Would Jesus recognize Christianity as his if he were alive today?

"what it means to be Christian"

I think even when Christians act contrary, such as war and nationalism against other nations,
They still often have an understanding they are not being terribly 'Christian by such an action.

I 'do think you have an argument, of masses of Christians holding to parts of the Bible, or later interpretations of the Bible, as basis for their harsh actions and often hate against others.
Though I am 'still unsure of statistics.

I would not be 'terribly surprised if you won,
Though 'something 'still gives me a feeling that Pro winning is more likely.

I 'do hope you get more votes and feedback on your debate, and that they are fair.

@NoOneInParticular
I 'do love my father, recognize he had a bad environment growing up.
I 'am thankful of the 'good actions and memories we have had together.
I recognize, that he has 'given his kids a 'lot in effort, time, money.
I recognize that he has humanistic qualities and actions towards people 'other than his family as well, at times.
Even if he has flaws,
Generally 'all humans do, I expect.

I am sure your mother and brother are very good people. But i am also sure that they are two of the very few out there.
"While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian."
Yes, what it means to be christian. Even though it doesn't cover the whole reality of the religion. I will accept it as a rebutal. But does it adress the topic?
Would jesus recognize- "what it means to be christian" -as his?
Considering the contrast between the gospel (which i adress) and "the christian" he wouldn't. Of that i am sure.
And again, not the good christian. On general. That's why i say christianity as a religion. Otherwise i would have just said: "Are there any really good christians that jesus would have appreciated?".

Ach! I 'always seem to forget that thing is there.
I did not even think of it until you mentioned it in post #18.

"Judging on what christians of any branch (catholic, evangelical, orthodox, etc.) derive their beliefs from today, and how they have built their religion since jesus died. The holy scriptures, church hierarchy, etc. Always, assuming that jesus actually existed!!!"
- The short description, Viewable 'before, but not after clicking on the debate.

. . . I'm still not convinced that it greatly changes the debate though.
The scriptures, hierarchy, ect 'still exist in many different forms. And I 'still think there is the difficulty of tying all of Christianity together under one label of flawed structure.

"Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?" - #18

No, I'm sure that there exist people who one could argue have different Christian Ideals, than the Ideals Christ might have advocated for.

. . .
Modern Christianity, I 'still think it's an interesting topic, but that more effort was needed by you to clearly define and group all or most of modern Christianity and Christians as such.
And further to argue it as corrupt from the teachings of Jesus.

I don't really 'pay much attention to Christianity myself, other than occasionally reading bits and pieces of it.
I 'am an Atheist, but was 'somewhat raised to be a Christian.
. . My brothers, my sister and I, were all given names from the Bible.
As children, our mother read the Bible to us some, taught us to pray.

As a child, I prayed that a man from the news I viewed as evil, would find his way back to goodness and God,
Though the man was greatly despised by Americans at that time, my mother praised me for such thoughts, and encouraged such as being what it 'means to be Christian. Loving even one's enemies.
. . . As we grew older though, such petered away, she had to start working,
My father worked as well, as a teacher but had summers off, bills were still an issue.
. . .
I cannot recall my father speaking of the Bible or Christianity, except when I was in my 30s, my father is still alive, doing alright.
. . .
I don't mean to bring up my childhood, just, people have biases, viewpoints differently colored. Many people had worse childhoods than mine, my dad among them.
. . . But he was frequently an unpleasant father to have, though he loved his children, he was controlling of 'any choices, would emotionally bully his kids, 'minor physical 'actions of discipline or forcing behaviors and actions.
When with my sister one time, he returned a wallet to the police 'after taking the money out.
. . .
My 'mother, after finding a hundred dollar bill on the grocery aisle floor, took it to the lost and found,
She worked as a park ranger at a campground, and would 'regularly spend her own time and money, helping people down on their luck.
She gives to charity, gives money to random people on the street holding signs.

My eldest brother is much like her, and I've said this elsewhere, but it 'creeps 'me 'out.
That amount of altruism.
. . .

Yeah, one reads about bad 'groups of Christians at times, churches, groups, individuals.
But there is good too, I couldn't say how much.
. . .

Yes, the debate is to be judged on 'Yours and Pros arguments,
But it's hard for me to completely avoid bias,
And what 'you see as Christianity, might not be what 'I see.

"Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!"
- #18

I think you pointed out 'part of Christianity, and assert all or a majority of it to 'be such.
While you 'do argue many actions such as nationalism not to be very Christian, 'I think Pro makes a fair rebuttal, with their definitions of what it means to be a Christian.

He should have read the short description.
--"I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people."
I did not only talk about the churches. I talked about people.
No need for statistics on this matter.
Do you think all the trump supporters who claim to be followers of jesus really are such?
This is the point of the debate. I talk about every aspect.
I am sorry but the opponent does not make any arguments here. Not anything related to the topic anyway.
Which section from the gospels align with today's christianity?
Nothing that is clear.
Assuming one has read the gospel.
But even if you have not.
Just the figure of jesus itself. Compassionate love, empathy, forgiveness. Do these align with modern christianity?
I make the argument that they do not.
My opponent only says -"i don't know but i hope they do"!

While I 'do think Pros arguments could have addressed more, and gone more in depth.
I think they hit upon a core in the debate, what does it 'mean to be a Christian?

They apply the yardstick of following Jesus, and view it through a very 'personal lens.
Not viewing Christianity as some of the various organizations or churches, but the people.

I view it more as 'assertion, by you that Christianity is the Mega Churches,
And 'assertion, by him that Christianity is the people.
There 'are arguments and statistics for such, but they were not obvious to me when I read the debate.

You 'do quote the Bible a 'number of times, but arguably that goes towards the same point of how Christians should be good loving people, not hateful.
Pro makes the 'same argument.

To get my vote, I think you would have needed stronger evidence and argument that the Churches and Organizations 'were Christianity.
. . I 'can't quite put my finger on it, but there's 'something in the debate that puts me out of kilter.

Christianity isn't a 'single entity, with clear cut behaviors and actions.
Though such vague definitions 'can readily enough identify a group, I think I needed more argument of why Christianity was better recognized by hate and greed, than love and following Jesus.
. . . .

"Now if I had known the debate was based on mega cathedrals and people trying to get rich of the idea of Christianity I would not have accepted because I agree with you. But your debate title is Christianity and I have proved that Jesus judges Christianity from individual hearts." - Pro Round 2

If you had defined the debate in the description as Jesus will not recognize mega cathedrals as his successors, I think Pro would have argued differently,
But even your arguments, I don't think 'quite take that tact exactly.

Pro states they argued against the title of the debate, and much of your gist/meaning of your arguments. I think.

How is this a tie? My opponent basically makes no arguments. In his second argument he says: "if i had known this is about the cathedrals i wouldn't have taken the debate because i agree with you". That to me looks like a concession.
Anyways, he could have read the short description which clearly contains what i mean with this topic.

I think i should be cautious next time when debating practicants. I make a long well articulated argument only to get hit with:" i hope jesus acknowledges my perfect worship."

Great debate!
I’ll vote by tomorrow

This was i think the first debate i started so i thought that could also be seen here. But can be read either way. His arguments are religious and hopping that his prophet will recognize his individual effort(or the rare good believers). But that is not the topic.

It 'is an interesting question, an interesting debate to read and think on.

Though Briguy21's rounds were short, I 'do think they hit upon important details of the debate.

I often 'forget the existence of that description describing the debate before one clicks on the debate, as one can't see it, once they have clicked on the debate.

And i was talking about the description that shows under the title before you open the debate.

Thanks! I wish you took on this debate!
Just something quick. America is called america not georgewashingtonia. Where as christianity claims to be the religion which follows christ even bearing his name and the cross symbol. Anyways, thanks for reading my arguments.

Title
Well, Christianity 'does have his name in it.
Description
Spirit of the debate/honesty, can work well in a debate.

Umbrellacorp Round 1
There 'are a lot of 'different structures and doctrines, then what might have been around some 2000 years ago.
Though, I'd figure there were a lot of different ideas back then as well.

He'd see his 'influence, I imagine, even if it didn't always go the ways he might have chosen.
And I'd imagine that there were some key ideas he might have been pushing for back then, words he might have spoken 'just about the same back then, as they are preserved now.

"So, in Conclusion: Christianity’s core doctrines would be foreign toJesus."
Not sure I agree with that, The 'Core, I imagine, is 'always the Bible. Even much is added to it, differently interpreted, not 'completely followed.
. . . Well, he 'might not recognize some as his own,
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6335-would-jesus-recognize-christianity-as-his-if-he-were-alive-today

Though I think that's a bit obtuse, though I 'can understand the 'reason for him 'saying such.
People have 'still heard of him and his words, created and followed something 'similar.

I'm sure Jesus 'would preach for many changes, were he to return.
. . . Course there would be a difference between Jesus the Divine, and Jesus the Man.
That is to say if we are viewing him as a Divine Individual, or from an Atheistic Mindset as a more mundane human with interesting views on Morality, Ethics.
Maybe depends if he could acquire power or not.
As a normal human, it's hard to avoid realistic consequences and politics. Though one 'can choose to avoid such.
I think he'd have an easier time sticking to his guns if people did not believe he was truly Jesus.

"are they truly following Jesus-or just wearing his name?"
I think many people would 'like to, try to, 'dream to.
But for many people, it is only a dream, I think of religious individuals, who are yet outright criminals. Perhaps thinking they would 'like to put into action Christs teachings, but they love wealth, pleasure, power. Perhaps some expect Hell or Purgatory.
. . . Some people 'do though, more or less. And I must say when I 'meet them, or see their actions. I feel a bit unnerved and creeped out. By their Good Works, Altruisms, Efforts.
. . It's not that I 'never feel an urge to do good, not that I am 'never good, but I am not such a person as they.

Briguy21 Round 1
Mentions The gospel, argues that Christianity is not based on organizations but on individuality.
. . There 'are a lot of variations of it.

Umbrellacorp Round 2
Christianity 'is a big umbrella.
I think Briguy21 'did address the concerns about hierarchy, wealth, exclusion, and moral policing, though one could argue perhaps not in 'depth.

But they argue the 'core is The Gospel, and that many tenants 'are followed.
Though Umbrellacorp makes a point that they 'could be followed 'more.

I think 'some Christians 'are rather giving.
I suppose you could argue percentagewise more are not, than are.
But maybe that's hard to calculate. .
If we looked back to older times. . Could we calculate it then?
Did Jesus 'only consider a Christian, those who gave their all end everything?
Or could he understand that such was 'exceptional, even if he advocated for it?
Even back in his time, I'm sure there were people who followed him only 'partway, they still had jobs, nations. Could not 'fully give themselves.

Briguy21 Round 2
Points out the difficulty of definition.
. . .
Hm, I wonder if George Washington would recognize America as partly his, were he alive today?
. . . I imagine some of the 'really racist Founding Fathers might not, or only partially recognize it.
But then, America is unified as one under laws and force.

I think there's a difference between playing 'games of definitions,
And arguing that definitions 'matter at times 'to argue a subject.

Christianity is a bit 'nebulous. . . Disagreed a concept. Maybe.
Ask the poor giving Christian, if Christianity is defined as the big megachurches and hating others, might say no.
. . . Even the megachurch pastor might say no, though I might suspect 'that one lying.

Before you accepted the debate you could have easily seen the description which said "christianity" not "christians". And i clearly wrote christianity as a whole and all branches. I dont understand why you would make such a dishonest argument just to get a vote. And definitions are very important i agree. But for kindergarten. When you are learning how to talk. Grown ups communicate in a common language with clear definitions. Christianity is a religion. Not people. People can be christian. If you speak another form of english which is does not go by the dictionary then i apologize.

I am sure jesus would appreciate you trying but let's not shift the topic.
The debate isn’t “Would Jesus appreciate a few sincere believers?”- it’s "Would Jesus recognize Christianity today as his own movement?"
I asked: Does Christianity reflect Jesus' life and teachings?
You answered: Christians try their best, and Jesus will understand.
Hopeful, but irrelevant to our main thesis.

We are arguing if jesus would accept christianity as the religion which takes after him (follows his life and teachings). I thought it would be clear from the topic. I guess ill have to add this in the description.

I've seen a lot of debates derail completely due to seemingly minor definitions. For example, are we arguing whether this is the religion Jesus wanted to create, or are we arguing that jesus would literally not know modern Christianity if he saw it.

He is alive today and is all knowing lol

Are you joking?

I meant a definition for "recognized"

If you want me to define jesus or christianity then you might as well be off this platform mate.

If you don't want people to play a game of definitions you'll need to provide them.