When did many christains stop following the teachings Jesus

1. Summary of the results

The key claim in the original statement—that “many Christians stopped following the teachings [of] Jesus”—is supported in the provided analyses by two complementary lines of evidence: contemporary commentators arguing that modern Christian practice often emphasizes Pauline doctrine, sacrificial atonement and afterlife concerns over Jesus’ ethical teachings of love and forgiveness ^{[1] [2]}, and historical overviews showing gradual institutional divergence through major schisms and councils beginning in late antiquity and accelerating in the medieval and early modern eras ^[3]. Schisms and theological debates from the 4th century onward are identified as primary inflection points where Christian teaching and authority became contested, producing doctrinal plurality rather than a single, uniform adherence to Jesus’ original sayings ^[3]. While the commentators in p2 stress moral and practical drift in recent centuries, the historical summary in p3 frames the change as cumulative and structural rather than a single rupture.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The provided analyses omit several important contexts that complicate the “stopped following Jesus” framing. First, definitions matter: what counts as “following Jesus’ teachings” varies across theological traditions—some measure fidelity by adherence to gospel ethics, others by sacramental theology or creedal orthodoxy—so plurality does not necessarily equal abandonment ^[3]. Second, the commentator sources ^{[1] [2]} reflect personal and rhetorical perspectives—one is a polemical comparison of Jesus versus Paul, the other a former believer critiquing American Christian nationalism—neither provides systematic historical or sociological data. Third, the historical source ^[3] highlights institutional milestones (Arian controversies, Nicaea, Great Schism, Reformation) but does not map specific doctrinal departures back to discrete teachings of Jesus, leaving empirical gaps about timing and extent of alleged departures ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The claim’s framing benefits actors who seek to delegitimize rival authorities by portraying them as inauthentic: theological critics of institutional churches, religious reformers, and secular commentators can use the narrative that “Christians stopped following Jesus” to advance agendas favoring personal faith expressions, anti-clerical reforms, or political critiques ^{[1] [2]}. Conversely, institutional churches might resist this framing because it implies illegitimacy of their traditions and historical creeds ^[3]. The sources supplied reflect these poles: p2 entries present an insider/critical tone emphasizing moral deviation, while p3 offers institutional history without normative claims. Selective citation of Pauline texts, councils, or modern political movements can thus be used to support either denunciation or defense, making the simple claim vulnerable to ideological cherry-picking ^{[1] [2] [3]}.