Social transformation or Personal transformation? Two historical ways of misunderstanding Jesus's work and aim

If it can be assumed that the Fourth Gospel is correct, and that Jesus Christ's aim and (successful) work was to offer those who followed him eternal resurrected life, in a second creation (i.e. another and new world) that is Heaven...

Then I think we can perceive two major directions of historical misunderstanding (or, perhaps, mis-appropriation) whereby Jesus was instead assumed to be instituting a new religion of this-world: one was making this-world a better place; the other was making ourselves better people...

Such that Jesus was mistakenly believed either to be offering:

1. Social transformation; or

2. Personal transformation.

Social transformation was assumed to be accomplished by social methods - aimed at the adoptive-"tribe" of Christians. 

This would be accomplished by building a new social religion, that is a new priesthood and church-organization; so that the life of all Men in that society would be changed. 

This actually happened; especially with the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. Through history there have been several societies that have been transformed, by several kinds of Christian church. 

The idea is that Men would be improved as individuals secondarily, by the primary means of making their social world a better place. 

Personal transformation was assumed to be accomplished by the already-ancient and still present methods of mystery religion (eg. in Mithraism): by selection, initiations, training of the mind in accordance with the will.

This also actually happened. The methods of personal transformation were variously adopted for the priesthood (and later for the religious orders) of the social religion. The goal of personal transformation also led to what-gets-called the "Gnostic" strand of Christianity.

The idea was that individual Men would be made better primarily (albeit in an esoteric setting); and such Men would secondarily, as a consequence, "leaven the lump" and make this world a better place. 

       

But if Christianity is not really about making this world a better place - and if Jesus is understood as having said that - ultimately, spiritually - this world cannot by its nature be made a significantly better place... 

Then this means that social and personal transformation - while both possible - will not have the effect of betterment. 

If, in fact, Jesus taught that personal transformation does not make better men, and social transformation does not make better societies - then the major emphases of the actual Christian religion through history have been wrong. 

(Whether or not Jesus is understood to have asserted or implied that social and personal transformation cannot - by the nature of this mortal and earthly reality - make the needful difference to the human condition; it can nonetheless be argued that his core and essential teaching was about the next-world, not his-world; and the post-mortal state, not about making people or societies better.) 

It is perfectly understandable that everyone will want a positive transformation of this mortal life: both personally and socially (even if they have different ideas about which ought to, or must, come first). 

In is perfectly understandable that people should hope and want that their religion will make them better people during their lives on earth, and make this this world a better place ASAP.

All this is understandable and indeed apparently inevitable...

For example: In our post-religious society; the atheist-materialist ideologies are focused on optimistic schemes aimed at positively-transforming our-mortal-selves and this-world. Indeed; everything else is excluded by assumption. 

But if, in fact, Jesus's essential and core work was aimed-at transforming our post-death and next-world state - and thus not at transforming this mortal life; then Christianity ought to have been - and ought now to be - a very different kind of religion than it actually has been and is.