To ask if you think there will be a second coming?

[LuluBellaBlue]

This is inspired by the new Netflix show Messiah, about a second coming.

I really hope this doesn’t upset or offend anyone and people can share their beliefs and thoughts openly and without prejudice or judgement as I know this can be very sensitive for some people.

Following on from —binge— watching this series I did a bit of googling and it seems both Christian and Muslim regions predict this. (Not researched if any others do yet)

I’m not very well informed about different regions but the concept of this programme has really interested me, I find it fascinating that this could, maybe? actually happen!

Do you think there could be a second coming?!

(And what would it actually mean for the world? A rise in consciousness? Mass healing???)

YABU - no don't be so daft!
YANBU - yes, this could happen, why not?!

There are no eyewitness accounts if Jesus. The earliest (disputed) texts are Josephus writing 70 years later and Tacitus over a century later.

Yes, I think there will be. There won't be any doubt, so if your neighbour from number 62 says it's them, it isn't

Kong Arthur and Robin Hood are stories woven and steeped in legend, though. The Jesus story is substantiated by eyewitness accounts and near contemporary historical accounts. There is simply no comparison.

This true, but there is a compelling argument that the legends were based on real people, especially in the case of Robin Hood. There is a theory that he was actually based on 3-4 similar people. This is why the claims of his origins are all possibly true, because all these places had a Robin Hood figure.

Yes I am the second coming pls follow me and subscribe to my youtube channel about how to give me all of your worldly possessions and start a juice cleanse.

Kong Arthur I saw that film - he went bonkers and climbed the Empire State building with Lancelot under his arm

Do you want my PayPal??

@babba2014 thank you so much for the detailed description, this is the most easy to read / digest / understand I’ve seen. Much better than what I’ve found via google so thank you :)

I have many followers including Abed and Gwyneth paltrow!!

No reason why it couldn't be a woman, blank. Even in Genesis it says both men and women are made in God's image.

Well, you can guarantee if there is, he/she/them (got to be fluid these days) will want your money. Religion to me seems like an extension of HMRC!

Abed!

I preached about the second coming throughout advent and although I do believe in Christ’s return, what the Bible actually tells us about it makes it hard to know how or when it might happen. I don’t live my life looking for signs of the end times (!) but I do believe that he will return - whatever that may look like. I’m quite liberal in my interpretation of the Bible (having studied it to a very high level) and so am open minded (I probably wouldn’t say that it in a sermon!)

Thanks for your response, Saskia.

Because you never mention or reference them - as a theologian I would have thought this would be an obvious thing to do.

Do you mean you want me to copy out portions from Josephus, from the gospels, the Pauline epistles, Clement of Rome etc? I can do that, I just know on these types of threads that could get incredibly tedious very quickly! I have made reference to the sources - what do you mean by saying I only use secondary sources? Is it because I provided links to writings about the sources? If so I apologise - I have to say I really struggle when people simply post a series of links, it's annoying! - but I felt that link did give a good overview of the sources in question without bias. I can see that as a historian that's not what you were after, but some might find it interesting. What would you like me to quote? I don't want to bog us down too much :)

For it to be considered real evidence it would have to be first-hand, or at least contemporary accounts, not later works.

But I've reiterated that the gospels are from eyewitness accounts - that two of them are most likely written by eyewitnesses, and the other two by companions of eyewitnesses. These stand the criterion of historical authenticity in that they can be tested robustly against the culture, customs, geography, climate of the exact time and area - even the names used have been proven to be consistent with names in that time and place, quite difficult to insert later on from authors detached by time and place. The evidence for Christ stands tall because of the sheer amount of writings, in Christian and non Christian sources, within a short time. As a historian, you will know how these things work in terms of antiquity, and I stand with my assertion that for an unknown messianic pretender there are a surprising amount of sources.

Again, what primary sources are you thinking I have not included or not read? I'd really like to establish what you mean by this so I can comment further. I'm sorry if I have not been clear enough.

I’m a priest with pretty much an entirely atheist family and friendship group so I won’t be offended if you think my post is bulls*!

I don’t. But the Jehovah witnesses that knock on my door keep telling me there will be, and he’ll sort alllllll this climate change, war and corruption out.

I asked if climate change was a way of getting rid of the evil in the world, by killing off man kind.
That didn’t go down well.

I'm interested in religion, from what I remember no one was convinced about jesus in his day and they crucified him as a result. It wasn't until after his death did they see what he was trying to do.
Secknd coming?? Who ever it was would probably be seen as batshit initially to until after the event and it was looked back on with hindsight.

Kong Arthur I saw that film - he went bonkers and climbed the Empire State building with Lancelot under his arm grin

And Robin Hood is real. Obviously. But not the Kevin Costner version of him.

Which gospels are written by eyewitnesses? Mark is the eldest gospel, dating from around AD70.

Do you mean you want me to copy out portions from Josephus, from the gospels, the Pauline epistles, Clement of Rome etc? I can do that, I just know on these types of threads that could get incredibly tedious very quickly! I have made reference to the sources - what do you mean by saying I only use secondary sources? Is it because I provided links to writings about the sources? If so I apologise - I have to say I really struggle when people simply post a series of links, it's annoying! - but I felt that link did give a good overview of the sources in question without bias. I can see that as a historian that's not what you were after, but some might find it interesting. What would you like me to quote? I don't want to bog us down too much

Oh no, don’t post full transcripts, I don’t think normal people would enjoy that at all Just links to places these things can be found.

But I've reiterated that the gospels are from eyewitness accounts - that two of them are most likely written by eyewitnesses, and the other two by companions of eyewitnesses. These stand the criterion of historical authenticity in that they can be tested robustly against the culture, customs, geography, climate of the exact time and area - even the names used have been proven to be consistent with names in that time and place, quite difficult to insert later on from authors detached by time and place. The evidence for Christ stands tall because of the sheer amount of writings, in Christian and non Christian sources, within a short time. As a historian, you will know how these things work in terms of antiquity, and I stand with my assertion that for an unknown messianic pretender there are a surprising amount of sources.

Again, what primary sources are you thinking I have not included or not read? I'd really like to establish what you mean by this so I can comment further. I'm sorry if I have not been clear enough..

What I’m asking for are accounts written while Christ was alive. For example (and I know he didn’t) something like Cicero writing a letter and mentioning that Christ bloke was still being a nuisance, or records of his encounters with the authorities. That type of thing. As you say, one of the problems with this period is that the records are often fragmentary or non-existent, but the Romans are unusually generous with their written accounts.
Again, I’m not disputing his existence, I’m inclined to believe there was such a person. But it’s not at all helpful to either Christianity or history to insist evidence exists when it clearly doesn’t. Every theologian I know would baulk at doing that. They would say on the balance of probabilities he probably did but would also agree that what evidence these is, is later and has to be treated with caution.

People scoff at older children still believing in Santa, they say they must lack intelligence & critical thinking.

...and yet, some of the people doing the scoffing believe in Jesus/God/second coming... all based on a bunch of toss, written by a bunch of old men to control the masses.

And Robin Hood is real. Obviously. But not the Kevin Costner version of him. Are you saying he didn't have an American accent? Ha, next you'll be telling me Henry VIII bore no resemblance to Jonathan Rhys Meyers!

I think if there was a second coming no one would believe it, there have apparently been people through the years who have claimed to be the second coming but they've been classed as mad or just ridiculed. So how would we know if it was the second coming and how do we know it hadn't already happened and we've had the person locked up in a mental health facility?
If there was a second coming they would have to do something big to get everyone's attention, a lot of healing the ill, feeding the hungry on a grand scale.
Then they'd probably be assassinated.
As we're on the brink of what could be another war it would be interesting if it happened now.

There will be a second coming
And I'm a Christian who has done my research. The sad part is it's really not about proof but belief. When it happens you will remember me 😂

I quite liked the BBC Robin Hood with Jonas Armstrong. Yes, it was a bit crap overall but he was Robin in my mind.

Anyway. I've not tried to make out that there are contemporary extra biblical sources, I've only ever referenced the near contemporary sources in those terms, because they are still of historical value and considered by most scholars to be of such. I've mentioned the gospels as contemporary histories because the balance of evidence reveals them to be so, even while including bias. And a lot of ancient writings include bias of one sort or another. But I'm not going to roll out a contemporary letter from a Roman governors when there isn't one. Again, it would be highly unlikely for anything like this to exist about someone like Jesus, even allowing for how comprehensive the Romans were in their record keeping. The fact that he's included in Josephus and Tacitus speaks volumes about his existence. And I've referenced those sources, and the biblical writings, and the early Christian writings.

I'm not insisting on evidence that is not there, as you say, any theologian or historian would baulk at that. I'm describing what is there, and as a theologian I think what is there makes a very good case for his existence and certain facts about his life and death. Of course we must treat these things with caution, but to say there is no evidence is disingenuous and not in line with the majority opinion in scholarly circles.