Poor poor Christianity?

[zeek]

Christianity was invented because the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

[UntoHim]

If the God of the Old Testament was invented, then everything that proceeds forward, including Christianity is a man-made invention. If Jesus Christ was not who he said he was, if he didn't come from where he said he came from, and if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is just another one of many mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world, simply riding on the coat-tails of still another ancient, invented, man-made religion.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If the God of the Old Testament was invented, then everything that proceeds forward, including Christianity is a man-made invention. If Jesus Christ was not who he said he was, if he didn't come from where he said he came from, and if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is just another one of many mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world, simply riding on the coat-tails of still another ancient, invented, man-made religion.
-

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, and a permanent structure of government needed to be instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, a permanent structure of government was instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

Where was that broken promise?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where was that broken promise?

See my response to Awareness below.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

I should have known you had something up your sleeve in the OP. I find your hypothesis fascinating, and when one takes an honest, objective and historical view of the earliest post-NT history, it makes a lot of sense. So where would you set the boundary or transitional point when "the Church" transformed or morphed into "Christianity"? I would think most people would say it took place during the reign of Constantine. And frankly, I've never had a good argument against this contention. There is little doubt that the church became more institutionalized during those years.

Your observation about LC taking a "New Testament model" is spot on. Of course Nee/Lee were not the first to make an attempt at "restoration" or "recovery", they are simply the ones we are most familiar with.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I should have known you had something up your sleeve in the OP. I find your hypothesis fascinating, and when one takes an honest, objective and historical view of the earliest post-NT history, it makes a lot of sense. So where would you set the boundary or transitional point when "the Church" transformed or morphed into "Christianity"? I would think most people would say it took place during the reign of Constantine. And frankly, I've never had a good argument against this contention. There is little doubt that the church became more institutionalized during those years.

Your observation about LC taking a "New Testament model" is spot on. Of course Nee/Lee were not the first to make an attempt at "restoration" or "recovery", they are simply the ones we are most familiar with.
-

Constantine certainly represented a milestone in the development of Christianity. He set a precedent for the position of the emperor exerting influence and ultimate regulatory authority within religious discussions involving the early Christian Councils. But I think the wheels of Christianity were in motion several centuries before Constantine. Two Pre-Constantine trends that I would point to are the development of hierarchical authority and the work of church fathers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Constantine certainly represented a milestone in the development of Christianity. He set a precedent for the position of the emperor exerting influence and ultimate regulatory authority within religious discussions involving the early Christian Councils. But I think the wheels of Christianity were in motion several centuries before Constantine. Two Pre-Constantine trends that I would point to are the development of hierarchical authority and the work of church fathers.

Let's not forget that there would be no "Christianity" without "Christian." And that brings us to Paul and Antioch :

Act 11:26* And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.*

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

But I think the wheels of Christianity were in motion several centuries before Constantine. Two Pre-Constantine trends that I would point to are the development of hierarchical authority and the work of church fathers.

I would agree with citing "the development of hierarchical authority" as an catalyst towards the formation of institutional Christianity. "The work of church fathers" was not institutional per se, but they were certainly influential in the formation of most of the seminal doctrines of the Christian faith. So I guess I would agree with your first proposition, but I would strongly disagree that the work of the church fathers had any negative affect. Even the doctrinal errors of some of the church fathers brought forth the opportunity for clarification and correction, and thus even the errors of some turned into great profit for all concerned.

As a personal observation, I have witnessed a great move in modern Church in general, and in Protestantism specifically, of a turning away from "institutional" Christianity. It's rather hard to define this as a "movement" because it has taken it's form or made it's influence in so many different arenas of the Christian church. All the way from the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and the Jesus Movement, to the resurgence of a decidedly creedal/reformed form of teaching/practice/worship. Much to the chagrin of our dear Local Church brothers and sisters, God has apparently chosen to do a "recovery" among those in "poor, poor Christianity" after all.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

While there was an apostolic age in the 1st century, I find that a "distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament" is fraught with issues. There never was a "glorious" church, or a pure N.T. church, free from error, problems, heresy, etc. These issues started in the very beginning and have continued unabated until today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

While there was an apostolic age in the 1st century, I find that a "distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament" is fraught with issues. There never was a "glorious" church, or a pure N.T. church, free from error, problems, heresy, etc. These issues started in the very beginning and have continued unabated until today.

I agree the distinction is fraught with issues. But I don't see why we can't discuss the issues. I don't expect absolute agreement here. But, perhaps through discussion we can at least clarify the issues in our own minds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree the distinction is fraught with issues. But I don't see why we can't discuss the issues. I don't expect absolute agreement here. But, perhaps through discussion we can at least clarify the issues in our own minds.

Ok. Without the standards and teachings of the NT, the church would have drifted further and further off course, not ever knowing where we started from. Growing up in the RCC I would have considered it completely normal to worship the "mother of God" as the rest of my extended family.

I see the true Church continually needing to unload itself of "extras" or traditions that we seem to always accumulate over time. Practices always tend to be codified into ordinances which, though they were once helpful, have become legalistic bondages to successive generations. Hence the need to "return" to the pure word, dumping these leavens.

The LCM began this way in the US. Actively returning to the word of God is a practice that brings blessing from God. Unfortunately and ironically Lee introduced far more baggage over time than most of us started with. Hence the cycle must be repeated.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, a permanent structure of government was instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

Several comments.

1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love". I understand this expression to refer to the church becoming institutionalized with rules and doctrines that are not aligned with the Lord's speaking in the gospels. So I would disagree with the 1st Post, it wasn't a matter of the Lord not returning during the lifetime of the Apostles but rather the setting up of an organization that veered from the Lord's word in the Gospels.

2. The reason this "man made construct" would "overtake" the church is simply because it is an easier, broad road that leads to destruction. Easier to build with shoddy materials than with gold, and precious stones. I would argue that the church is God's masterpiece which He plans on unveiling at the Lord's second coming (fulfilling the whole marriage symbolism). So it is not so much "Christianity overtaking" but rather it is simply "fool's gold". A poor imitation of the real thing.

3. The assertion that Jesus promised to return in the lifetime of the apostles is not supported by scripture. First, no verse is of its own interpretation, so no doctrine of this promise should hang on a single verse. Second, the Lord said very clearly that "no one knew the day nor the hour" and this interpretation seems to fly in the face of that. Third, the gospel of John indicates that Jesus told Peter by what death he would die, indicating that Peter would not be alive at the time of the Lord's second coming. Therefore, even if there were some who did form Christianity because, as you say, the Lord had not come yet, that "prediction" was based on a poor human interpretation / opinion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Several comments.

1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love". I understand this expression to refer to the church becoming institutionalized with rules and doctrines that are not aligned with the Lord's speaking in the gospels.

2. The reason this "man made construct" would "overtake" the church is simply because it is an easier, broad road that leads to destruction. Easier to build with shoddy materials than with gold, and precious stones.

3. The assertion that Jesus promised to return in the lifetime of the apostles is not supported by scripture. First, no verse is of its own interpretation, so no doctrine of this promise should hang on a single verse. Second, the Lord said very clearly that "no one knew the day nor the hour" and this interpretation seems to fly in the face of that. Third, the gospel of John indicates that Jesus told Peter by what death he would die, indicating that Peter would not be alive at the time of the Lord's second coming.

Brother, would please consider reworking your comments. I'm not sure but, as is, if I respond, I fear I'll take the thread on a tangent.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother, would please consider reworking your comments. I'm not sure but, as is, if I respond, I fear I'll take the thread on a tangent.

I have added a little more to post #10 to tie it tighter to the 1st post.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Several comments.

1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love". I understand this expression to refer to the church becoming institutionalized with rules and doctrines that are not aligned with the Lord's speaking in the gospels. So I would disagree with the 1st Post, it wasn't a matter of the Lord not returning during the lifetime of the Apostles but rather the setting up of an organization that veered from the Lord's word in the Gospels.

2. The reason this "man made construct" would "overtake" the church is simply because it is an easier, broad road that leads to destruction. Easier to build with shoddy materials than with gold, and precious stones. I would argue that the church is God's masterpiece which He plans on unveiling at the Lord's second coming (fulfilling the whole marriage symbolism). So it is not so much "Christianity overtaking" but rather it is simply "fool's gold". A poor imitation of the real thing.

3. The assertion that Jesus promised to return in the lifetime of the apostles is not supported by scripture. First, no verse is of its own interpretation, so no doctrine of this promise should hang on a single verse. Second, the Lord said very clearly that "no one knew the day nor the hour" and this interpretation seems to fly in the face of that. Third, the gospel of John indicates that Jesus told Peter by what death he would die, indicating that Peter would not be alive at the time of the Lord's second coming. Therefore, even if there were some who did form Christianity because, as you say, the Lord had not come yet, that "prediction" was based on a poor human interpretation / opinion.

On points 1 and 2 I would say that the fact that Jesus tarried for multiple generations necessitated a more permanent organization and tradition than was envisioned by Paul. To point three my response is that if Jesus did not teach that he would return in that generation then it seems that Paul misunderstood him because he expected that some would be " alive and remain " when Jesus returned as he stated in First Thessalonians 4:17. He told the Corinthians that they were those upon whom the end of the age had arrived( I Cor 10:11) and that they would not all "sleep" meaning die. (I Cor 15:51)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

On points 1 and 2 I would say that the fact that Jesus tarried for multiple generations necessitated a more permanent organization and tradition than was envisioned by Paul. To point three my response is that if Jesus did not teach that he would return in that generation then it seems that Paul misunderstood him because he expected that some would be " alive and remain " when Jesus returned as he stated in First Thessalonians 4:17. He told the Thessalonians that they were those upon whom the ends of the world had come and that they would not all sleep meaning die.

I agree that these 2 thousand years have resulted in a very large organization known collectively as "Christianity" which is not to be confused with the church. Based on Rev 2-3 I think this is under the Lord's sovereignty because there are a number of things we need to overcome before we are mature enough to rule and reign with Jesus.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I read the term "we" as referring to the believers collectively who are still alive, not specific to the people who first received this letter.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, and a permanent structure of government needed to be instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

You are thinking about this too objectively. The focus of the recovery is not New Testament model but New Testament condition. There's a difference.

The recovery is needed for this time before the Lord comes back, just as Luther was needed in his time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are thinking about this too objectively. The focus of the recovery is not New Testament model but New Testament condition. There's a difference.

The recovery is needed for this time before the Lord comes back, just as Luther was needed in his time.

So that's the real meaning of the parable of the fig tree?

Witness Lee and Hal Lindsey thought it was the state of Israel. They were wrong. What else were/are they wrong about?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are thinking about this too objectively. The focus of the recovery is not New Testament model but New Testament condition. There's a difference.

The recovery is needed for this time before the Lord comes back, just as Luther was needed in his time.

• Objective inquiry seems to be appropriate to the study of history.
• Would you care to explain the distinction you're making between New Testament model and New Testament condition?
• According, Luther was part of the Recovery not someone who came before it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christianity was invented because of the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

I don't know if "invented" will hold up under scrutiny, but II Peter, written somewhere between 120 & 150 AD, by who knows who, solved the problem by saying a thousand years is as a day in heavenly time.

So now it's been only two days since Jesus went up to spend time with daddy. And if he wants to spend at least two weeks with daddy, he won't come back for another 12,000 years. Thanks whoever wrote II Peter.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know if "invented" will hold up under scrutiny, but II Peter, written somewhere between 120 & 150 AD, by who knows who, solved the problem by saying a thousand years is as a day in heavenly time.

So now it's been only two days since Jesus went up to spend time with daddy. And if he wants to spend at least two weeks with daddy, he won't come back for another 12,000 years. Thanks whoever wrote II Peter.

The proposition that II Peter was written near the middle of the second century would support my hypothesis. Jesus had said "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." [Mark 13:30 Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32]

Yet the original disciples were all dead, and the Lord still tarried. The notion that to God a day equals a thousand years and that the end was delayed to allow all people adequate time to repent attempted to rationalize this dilemma.

Now we need to ask what the bases are for supposing that II Peter was of late origin and is pseudepigraphical. For this I submit the Wiki entry on II Peter as exhibit A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christianity was invented because the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

I disagree because the early church knew that the whole world needed to be evangelized before Christ returned (Matt 24:14). They were not merely waiting around for Christ to come back.

The early church grew and spread out, to that end. The intention was that the early church would spread across the world.

Before that could happen, the church became institutionalized due to political reasons (the Catholic Church and Constantine). The goal of evangelizing the world was still happening but through the religious-political institution of the Catholic Church. Men such as St Patrick, St Augustine, are known for that. This was God's sovereignty to enable the Gospel to be preached via Catholicism and spread through Europe.

The recovery does not say that all of these things should never happened and then try to re-write history. Rather it recognizes God's Sovereignty and moves through the ages and sees that it's at that time where the church should be preparing for Christ's return and leaving the old institutions which have fulfilled their purpose in history.

The problem is not that these institutions existed or that Christianity became institutionalized, the problem is that people wish to remain in institutionalized Christianity which has served its purpose instead of of moving on.

Even so, the recovery never says that the church will ever or must become the same situation as early Christianity, it is well known that denominations will still be around when Christ returns, it's in the bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I disagree because the early church knew that the whole world needed to be evangelized before Christ returned (Matt 24:14). They were not merely waiting around for Christ to come back.

The early church grew and spread out, to that end. The intention was that the early church would spread across the world.

Before that could happen, the church became institutionalized due to political reasons (the Catholic Church and Constantine). The goal of evangelizing the world was still happening but through the religious-political institution of the Catholic Church. Men such as St Patrick, St Augustine, are known for that. This was God's sovereignty to enable the Gospel to be preached via Catholicism and spread through Europe.

The recovery does not say that all of these things should never happened and then try to re-write history. Rather it recognizes God's Sovereignty and moves through the ages and sees that it's at that time where the church should be preparing for Christ's return and leaving the old institutions which have fulfilled their purpose in history.

The problem is not that these institutions existed or that Christianity became institutionalized, the problem is that people wish to remain in institutionalized Christianity which has served its purpose instead of of moving on.

Even so, the recovery never says that the church will ever or must become the same situation as early Christianity, it is well known that denominations will still be around when Christ returns, it's in the bible.

You're entitled to your opinion. Witness Lee felt otherwise. Matthew 13:31-32 reads as follows

31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

Here's what the Recovery Version says about it:

The church, which is the embodiment of the kingdom, should be like an herb that produces food. However, its nature and function were changed, so that it became a “tree,” a lodging place for birds. (This is against the law of God’s creation, that is, that every plant must be according to its kind — Gen. 1: 11-12.) This change happened in the first part of the fourth century, when Constantine the Great mixed the church with the world. He brought thousands of false believers into Christianity, making it Christendom, no longer the church. Hence, this third parable corresponds with the third of the seven churches in Rev. 2 and 3, the church in Pergamos (Rev. 2: 12-17 — see note 121 there). The mustard is an annual herb, whereas the tree is a perennial plant. The church, according to its heavenly and spiritual nature, should be like the mustard, sojourning on the earth. But with its nature changed, the church became deeply rooted and settled as a tree in the earth, flourishing with its enterprises as the branches in which many evil persons and things are lodged. This resulted in the formation of the outward organization of the outward appearance of the kingdom of the heavens.
Since the birds in the first parable signify the evil one, Satan (vv. 4, 19), the birds of heaven here must refer to Satan’s evil spirits with the evil persons and things motivated by them. They lodge in the branches of the great tree, that is, in the enterprises of Christendom.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're entitled to your opinion. Witness Lee felt otherwise. Matthew 13:31-32 reads as follows


Here's what the Recovery Version says about it:

What you posted does not reflect the whole of Lee's teachings on the subject. I recall a specific life study or was it a training or conference where it was mentioned about how God has used Christianity to spread the gospel, even though it is a mixture of paganism and Empire.

On God's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in spreading the gospel, quoting Lee:

"The Lord used the Roman Empire to form and spread the gospel."

On Satan's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in persecuting believers:

"Satan used the Roman Empire to persecute the church and to kill many believers"

On the equivalence between the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church:

"This indicates that the two - the Roman Empire and the Roman Church - are one".

Lee speaks of both genuine and false believers in the Roman Catholic Church.

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God’s people belonging to the Lord".

We could say the same about the USA today because it is the revived Roman Empire:

"The Lord used the USA to spread the gospel."

"Satan used the USA to persecute the church" - an example is prevention of using the name of God or Jesus, or even the local churches being called a cult by the religious arm of the American Empire.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you posted does not reflect the whole of Lee's teachings on the subject. I recall a specific life study or was it a training or conference where it was mentioned about how God has used Christianity to spread the gospel, even though it is a mixture of paganism and Empire.

On God's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in spreading the gospel, quoting Lee:

"The Lord used the Roman Empire to form and spread the gospel."

On Satan's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in persecuting believers:

"Satan used the Roman Empire to persecute the church and to kill many believers"

On the equivalence between the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church:

"This indicates that the two - the Roman Empire and the Roman Church - are one".

Lee speaks of both genuine and false believers in the Roman Catholic Church.

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God’s people belonging to the Lord".

We could say the same about the USA today because it is the revived Roman Empire:

"The Lord used the USA to spread the gospel."

"Satan used the USA to persecute the church" - an example is prevention of using the name of God or Jesus, or even the local churches being called a cult by the religious arm of the American Empire.

The argument that any particular statement or passage from Witness Lee's teachings do not reflect the whole of his teachings could be used against anything that he ever said refutable only by quotintg his entire body of work. So if one accepts that argument it's useless to quote Lee.

Suffice it to say, Witness Lee's view of Christianity was predominantly negative particularly as it pertains to Church Christianity as I have defined it below. To Lee the Recovery takes place mostly within Biblical Christianity as I have defined it.

As far as using God's sovereignty to justify Christianity or anything else, it made be said that God is Sovereign over Satan and all the evil activity in the world. So if you want to include Christianity in that who can argue?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christianity was invented because the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

This is the main contention of this thread. I agree that Christianity was invented, but not because the Apocalypse did not come as quickly as "predicted". There is no doubt that many expected the Lord to bring in the Kingdom at his first coming, we are told this in the NT, so it is no surprise if they expected it to come with the early church. But the interpretation that Jesus predicted that in Matt 10:23 is just not supportable.

Instead I would say that Jesus prophesied that Christianity would be invented when He warned of "many false Christ's" and "many false prophets". All believers are "anointed" which is the meaning of Christ. It is common in Christianity to refer to "the anointed man of God" referring to some Christian leader. I do not understand why people assume a false Christ or false prophet has to be a mass murderer like Charles Manson, or a cult leader like David Koresh, of a suicidal maniac like Jim Jones. The NT never gives this as a prerequisite. We hear repeatedly of Christians "returning to the pure word of God" -- that implies they were led astray by something other than the fellowship of the Apostles, i.e. a false prophet or false Christ.

So I would change the first post to:

"Jesus prophesied that Christianity would be invented in Matt 24, referring to these Christian leaders as 'false prophets' and 'false prophets' and saying that they would lead many astray."