you think Jesus would stand strong for guns, walls and throwing children in concentration camps?

calamity said:

You tell me.

Do you think Jesus would stand strong for guns, walls and throwing children in concentration camps?

Click to expand...

You missed the point, and are avoiding your own assertions. Again, who is the “we” in the we must help them. Because the principles of what you put forth in the OP suggest everyone via government force.

All this side argument over “guns, walls, and throwing children in concentration camps” is you appealing to emotion and trying to avoid backing up your own argument.

OrphanSlug said:

You missed the point, and are avoiding your own assertions. Again, who is the “we” in the we must help them. Because the principles of what you put forth in the OP suggest everyone via government force.

All this side argument over “guns, walls, and throwing children in concentration camps” is you appealing to emotion and trying to avoid backing up your own argument.

Click to expand...

My point is that MAGA Christians are not following Christ. And, it's a good one.

calamity said:

My point is that MAGA Christians are not following Christ. And, it's a good one.

Click to expand...

No, they are not following your interpretation of Christianity via weaponizing various scripture in the exact opposite way they do to justify their actions.

Another added note... you are also, rather ironically, proclaiming you are the authority on what all that means.

OrphanSlug said:

No, they are not following your interpretation of Christianity via weaponizing various scripture in the exact opposite way they do to justify their actions.

Click to expand...

Correction: They are not following the Jesus in Mark, Mathew and Luke, putting all their eggs in John's deplorable basket.

COTO said:

The OP suggests Christ would rebuke Christians (indeed, the whole world) for taking a pro-life stance, enforcing national borders, and failing to recognize Pres. Trump as (I'm assuming) the antichrist.

The Bible is crystal clear on the matter of personhood in the womb ("breath of life" apologetics notwithstanding) and on the importance of enforcing national borders (as well as upholding the law and obeying the law). Pres. Trump doesn't resemble the antichrist in numerous respects that are impossible to mistake. The signs and events prophesied to accompany the antichrist haven't accompanied Pres. Trump.

Most importantly, Christ wouldn't ignore the gospel of John (and, apparently, the entire Bible save for the synoptic gospels). Every part of the Bible is critical to its proper interpretation. If we ignore verses or even entire books because we can't reconcile them with our personal understanding of scripture, we can heap up for ourselves all kinds of false doctrines. "But [Jesus] answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4, AKJV) Note "every word" and not "the synoptic gospels and forget the rest".

Click to expand...

Jesus did not preach from the bible and wouldn't reference it at all.

calamity said:

Note the word "Breath." Fetuses have no breath. That comes later, when they pop out of the birthing hole.

Click to expand...

Yep. The biblical illiteracy at this site (and elsewhere) never ceases to amaze me.

devildavid said:

Jesus did not preach from the bible and wouldn't reference it at all.

Click to expand...

Jesus referred continually to the Old Testament.

calamity said:

The original Jesus was quite progressive. How does that message escape so many of his current followers?

Click to expand...

Possibly because they've read, studied, and internalized more than 3/49ths of the Bible?

calamity said:

Note the word "Breath." Fetuses have no breath. That comes later, when they pop out of the birthing hole.

Click to expand...

I know how babies work, thank you.

There are some members here who twist Genesis 2:7 into claiming a fetus isn't a person until it takes its first breath, which they do by ignoring or reasoning around numerous other scriptures, including John 20:22. Seeing as you've been a fixture here for years, I presumed you'd be aware of this, and to preempt a digressionary rebuttal from you or these members, I disclaimed "'breath of life' apologetics notwithstanding", meaning: the preceding statement, "the Bible is crystal clear on the matter of personhood in the womb", holds true in spite of certain members' claiming otherwise.

devildavid said:

Jesus did not preach from the bible and wouldn't reference it at all.

Click to expand...

Of course, at the time Christ came, the 22 books of the New Testament hadn't been written yet, and the Bible as we know it today didn't exist. This wouldn't change until the latter part of the 1st Century, when Peter (who was martyred shortly after Paul) and then John, the last surviving apostle, compiled the 22 letters, gospel accounts, and various other books into a bound New Testament canon, which was a task that Christ had personally charged them with. (It would be these same books recognized as canon by the many councils of the Catholic Church centuries later.)

Christ quoted extensively from the Old Testament scriptures, which were the only scriptures available during his ministry. The teachings of his Earthly ministry would ultimately give rise to the New Testament. Today, both are canon (i.e. scripture).

COTO said:

Possibly because they've read, studied, and internalized more than 3/49ths of the Bible?


I know how babies work, thank you.....

Click to expand...

Apparently not, if you think they breathe.

calamity said:

Apparently not, if you think they breathe.

Click to expand...

You're pretending not to understand his point. He said, "to preempt a digressionary rebuttal from you or these members, I disclaimed 'breath of life' apologetics notwithstanding."