Do Christians do what Jesus said? I think the answer to that is a resounding no. The religion of Christianity hardly seems to have much to do with the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Four Gospels of the New Testament.
But can a religion with over two billion followers really neglect the actual core teachings found in its most authoritative holy scriptures?
Absolutely—and the organized religion of Christianity is partly to blame for this. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of practices promoted by the organized religion of Christianity that seem to directly conflict with the teachings of Jesus. And of the two billion Christians in the world today, I’d say roughly a few million even come close to following the real religion of Christianity, and only a few thousand of them actually do a near adequate job of practicing real Christianity. Almost everyone else is following customs and traditions far more than the Gospel.
And yet, barely ever does anyone bring any of this up. The Christian world is simply content with deceiving itself
Real Christianity
All of this is real Christianity as taught by Jesus and recorded in the Four Gospels of the New Testament. This is what Jesus himself preached.
In this book I will present various precepts that Jesus taught but Christians hardly ever follow. I will compare Jesus's words to Christians' conduct. And I will show how "Christianity" and "Christians" are far removed from what Jesus actually preached.
Money"… Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you…"
Let's take a look at the humanistic aspect of Jesus's Gospel.
In Matthew 19:19, Jesus says, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
In Matthew 7:12, he says, "Therefore in all things, whatsoever you would have others to do to you, you should also do so to them"
Obviously, we are dealing with a very intense form of humanism.
In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus says, "You have heard that it has been said 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' [as in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21]. But I say unto you, that you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."
How many Christians turn the other cheek when someone strikes them?
Well, I personally have rarely ever heard of any Christians doing such a thing, or even considering doing such a thing. I think it is safe to say that not one in a hundred Christians even attempt to put this teaching into practice even to a slight degree.
But on the other hand, I have heard of numerous instances of Christians participating in all sorts of violence, and using Christianity to justify their actions. In fact, there is a nearly endless list of this.
Jesus said, "You have heard that it has been said, 'You shall love your neighbor' [Leviticus 19:18], and 'hate your enemy.' But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you…" (Matthew 5:43-44)
Do Christians follow this? Not from what I've seen. Just like the rest of the population, most Christians hate their enemies, curse back anyone who curses them, do evil things to those who hate them, and are not particularly graceful towards those who persecute them.
And what about Christianity as a whole over history? Has it followed these teachings of "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy"?
I will venture to say that if Christian history has shown us anything, it is that if you do anything that transgresses against Christian authorities and institutions-even if it is minor and remote-then you better be prepared to face vicious retaliation. In fact, you could say that "kill your enemy" is a better description of the motto that many Christians have often followed.
Despite Jesus's humanistic message, Christianity has been guilty of many atrocities throughout its history.
In the early Roman Empire in the late 300s AD, Emperor Theodosius declared that everyone in the empire would practice Christianity, and that those who refused would be labeled as demented and insane heretics who would be smitten not only by divine vengeance, but also by the government's own initiative in ways they felt accorded to divine judgment. This type of attitude has been in place for much of history since that time.
By the mid 400s AD, the Roman Empire instituted a law that threatened heretics with the punishment of death. The only legal religion besides Christianity was Judaism.
And consider the Crusades. The first Crusade began in 1095 AD, when Pope Urban II commanded knights of Europe to go to Jerusalem and save the land from Muslims. This movement was followed by seven more major Crusades (the last of which was fought in 1270 AD), plus two children's Crusades where zealous children fought. The main objectives of the Crusades were to control the spread of Islam, take over Holy Lands that had religious significance in Christianity, unite Europe in the name of Christianity, and conquer non-Christian areas. Many people who fought in the Crusades were motivated by the belief that their participation redeemed and expiated them from their sins. The Crusades resulted in about one million total deaths, many of which were civilian deaths.
So in the Crusades, we had millions of Christians around the world fighting for causes that were mostly far from just, and they actually went so far as labeling the violence as Christian religious activity! Can anything be further from the truth?
And now let's look at the Inquisition, which was established in 1231 AD by Pope Gregory IX in order to institute legal proceedings against people whom Christianity viewed as heretics against their religion. The Inquisition continued for centuries by various governments, and the Inquisitors often resorted to brutal means of achieving their goals-such as using torture to obtain confessions from the accused, as well as punishments ranging from mild penalties, to imprisonments, and in some cases, to executions, some of which were done by burning people at the stake. The worst punishments were reserved particularly for those who wouldn't confess. Plus, Inquisitors also accepted bribes, took property of the accused, and punished everybody who did not cooperate with them.
Is this loving your enemies, blessing those who curse you, doing good to those who hate you, and praying for those who despitefully use you and persecute you? Of course not.
Another notorious example of violence in the name of Christianity was the witch-hunt period, which began in the 1300s AD, and involved Christians accusing people within their community of being witches participating in heretical conduct. In many regions, it became a common practice to blame accused witches for all problems in the community, and to take severe and violent measures in finding, trying, and taking retribution against them. And when a community did identify their "witch," they often hung or burned the person to death, and sometimes even cut the person's tongue out to prevent him / her from speaking. Many accused witches were also sexually mutilated. And the abuse did not just stop at the people who the community declared as witches-it often extended to cruel treatment of their children as well. This witch-hunt persisted for centuries in various regions and at various times, and was often condoned and even encouraged by Christian religious leaders, including Pope Gregory XI in the late 1300s AD, and Pope Innocent VII in the late 1400s AD. Many anti-witch writings also further escalated the hunts, which reached their peak in the late 1500s AD and early 1600s AD, and lessened until they finally ended in the late 1700s AD. Altogether, it is estimated that 100,000 people were tried as witches, and about half were executed.
You tell me-how humanistic is burning a so called "witch" to death in the name of Christianity, while the entire community watches and approves?
And then there are all the examples of Christians forcing people to convert to their religion. Just one of the many instances of this coercion occurred in the 1500s AD, when Europeans who had come to Peru and Mexico forced natives to convert to Christianity, and burned those who refused, labeling them as heretics.
Imagine that! Christians taking offensive measures against others, just because they had the audacity to not practice Christianity.
Another example of Christian hatred of others is Christian anti-Semitism. It is beyond the scope of this book for me to get into all the numerous instances of Christian hatred of Jews, but to show you an example of the anti-Semitic sentiment that has often prevailed among Christians at various periods in history, read what Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD; leader of the Protestant Reformation of Christianity) once wrote:
"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people the Jews? … I present my honest advice: … Set their synagogues or schools on fire, and bury and cover with dirt anything that will not. Thus, no one will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. We should do this in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so God will see that we are Christians, and that we do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son [Jesus] and of his Christians. … Demolish and destroy their homes. … Put them under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. …… Forbid their Rabbis to teach. Threaten them with death and loss of limbs. … Take their cash and valuables of silver and gold, and put them aside for safekeeping."
Imagine! A respected Christian leader, who led and molded the Protestant Reformation, had all of this to say about the Jews. Is this loving your enemies?
And Christian hatred of enemies has not been confined to non-Christians, either. Consider all of the various conflicts between Protestants and Catholics that have occurred ever since the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s AD that created Protestant Christianity. Rivalries between Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians have resulted in many conflicts, including civil wars in France and England. These Protestant-Catholic disputes were also the main motivating factor for a period of fighting in Europe known as the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), which caused an estimated several million deaths.
And then let's consider the fact that in all the various wars fought throughout history since Christianity came into existence, most Christians have hardly shown any reluctance to participate.
Take the American Civil War, the American Revolution, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and countless other wars-can Christians justify their participation in them?
Jesus told people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. And Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. But have most Christians really made a concerted effort to follow such teachings?
Hardly ever. Most of the time, they have substituted "hate your enemies" for "love your enemies," and "retaliate" for "turn the other cheek."
"… Go you therefore, and teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…"
In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus says, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go you [disciples] therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
In Mark 16:15, he says, "Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
Do Christians do this?
Well, on one hand, they have spread Christianity to virtually every part of the world.
But are they preaching Jesus's Gospel?
I think they are more interested in spreading their own version of Christianity, rather than the Gospel of Jesus.
After all, if Christians really were in favor of spreading the Gospel, then why have they been so restrictive on Bible translating?
There is no denying the fact that for most of history, Christian authorities have intensely discouraged and prohibited Bible translation. Consider how by the 400s AD, the Latin Vulgate translation became the standard in most regions, and for centuries and centuries, it was forbidden to translate this Latin Bible into the language used among the common people of a region. This is especially absurd considering that the Latin Bible itself is a translation of Biblical texts that were originally for the most part in Hebrew and Greek, and that the New Testament, which was originally penned in Greek, was not even in the original language of Aramaic (and perhaps also Hebrew) that Jesus himself spoke!
And yet, for most of Christian history, people only had access to the Latin Bible-a language that almost nobody understood. Or perhaps some people had access to the Hebrew and Greek versions-which were also languages that almost nobody understood.
Is this spreading the Gospel? Hardly.
It wasn't until the European Renaissance period that people began learning Greek and Hebrew again. And it wasn't until many more years later that Bible translations were being made into common languages. And it wasn't until many years after such translations took place that they were readily available to the public.
If Christians really wanted to spread the Gospel of Jesus, how can they justify such a widespread and long-term restriction of Bible translation?
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Although Christianity has often tried to disassociate itself from Judaism, it is clear that Jesus's Gospel is a continuation of Judaism, and that it affirms the Judaic doctrine.
And Judaism has its main foundation on the various Laws contained in the Torah-a series of writings that are all included in the Christian Old Testament of the Bible.
The Torah explicitly states that Jewish Law must be followed and not changed.
Deuteronomy 4:2 says, "You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 says, "What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it. You shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
And in the Four Gospels, Jesus also carries a similar view. He affirms the Jewish Scriptures and its Laws several times.
In Luke 16:17, Jesus says, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
In Mark 10:19, when someone asks Jesus how to inherit eternal life, Jesus advises him by saying, "You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.' [from Exodus and Deuteronomy]"
In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one letter or one stroke shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
So based on all of this, don't you think that Jewish Law should also be applicable to Christians? After all, Jesus himself states numerous times that this should be the case.
And yet, Christians pay no heed to virtually all the numerous Jewish Laws, except perhaps the Ten Commandments.
Is this justifiable? I don't think so. How can it be?
Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, and Jewish Scriptures assert that the Law cannot be changed. Jesus is a proponent of Jewish Law. The Old Testament of the Christian Bible includes the Jewish Scriptures that contain all these Jewish Laws.
And yet, Christians do not follow Jewish Law, except for the Ten Commandments! Keep in mind that the Ten Commandments contain roughly 2% of all the Laws that are in the Old Testament. That is it.
The other 600 or so are for the most part disregarded by Christians.
But has this always been the case? Have Christians always taken this view on Jewish Law?
Probably not. In fact, it is very likely that the majority of early Christians followed a form of Christianity that was far more Judaic in its nature and adhered to the Jewish Laws, while other Christians followed a form of Christianity that was more lax on the subject of Jewish Law.
And judging by today's Christianity, it seems apparent that the latter group won out, and that the current Christian consensus judgment is that Jewish Law is not a part of the Christian doctrine.
How convenient! Now Christians do not have to follow a rigorous code of hundreds of various Laws contained in the Torah.
But is this what Jesus preached? Based on what he was quoted in the Four Gospels as saying, it seems very clear that Jesus did not invalidate Jewish Law.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
According to Jesus, a true follower of his religious movement must renounce and hate his own life, and must also hate his family and be divided from it.
In Mathew 16:25, Jesus says, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."
In Matthew 10:34-37, Jesus says, "Do not think that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
In Luke 12:51-53, Jesus says, "Do you suppose that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division, for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
In Luke 14:26, Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
So to be a true Christian, you must hate your family and life, and only be devoted to Christianity. You must even set division between you and your family.
This is what Jesus said. This is what Jesus told people to do.
The organized religion of mainstream Christianity, on the other hand, virtually never even brings any of this up.
In fact, it portrays Christian life as a family experience. Christian authorities promote strong family bonds, and most Christians are active family people. Christians rarely ever acknowledge the nature of the religion that Jesus preached.
According to the Gospel of Jesus, Christianity is not a group religion, and it is not a community religion.
It is more of an individualistic religion. And even that does not necessarily describe it either, since Jesus told people to hate their own life as well.
Almost no Christians are devoted to Christianity the way Jesus commands his followers to be. Jesus preached a religion of self-denial. Not only should a disciple of Jesus deny himself of possessions, but he should also deny himself of his family relationships and his own pride of living.
How many Christians adhere to any of this? Hardly any.
They are content with choosing Christian custom and following it, rather than the Gospel of Jesus.
Is Jesus the Same as God the Father?
Almost every Christian today regards Jesus not only God's son, but also as God the Father in human form.
But what did Jesus say about this?
In certain sections he does seem to refer to himself as the same as God the Father.
In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and my father are one."
In John 10:38, he says, "… The Father is in me, and I in him."
In John 14:9, he says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father…"
But on the other hand, there are plenty of instances where he seems to indicate that he is not the same as God the Father.
In Mark 10:17-18, when someone runs up to Jesus and asks him, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by saying, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God."
Is Jesus is God, why would he say, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God"?
In Matthew 26:39, Jesus prays, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will." And in Luke 22:41-44, it says, "And he [Jesus] was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, 'Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done.'" If Jesus is God, then why would he state that his will is different from his Father's will?
In Matthew 27:46, when Jesus is about to die, he says, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? ["My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"] [a line from Psalms 22:1]
If Jesus is God, then why would he make such a statement?
In John 7:16, Jesus declares, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." And in John 12:49, he says, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father that sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."
If Jesus is God, then why would he say that he is speaking on behalf of his Father, and that he is not speaking on behalf of himself?
In John 14:28, Jesus says, "…I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
If Jesus is God, then why would he say that his Father is greater than he is?
In Matthew 20:23, Jesus says, "You shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."
If Jesus is God, then why would he refer to himself as different from his Father?
All of these various sections seem to indicate that Jesus states he is not the same as God the Father.
And also consider that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Judaism, and that the Old Testament does not portray this Messiah as being the same as God.
And in John 10:32-34, when some Jews are justifying their persecution of Jesus by saying that Jesus is blasphemously making himself God, Jesus responds, "Is it not written in your law: 'I said you are Gods'?" [Psalms 82:6]
This makes it seem like Jesus is saying that everyone is a God.
There is no clear-cut matter on this situation, but Jesus seems to be stating that he represents God, but not that he is the same as God the Father.
However, most Christians assert that he is the same as God the Father, and that God exists through a Trinity of three forms of God that are the same: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit.
But despite this Trinity theory, there is no outright declaration of the existence of such a Trinity in any of the Four Gospels.
And many historians believe that it wasn't until the 300s AD at the Council of Nicea, that it was officially declared among Christians that Jesus is indeed the same substance as God the Father. That decision was made about three centuries after Jesus! Can we really trust its validity?
In the Four Gospels, Jesus refers to himself numerous times as being different than God the Father.
Which should be considered more reliable: the actual content attributed to Jesus in the Four Gospels, or the various inferences that the mainstream organized religion of Christianity has made?
The Gospel of Jesus forms a religious doctrine that portrays itself as having 100% divine authority and infallibility. Therefore, to be a real Christian you would have to aspire to follow the Gospel as much as possible.
According to the Four Gospels, Jesus preached a Gospel with several main precepts, and he also affirmed the doctrine of Judaism.
And yet, as I have shown throughout this book, virtually all Christians do not properly adhere to most of the precepts Jesus taught, nor do they follow the vast majority of the Judaic teachings.
And the mainstream organized religion of Christianity neglects most of the teachings of Jesus, and even promotes several practices that run contrary to it. Plus, it promotes and follows many various additions that have little if anything to do with the real doctrine of Christianity.
Also keep in mind that Jesus's religious doctrine is not that lengthy and intricate. In fact, the opposite is true. The New Testament is not particularly long, the quotes attributed to Jesus only form a portion of it, and in those quotes, Jesus expresses only a few main precepts. In other words, Jesus's religion only contains a few rules for Christians to follow.
It is not like I just select a few verses of the New Testament and blew them out of proportion. The verses I brought up in this book form a huge percentage of the core doctrine of Christianity, in the words of Jesus himself, quoted in the Four Gospels, which are the most authoritative sources of Jesus's life and teachings.
They are not hidden in a long series of obscure writings.
And most of them are clear, direct, and straightforward. Most of them state exactly what Jesus tells people to do.
So how can Christians act so ignorant about them? How can most Christians pay almost no heed at all to Jesus's teachings on money, lawsuits, divorce, lust, family, humaneness, prayer, attitude, self-denial, Jewish Law, and the identity of Jesus?
And how can the organized religion of mainstream Christianity actually go so far as to promote something like group prayer, even though Jesus himself was against it? Or how can the historical conduct of Christian society actually run contrary to the teachings of Jesus in so many cases?
Hardly any of the two billion Christians in the world today do a near adequate job of following the few main teachings of Jesus. Very few Christians live a lifestyle that comes close to resembling the one that Jesus taught. The religion they follow is based more on customs than it is based on the Gospel.
So, do Christians do what Jesus said? Do they follow the teachings of Jesus that are recorded in the Four Gospels?
No. They follow some of them, they neglect most them, and they add many irrelevancies to them.
NEW BOOK REVEALS TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTIAN ___
(Los Angeles, CA; July 10, 2005) There are over 2 billion self-proclaimed Christians around the world, all of which profess that the Bible is their divine source of guidance. Yet when one sees their action, do they truly reflect the teachings from the book?
In his new book Do Christians Do What Jesus Said? Dean Tipton reveals that, as a collective, Christians not only stray from the teachings, but at times outright contradict them. The discrepancies are clearly laid out by subjects such as money, lawsuits, and divorce.
In money, for instance, Tipton point out that “Jesus proclaims that the rich are virtually ineligible for salvation, and that a true aspirant should give away all his possession,” yet “most [American] Christians barely give more than a trivial fraction of theirs.”
Do Christians Do What Jesus Said? appeals to both Christians and Non-Christians alike. Christian readers would appreciate the book because it affords them the rare opportunity to reflect on their own actions and modify their lives to better follow their teachings. Non-Christian readers would appreciate the book because it offers them a deeper look into a religion that, due to its vast influence on the world, has had a profound affect on their lives.
Do Christians Do What Jesus Said? is currently available for purchase at www.amazon.com. More information about the book can also be found at the Immediex Publishing website www.immediex.com