• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Jesus Christianity?

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Come again, but Jesus did not say ‘where’ He would come or ‘how’ He would come so there is no reason to think this one verse is Jesus saying He will come to earth again in the same body He had when He walked the earth 2000 years ago, especially in light of all these other verses that contradict that (John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36).

"and receive you unto myself" is obviously about the Spirit of Jesus, not His physical body, and please note that Jesus did not ever say He would come again and ‘do’ anything on earth that would require a body, like building a Kingdom of God on earth, as Christians believe Jesus will do.

Jesus did not say my body will come again. The spirit of Jesus did come again, in the Person of Baha'u'llah, and that was what Jesus promised to send. Jesus was a Comforter who brought the Holy Spirit and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter who would brought the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

"and receive you unto myself" is obviously about the Spirit of Jesus, not about His physical body, because there would be no way that the disciples Jesus was speaking to could receive the body of Jesus on earth since they were no longer living on earth. Where Jesus was in heaven and that is where the disciples also are, so that is where Jesus received them. That is why Jesus said that He went to prepare a place for them, a place in heaven, not on earth.

Christ’s return is not the same as the return of the same Jesus in the same body. Christians have been waiting of the same Jesus in the same body to return, and the reason they are still waiting is becauae Jesus never planned or promised to return in the same body.

I am saying that any Christians who believed that the same man Jesus was going to return to earth in the same body He had 2000 years ago have been wrong from day one, and that is why all the prophecies for the return of Christ have been fulfilled and yet no Jesus has returned.

Christians can ‘believe’ anything they want to, but beliefs do not constitute proof of any kind. The salient point is that Jesus promised He would send His Spirit, which is what Jesus was referring to in John 14:3, and not even once in the New Testament did Jesus promise to return as the same man in the same body. That is a Christian belief and a Christian expectation, not anything Jesus ever promised to do. It is only because Christians believe that the same body of Jesus resurrected from the dead that they are able to maintain a belief that the same body of Jesus is going to return from heaven.

It can be proven by using the New Testament that Jesus never planned or promised to return and that Jesus was referring to another man who would come with another name and fulfill all the Bible prophecies (OT and NT) for the return of Christ and the Messiah, but that will make no difference to Christians because they ‘want’ the same man Jesus in the same body because they are emotionally attached to an image of Jesus that was portrayed in the New Testament.
Hebrews 9:28 "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Mathew 24:30 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done"

Jesus is returning to deal with rebellion — sin — before setting up His Kingdom on earth. It is God's merciful and loving nature to let us know beforehand that Jesus will arrive in justice and judgment to give us a chance to repent. 2 Peter 3:9 explains, "God does not wish that any should perish but that all should be brought to repentance."
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Indeed, the Christians created a new religion by merging different religious ideas. The question is though, did the historical Jesus intend it to take a very different direction to the one he himself had pointed out? I don't think he did, because tantric teachings and tantric practices are more advanced (for more advanced spiritual aspirants) than religious ideas and practices such as the Christian ones.

Christianity was perfectly suited for the Greek world and the Roman empire but it has little to do with the tantric mission which Jesus attempted to kick-start.
The tantra of Jesus is much more of a spiritual philosophy, closer to Buddhism, Sufism and Hindu tantra-yoga than to the Christianity reflected in the New Testament.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Present-day Christianity is not about the Jesus who walked the earth, it is about what was added and written about Jesus after that and it is about the doctrines (tenets) of the Church and it is about what Paul added.
Is Jesus Christianity?

NO.

That is a similar mistake as:
twisting
"Jesus is God"

Into
"God is Jesus"

Here, obviously the second one is totally different from the first one, and would make many Bible verses inconsistent, hence the second one should not be declared, and in a similar way the Title should not be declared
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Is Jesus Christianity?

NO.

That is a similar mistake as:
twisting
"Jesus is God"

Into
"God is Jesus"

Here, obviously the second one is totally different from the first one, and would make many Bible verses inconsistent, hence the second one should not be declared, and in a similar way the Title is not correct to declare.

Well hell. Thats an interesting analogy. A good one.

And mind you, there have been some who actually tried to make the case that God is Jesus. But I think that is a misunderstanding of their own theology.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Come again, but Jesus did not say ‘where’ He would come or ‘how’ He would come so there is no reason to think this one verse is Jesus saying He will come to earth again in the same body He had when He walked the earth 2000 years ago, especially in light of all these other verses that contradict that (John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36).
I was making a case that early Christians, pretty much across the board, held a belief that Jesus would return, within their lifetimes - post death and resurrection. That much is clear from all the texts across all the authors I cited. It's not just a matter of what John said, but what all of them said. It's hard to read John's "come again" outside of that larger context.

And mentioning him returning in a physical body, the one he had as a human? I certainly didn't suggest that, nor do I believe that was anything universally believed in that way by early Christians. In fact, the physical resurrection itself was disputed by other Christians. Many viewed it as a spiritual body, or a manifest form of some spiritual energy. "I saw the risen Christ," typically was in a vision, according to scripture.

"and receive you unto myself" is obviously about the Spirit of Jesus, not His physical body, and please note that Jesus did not ever say He would come again and ‘do’ anything on earth that would require a body, like building a Kingdom of God on earth, as Christians believe Jesus will do.
Again, nothing I said, or am claiming early Christians believed, requires that view. That's a separate belief, and the belief of the 2nd coming, is not dependent upon that materialistic view of it. Some people just have a hard time with metaphors, and need things to be concrete and literal in order to envision it - like imagining God has a body, and is an "entity" or a "being" outside of creation, "up" in heaven, as a "place", and so forth.

I don't believe any of that defines Christian faith. It's merely a way some need to think about God, in order to visualize God. It doesn't define God, nor the reasons why people believe in God.

Jesus did not say my body will come again. The spirit of Jesus did come again, in the Person of Baha'u'llah, and that was what Jesus promised to send. Jesus was a Comforter who brought the Holy Spirit and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter who would brought the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
"Another comforter", is not referring to a future prophet. It is speaking of the Holy Spirit, which it explicitly says. Bahulla, or some other prophet, is not "in you". The Holy Spirit can however. In order for a prophet to be "in you", well.... that might be problematic for most, not to mention necessarily moral, or even legal, not to even mention how that is accomplished once that prophet is no longer alive and has been dead for many years.

No, those versus are referring to the Spirit of God, or God's Spirit. It certainly was a view of early Christians that "Christ in you", the "Spirit in you", "God in you", the Spirit of God", etc, are all the same thing. Not a person, but Spirit. God is not a person. "God is Spirit, "John 4:24

Christ’s return is not the same as the return of the same Jesus in the same body. Christians have been waiting of the same Jesus in the same body to return, and the reason they are still waiting is becauae Jesus never planned or promised to return in the same body.
Agreed. I don't think most Christians actually believe Jesus will return with the same physical body. I'm sure a few young in their faith, might think that literally though, because they still need to. Obviously, there are shortcomings with that way of thinking about spiritual truths however.

I am saying that any Christians who believed that the same man Jesus was going to return to earth in the same body He had 2000 years ago have been wrong from day one, and that is why all the prophecies for the return of Christ have been fulfilled and yet no Jesus has returned.
But isn't claiming your prophet is the 2nd coming of Jesus, itself expecting a physical form? Isn't that just the flip side of the same materialist coin, "not his original body, but a different body of with a different earthly parents? Isn't that all the same type of expectation of physical presence? Unless I'm mistaken about your beliefs?

It can be proven by using the New Testament that Jesus never planned or promised to return and that Jesus was referring to another man who would come with another name and fulfill all the Bible prophecies (OT and NT) for the return of Christ and the Messiah, but that will make no difference to Christians because they ‘want’ the same man Jesus in the same body because they are emotionally attached to an image of Jesus that was portrayed in the New Testament.
Expecting it to be fulfilled in some future prophet, is no different in kind than expecting Jesus to come back in a human body.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Thats ad hominem.

I can expect a lot more fallacies I can see. Lets hear it. Its interesting.



Did you just bring up Islam because you believe I am Muslim? Is not that a Tu Quoque fallacy?

I think you have done three things so far.

1. Accuse all "GURU'S" of having a sinister motive, nothing else. So All so called "Guru's" as you referred, then addressed Bahai's, now Muslims, seems like you addressed everyone who ever question anything you believe are all crooks with a sinister intent. Nothing less, nothing more. So that's a no true scotsman fallacy.

2. Then you assumed that me asking you for the research you did to make that kind of wide, general dismissal, you obviously assumed that I have a sinister plan as well. That was of course part of your general idea about everyone who questions you. Thats generally called bigotry when you generalise far and wide.

3. Now you have brought in Islam into the picture which is irrelevant to the question you raised about Jesus. Thats a Tu Quoque looking for hypocrisy in the other rather than addressing the subject matter.

At least I am getting a reminder of some logical fallacies.

Please keep going.
Thats ad hominem.

I can expect a lot more fallacies I can see. Lets hear it. Its interesting.



Did you just bring up Islam because you believe I am Muslim? Is not that a Tu Quoque fallacy?

I think you have done three things so far.

1. Accuse all "GURU'S" of having a sinister motive, nothing else. So All so called "Guru's" as you referred, then addressed Bahai's, now Muslims, seems like you addressed everyone who ever question anything you believe are all crooks with a sinister intent. Nothing less, nothing more. So that's a no true scotsman fallacy.

2. Then you assumed that me asking you for the research you did to make that kind of wide, general dismissal, you obviously assumed that I have a sinister plan as well. That was of course part of your general idea about everyone who questions you. Thats generally called bigotry when you generalise far and wide.

3. Now you have brought in Islam into the picture which is irrelevant to the question you raised about Jesus. Thats a Tu Quoque looking for hypocrisy in the other rather than addressing the subject matter.

At least I am getting a reminder of some logical fallacies.

Please keep going.
I said followers of other "gurus", nothing about sinister motives. Your straw man Scotsman is practicing phycological projection.

I don't assume you are a Muslim, I asked you once what your faith is but you wouldn't say.

With 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who see Jesus as a prophet but reject his identity and office then your claim of "generalizing" is laughable.

The followers of other gurus or teachers who dismiss Jesus are dismissing core aspects of his teaching either tacitly or outwardly.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Specifically, Jesus was inclusive, Paul is exclusive. I'm thinking about his writings about women staying silent, being subservient etc.
There is debate about that text being authentic to Paul, which the passage reads more consistently without it being in there. But aside from that dispute, if Paul had misogynistic or otherwise outdated views as part of his cultural inheritance, one can feel free to disregard cultural artifacts as Divine Truth in Paul all they want.

As one author I like put it about Paul, "When he's good, he's really, really good. But when he's bad, he's horrid!" That's a good way to pick up and read Paul. There's plenty he says that speaks truth, and other stuff he says, or at least that is attributed to him, that is not so much so. Same thing in the gospels with Jesus too, considering how some read his words. :)

The earliest Paul however, according to scholars like Crossan and Borg, say he was radically inclusive. That wasn't good enough for later "Paul's" to change what the radical Paul had said to fit in order to fit cultural norms, like the place of women in church, for instance for social conservatives:
The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon
 
Last edited:

Orbit

I'm a planet
There is debate about that text being authentic to Paul, which the passage reads more consistently without it being in there. But aside from that dispute, if Paul had misogynistic or otherwise outdated views as part of his cultural inheritance, one can feel free to disregard cultural artifacts as Divine Truth in Paul all they want.

As one author I like put it about Paul, "When he's good, he's really, really good. But when he's bad, he's horrid!" That's a good way to pick up and read Paul. There's plenty he says that speaks truth, and other stuff he says, or at least that is attributed to him, that is not so much so. Same thing in the gospels with Jesus too, considering how some read his words. :)

The earliest Paul however, according to scholars like Crossan and Borg, say he was radically inclusive. That wasn't good enough for later "Paul's" to change what the radical Paul had said to fit in order to fit cultural norms, like the place of women in church, for instance for social conservatives:
The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon

Thanks for the link; I ordered that.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thanks for the link; I ordered that.
Cool! It's a good read. I'm a huge Crossan fan. Let me know your thoughts about it. His views on slavery, is where you'll really see the shift in "Paul", as the most telling evidence of how the church dumbed his teachings down and tried to soft-sell him. It's amusing once you see their trick. :)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
With 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who see Jesus as a prophet but reject his identity and office then your claim of "generalizing" is laughable.

Nope. Thats not relevant. '

I think you cannot understand "irrelevance". Lol. Why do you want to bring Muslims into a Christianity discussion mate? Is that some kind of dire need?

Anyway, you have not made 1,8 billion people in the world "of sinister motive". Thats bigotry.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Doubtless you would then separate Paul's "churchiantry" from Jesus' "Christianity" since paul taught a theology completely different from what's found in the gospels and the modern church has adopted Paul's Christianity, not Jesus'.

As far as I'm concerned, Paul hijacked Christianity and led it away from Christ's teachings.
in my opinion Paul and Jesus teach the same.
Paul was very inclusive in Galatians 3:28.
Equality between men and women at church.
He also said women should not speak at church.

Well, if there's a church that handles it that way... women need to say clearly what other privilege they want to have to even that out, I think.
I personally never speak up at church on Sundays. I'm not the pastor, not the mod, I don't raise my voice in prayer time. I don't even belong to that church.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Nope. Thats not relevant. '

I think you cannot understand "irrelevance". Lol. Why do you want to bring Muslims into a Christianity discussion mate? Is that some kind of dire need?

Anyway, you have not made 1,8 billion people in the world "of sinister motive". Thats bigotry.
I think you are being oversensitive and argumentative.

Again your own bigoted attitude applies the term "sinister" when Muslims simply and sincerely do not believe aspects of the life of Jesus as a mater of their own religious training from their scriptures.

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Qur’an 4:157
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
I think you are being oversensitive and argumentative.

I am only pointing out your fallacies.

Anyway, since other things about Islam and Quran are irrelevant there is no point in responding out of courtesy or curiosity. So, ciao.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
in my opinion Paul and Jesus teach the same.
Paul was very inclusive in Galatians 3:28.
Equality between men and women at church.
He also said women should not speak at church.

Well, if there's a church that handles it that way... women need to say clearly what other privilege they want to have to even that out, I think.
I personally never speak up at church on Sundays. I'm not the pastor, not the mod, I don't raise my voice in prayer time. I don't even belong to that church.

The general consensus among secular Bible scholars is the Paul preached a gospel different from Jesus.

"Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. Paul did not. Paul preached justification by faith alone. Jesus did not. Can the two be reconciled? Let us be clear from the outset: the messages of Jesus and Paul were fundamentally different. Reconciliation of their messages cannot be done by harmonization. This is a fact we must accept."

Jesus vs. Paul - doctrine.org

We must remember: Paul came BEFORE Jesus, not the other way around. The first books in the New Testament to be written were from Paul so Paul had no gospel theology to compete with when he wrote his epistles. He could mold and shape the Christian faith exactly as his disturbed mind wanted without any conflicting doctrine because the gospels hadn't come along yet. As the gospels began to appear over the next 50 years along with James and Peter that's when all sorts of doctrinal conflicts arose which didn't get resolved until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE when Paul's theology won out over Jesus'. Jesus basically became a mere avatar--a mascot for Christianity but it was Paul's salvation by faith alone that won out over Jesus' works plus faith.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
I am only pointing out your fallacies.

Anyway, since other things about Islam and Quran are irrelevant there is no point in responding out of courtesy or curiosity. So, ciao.
Anti-Christ quotes in the Quran go directly to my point that the followers of other Gurus and teachers such as Mohamed attempt to undermine Christ.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
*Jesus preached a spiritual kingdom and for ALL the world.

* Jesus vaguely met the expectations of an exclusively Jewish Messiah. Knowing that he could not meet all of the Messianic expectations AND was returning to heaven, he allowed his followers to draw their own conclusions.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
As Jesus is also a prophet in Islam, Baha'ism and some other folks' faiths, no; Christianity is a religion based around Jesus, but Jesus is not Christianity. I find this rather a bizarre statement. How can a person be an ideology?

I suspect a better question would be is Christianity based on the teachings of "Jesus". I'd have to say no. Since usually if I ask a Christian about their beliefs they almost always refer to Paul.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Its been my experience. Its being done on this thread. Did you read the OP by the Baha'u'llah follower???
You said: Followers of other gurus by necessity have to undermine and discredit the Son of God.

If you are including Baha'u'llah as one of those gurus, that is a false statement, and the proof is right there is the Writings of Baha'u'llah which refer to Jesus as the Son of Man. Baha'u'llah never discredited Jesus, He testified of Jesus and glorified Jesus.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
With 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who see Jesus as a prophet but reject his identity and office then your claim of "generalizing" is laughable.
Jesus was a Prophet, as well as a Messenger of God, as both Muslims and Baha'is believe. It was Christianity, not Jesus, who made Jesus into something He never claimed to be, God incarnate.

Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet, and was so regarded. Jesus never referred to Himself as God.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.


Jesus was the Son of God, but not a biological son, since God has no offspring. It was in a metaphorical sense that Jesus was the Son of God, as Jesus was 'in relationship' to God as a father is to a son.

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

The followers of other gurus or teachers who dismiss Jesus are dismissing core aspects of his teaching either tacitly or outwardly.
However, the followers of other gurus or teachers who dismiss what Christianity teaches about Jesus are not dismissing core aspects of Jesus' teaching either tacitly or outwardly.
 
Last edited:

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I suspect a better question would be is Christianity based on the teachings of "Jesus". I'd have to say no. Since usually if I ask a Christian about their beliefs they almost always refer to Paul.
I am actually finding that less and less these days, now. A lot of folks seem keen to go back to Christianity's roots and I find it fascinating.
 
Top