I forget who I've heard say this, but I think it applies. Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it's a religion about Jesus (which I would add, as far as I understand, mainly Paul's religion about Jesus).

Or in common parlance, equal rights for all citizens to marriage, employment, adoption, and other protections afforded by the State, separate from the Church. As it pertains to shifting sentiment among the Church regarding LGBTQ issues.

As for prosperity gospel, I have no idea how anyone reconciles that with the actual life and teachings of Jesus.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

well, the religion "of" jesus was judaism, but judaism pivoted and jesus was the agent of that pivot. not paul. paul was a gentile - an abject nonbeliever - and pretty much an asshole by his own account before his conversion on the "road to damascas." i think paul's expression of christianity pretty much paralleled what you read that was said by jesus in the gospels with this exception: both jesus - and notably the writer of the book of james - say and write more about not just what you say, and think, but what you do. evangelical christianity just entirely ignores this. and to be fair so did martin luther, the father of protestantism, when back in the 16th century he called the book of james the "epistle of straw." but this is at a whole new level with today's evangelicals. they don't struggle with the book of james, and the words of jesus, as to the consequences of bad behavior. they don't wrestle with the dichotomy. they just don't think their own behavior is relevant to their salvation. just about everything in the new testament not in paul's epistles argues otherwise. but today evangelical believes he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and god would still wear his hat and come to his rally.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Right, that's about the definition of "broad brush."


I understand the sentiment you're expressing. But, this isn't Galatians. Clearly, you're keying in on "a different gospel, which is really not gospel at all", then linking any false gospel (here, "Christian nationalism" or the "Prosperity Gospel"). I get it. But, that's not what Paul is referring to, and that's not how the Bible works. And, in this sense, you (like the Christian nationalist or the Prosperity Gospel) are using/contorting the Bible as a tool to reach your own end, not God's end. On that path lies danger.


Right. I appreciate that this whole discussion (for everyone else except Kay) is an exercise of "arguendo." Truly, I appreciate it.


I have my issues with lots of what you're expressing here. Yet, for a large part, to the extent that this MAGA movement contains the Christian church (i.e., it's certain not all or only evangelicals. There's a lot of populism there, too), and it seems to certainly include them, this is sadly true. My world doesn't cross many of these folks, but it's there. I see it in Christian publications.


I disagree with this, and it's an important distinction. I think, if you asked them, that they think they are doing God's work for God's Kingdom. They are missing it, to be sure. Christian nationalism is about bringing God's Kingdom to the world; but, Christianity is about bringing the world to God's Kingdom.


You're using the word "persecuting" awfully liberally. Maga people would argue that they are just giving liberals what they have established as the playing field, and liberals don't like when the opponent plays by the rules that liberals have established. There's a lot of political discussion in there, which is off topic. Suffice it to say that this is how one might play politics, but it's not how the gospel works. Thus, if MAGA (or anyone) wants to do that, then that might be fine (as far as it goes). But, my view is to leave the Bible and the Kingdom of God out of it; whereas, there is a very uncomfortable mixing of the two. That mixture is not good for Christianity.

Jesus disciples only heard that Jesus was going to die, and that death will bring him to the Father. They missed the brutality of that death.

God's speaks and we only hear what we want to hear. Same with followers of Joseph Smith. He keys in on something that they DO want to hear and ignore the whole of what the Bible actually says; thus, they are persuaded.

I think Jesus' take was not mainstream Judaism rather he was an end of times preacher who literally thought a physical Kingdom of God was at hand and he would be the ruler of it.

The Roman's executed him for that. Then his follower's including Paul concocted a religion around his death and resurrection, of course his teachings were a part of that, but not necessarily the main thing.

That's what I meant by Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but a religion about Jesus.

Ok, I follow your train of thought, and I guess it sort of answers the question I’m asking. New followers tend not to be Biblically literate, which seems to be what your response suggests is necessary to sniff out false prophets. You’re leading us there by inferences and not literal text.

What specifically would Mormons have to tune out in scripture in order to convince themselves of Smith’s legitimacy?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

of course they would say that. but it's a distinction without a difference. when i read the new testament here is the overarching theme: god's power flows to those who are willing to give up power. it's the meek who will inherit the kingdom of god. the peacemakers. saying you're persecuted doesn't make you persecuted. executing your power grab now means that you've forfeited your place in the kingdom to come. aligning with trump to make that happen - fusing your religion and your politics - is exactly what jesus railed against in his day.

beware of false profits who come in sheep's clothing. you will know them by their fruits. we know - now more than we ever did - american evangelical christians by their fruits. certain people have called this out and i might name tony campolo for one. rick warren is "embarrassed" but very few today, warrent included, have the cajones of a jeremiah. or a jesus. or a paul. or for that matter a chuck smith. where are the principled christians who are willing to stand up and call out what they see in unvarnished terms? who is willing to tell the truth while god watches? almost no one. and this is why i believe we are in the age of the great unmasking of evangelicalism and if i was a christian - a true christian - i would consider this a good thing. and i would certainly not shy from telling the truth about this false church and then we'd see who really is persecuted and as you and i know blessed that person would be.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

“beware of false profits who come in sheep's clothing. you will know them by their fruits.”

Sermon on the Mount is the closest answer I can come up with to my original question.

How would the fruits of Joseph Smith’s ministry be sufficient for Christians or seekers to recognize him in real time as a false prophet?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Now we're putting all of Christianity into one bucket? Argh.

Christianity and its various segments are fairly critiqued. But, let's at least be fair and distinctive.

I leave it up to you to set me right.

Which sects today practice the religion of Jesus?

This is an important sentiment. Maybe, you don't see it because it's not scratching you where you're itching. People who believe strongly in homosexuality find an allowance for homosexuality in the Bible. To others (not so tied to this view), it's plainly not there and they express "I have no idea how anyone reconciles" sentiments. People who wish for prosperity find prosperity. Many years ago, I read the Prayer of Jabez. It was taking the church by storm and sold millions of copies. It was scratching people where they were itching. That's how sin works.

maybe. that's one take. but just to be clear there has never been a time from the first century on when believers didn't think they were in the end times. to me, what argues against your take are these points:

- he emphasized the need to believe in him. he considered himself the agent of the world's salvation. and he certainly didn't think he would be the ruler of the kingdom of god on earth. he expressly denied that. his kingdom was in the next world. you were getting saved in the world to come and that didn't mean here, next week, but there, when you're dead.
- he opened up the gates of his religion to jew and gentile alike. he broke from judaism wholly in this regard. prior to jesus the religion of the jews was only for the jews. no sammy davis juniors. jesus ushered in a religion where there was no distinction between jew and gentile. gentiles had equal standing. this was jesus' doing, not paul's, and this was pretty well an irreconcilable break from judaism.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Not even close. Philipians 3:4-6

prosperity gospel - whether it's in the black church or whether it's oral roberts - is a charlatan scam. it's a false religion simply and only for the purpose of enriching those who prey on the weak and the poor. those who preach a prosperity gospel (assuming christianity is true) will end up occupying one of dante's deeper circles. happy to show you any number of scriptures that demonstrate this, but i'm sure you know them all. call this stuff out, trifloyd! call out the hypocrisy and the false gospels! it's pretty ironic that i - not part of this religion - am calling it out while those inside the religion are afraid to do so.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Yeah, that one has always perplexed me.

Another would be divorce.

you're right. he was from tarsus, in what is now turkey. but he was a diaspora jew. thank you for correcting me. i just forgot. i've had many decades to forget ;-(

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Putting this question to you in case you missed it.

““beware of false profits who come in sheep's clothing. you will know them by their fruits.”

Sermon on the Mount is the closest answer I can come up with to my original question.

How would the fruits of Joseph Smith’s ministry be sufficient for Christians or seekers to recognize him in real time as a false prophet?”

This is at the heart of my question of how people can read the Bible and know for certain that Christianity themed cult leaders, like Joseph Smith, are frauds, without having to infer and assume. Because that’s exactly what cult leaders do to lend Biblical authority to their own claims of prophecy.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Well that gets into which parts of the gospels and other books are historically accurate vs. myth, filling in the blanks, spinning oral tradition, etc. to tell the story you want to tell decades (in the case of the gospels) after Jesus was dead.

I have been listening to an excellent docu-series called The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. It chronicles the rise and fall of the New Atheist movement and interviews several important thinkers who are reconsidering Christianity. It's worth a listen if you have any interest at all in finding out if Christianity could be true.

https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/

Jesus was killed not because of "do" (after all, the Pharisees were all about the "do"), but because of the "say" and "think".


Frankly, this criticism of people who "pick out of context" while you pick things out of context is wonderous. Luther did not call James an "epistle of straw" because of the "do" aspect of James. Among other things, Luther was all about the "do". Instead, it was about the paradoxical/apparent conflict with a certain "sola fide" aspect of James. Argh. And, after this "epistle of straw" claim, Luther later came around to James's paradoxical view. Plenty is written on this topic.


I think what you'll find, if you just spend any time interacting with these people, is that they don't struggle much with any parts of the Bible. They are generally Bible illiterate. They have different general knowledge of the Bible and they identify with it. But, it's not great. It's like someone calling oneself a triathlete who did a sprint triathlon once a long time ago. Sure, I guess. But, identifying that person with a pro triathlete (while both are triathletes, in some sense) is not really fair and needs a lot of qualifications. Sure, but getting angry at a pro triathlete because Couch Joe is a fat slob is painting with a broad brush. Not inaccurate, just a broad brush.


Again, they don't wrestle with these things. They don't wrestle with any aspect. You're angry at Couch Joe (who did a spring triathlon 15 years ago) because he doesn't wrestle with his aero bike fit ... because you are a bike fitter. But, Couch Joe doesn't wrestle with any aspect of being a good triathlete, and your anger at Couch Joe and focusing on his poor bike fit tells as much about you and your relationship to triathlon than than about Couch Joe. It says very little about triathlon and the people who go out there everyday to truly work hard to go fast, and despite their great effort they fail.

Interesting, it seems like every time I see anything about this the numbers are still climbing in the US for the percentage of people leaving churches, Christianity, religion.

Seems like Mormonism is the sect that I see referenced as growing?

Google Fu results.

Seems like before there's an uptick you'd likely see a stop in the slide. Not sure if there is more recent data.

https://www.pewresearch.org/...d-in-recent-decades/

for the purpose of this exercise i'm stipulating that christianity is true, which means attaching significant belief in what's written in the synoptic gospels while acknowledging that certain writers didn't get it exactly right (notwithstanding the whole inerrancy thing). otherwise, i rely on the same things you rely on: contemporaneous accounts from 2000 years ago. you either read the synoptic gospels and attach weight to them; or you read josephus; or both. but if you deny what's written in the gospels then you're just replacing this with your own oral tradition, filling in the blanks, are you not?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I attend a PCA church. We are sinners all.

Thanks. I’ll have a listen.

Does the data back that up? Are an increasing number of Americans believing in god?

According to Pew Research, self-identified Christians make up 63% of the US population, down from 75% a decade earlier. Still, that’s a very high number compared to most western countries, but it’s generally a number that’s been declining.