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?!

The fact that there may have been a bloke called Yeshua Bar Yusuf is not the same thing at all as there being a real Jesus as written in the gospel fiction.

So many bits of the story we know to be false. The census never happened, and makes no sense in any case. Crucifiction was a Roman penalty. The blood libel on the jews here is filthy. They can't even get the date right. Mixing up their Herods. The awkward business of Big J's surviving family, his undoutbted nieces and nephews and cousins, etc.

The muslims have their own Jesus stories, equally valid or invalid and equally fictional.

That's why we must apply hermeneutical tools to the text, though. There are some difficulties with it scholars wrestle with and translators are always working on it to dig deeper into it (for instance, the Herod thing is resolved by a translation of 'before' in terms of the census, when in the original Greek the word meant that as often as 'during', so we must look at both and attempt to apply form criticism etc and common sense. The gospel writers got far too much right in terms of historicity, and therefore what seems to us to be contradictory may be something lost in translation, may be an error on their part, may be something else. But errors and contradictions don't take away from the authenticity of ancient texts - they only would if the whole thing could be proven to be so far from anything historically viable.

The Muslims' Jesus stories are far removed though, by six centuries. Far, far more time to be cloaked in legend and hearsay. The gospels are within 2-3 decades. Incomparable.

I am the second coming of Christ. Prove me wrong...

What is 'the awkward business of Jesus' surviving family', out of interest? We know his brothers were most likely actively involved in the ministry of the early church.

the vast majority of NT scholars - of faith and not - agree that the evidence shows Jesus existed

The vast majority of scholars also agree that the evidence shows Santa Claus is based on a real person. Therefore Santa Claus exists.

The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire New Testament, Christ only four times, and Jesus Christ only twice! Where is all this evidence that so called NT scholars have of the existence of a barely mentioned character from an ancient book? If it is so overwhelming then why do they keep it hidden?

The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire New Testament, Christ only four times, and Jesus Christ only twice!

Ummm.... What?

Where are you getting these figures? A quick search of any Bible translation will tell you Jesus is mentioned around 1,000-1,300 times, the word translated Christ around 500. Try reading Romans...

Nobody has kept anything hidden. It is in plain sight for anyone to see. Try reading Bart Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist' for an interesting start on it from an unbelieving scholar.

Surely it’s totally irrelevant whether Jesus existed? The important thing is whether he was a magic man who did magical things which clearly only children should believe?

Your Santa Claus analogy is a straw man. This is not at the moment a discussion about whether Jesus exists in the now (though I believe with all I am he does), but on whether he actually existed at all. 'Scholars' do not debate the existence of Santa; and in fact there are no historical attestations to St Nick, it is a tradition, unlike the historical attestations to Jesus.

Ummm.... What?

Sorry posted in a rush. I was making a point about the book of Revelations. Will have to come back to it.

The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire New Testament, Christ only four times, and Jesus Christ only twice!

Sorry but that really isnt the case.

Hope you are feeling better @MadHairDay

I don't think two brief mentions by Roman historians is airtight evidence for the exist of Jesus, but it's probably good enough. My issue is that there is no credible evidence for the resurrection or miracles.

You cannot discount the gospels and epistles due to bias. Most ancient historical records show bias of one sort or another, whether to empires or kings or to matters of faith. It does not make them historically unviable, it makes them useful as historical documents that hold a bias and therefore must be examined in terms of that bias. And when we do that we find all sorts of authentic historical details that cannot be explained by made-up stories weaved decades or centuries later, especially not in terms of writing in antiquity.

Including historical details is exactly what you would do if you wanted to make a document appear credible. This does not make the gospels credible. There are a number of factors which make the gospels wholly unreliable.

For the accounts of our only eye witnesses, they were written very late. The closest was Mark, around 33 years after the death of Jesus. John is at least 60 years after the fact. Memories are fallible, and an account 33 years after an event is not totally unreliable. 60 years is laughable.

The gospels repeatedly contradict eachother, and get more fantastical with age. Mark does not write about the virgin birth or resurrection. Matthew and Luke both include the virgin birth but name a different man as Joseph.

Then you need to remember that these are the gospels that the early church went with. There are many more that did not fit the church's views and so were discarded.

Are the gospels valuable as historical texts? Yes. Are they credible enough to prove that Jesus is the son of god? Of course not. A fantastic claim needs fantastic evidence. The truth is that Christians work backwards, looking for evidence to support their claim.

And if there is a god, this shoddy evidence is really his chosen word?

Whether the historical Jesus existed or not is fairly academic.

There is not and never can be evidence that this Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, who died and was resurrected to deliver eternal life to his followers.

Even the Christian church is clear on that. It's a matter of faith not evidence.

The other so called gospels were not in general use in the early church and so were not included in canon because they did not meet the criteria of use - eyewitness accounts, in wide use from early on, in agreement with the gospel narrative. In fact, some of them were utterly fantastical and in opposition to the original gospels. The existence of them does not water down the historical value of the gospels; it merely shows there were variations among later sects, notably gnostics, who wanted to shape the narrative to something suiting them instead.

who wanted to shape the narrative to something suiting them instead.

And they were the only ones trying to do that you think?

The existence of them does not water down the historical value of the gospels; it merely shows there were variations among later sects, notably gnostics, who wanted to shape the narrative to something suiting them instead.

Of course it does. The church picked the accounts that fitted their view and agenda, and discarded other evidence.

But the age and numerous inconsistencies in the gospels do enough to make them insufficient to prove that Jesus was the son of god.

For the accounts of our only eye witnesses, they were written very late.

That's not late, in terms of writings of antiquity. At all. With many other historical figures we don't find any writings until centuries later. And added to that is the oral traditions/histories emphasis of teh Jewish community at that time - people were trained from childhood to pass stories down word for word, were robustly challenged if any change happened, so not comparable to Chinese whispers. The epistles were mostly written before the gospels, some of them in the 50s, and the existence of very early creeds is referred to in these as well as in the later wider tradition. In the earliest creeds, most likely in wide use only two-five years after the events, believers were claiming that Jesus was died and resurrected on the third day.

The church picked the accounts that fitted their view and agenda, and discarded other evidence.

No. They simply continued to use what they had used from very early on, what was agreed on from the start in the earliest creeds and writings, and eventually compiled that in canon. Of course the discarded what was not in agreement - they would not allow anything that was not authentic to the faith they held and had held from the start. That wasn't discarding evidence, it was upholding their faith and preserving it for future generations. The gnostic gospels were not destroyed, merely not included.

But the age and numerous inconsistencies in the gospels do enough to make them insufficient to prove that Jesus was the son of god.

The numerous inconsistencies are not as inconsistent as many would have us believe. The great majority of inconsistencies in the manuscripts we have are small grammatical errors or spelling mistakes, and it's been proven that even the larger inconsistencies do not in any way detract from central tenets of faith. If you are referring more to inconsistencies between gospel texts, they make sense in terms of what these writings were; they were by different authors for different audiences with different emphases. Luke wrote as a historian for a Greek/gentile audience and so emphasised things regarding that, Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience so emphasised OT prophecy etc. Even today you'd expect some inconsistencies when two or more people report on an event - they see what they see, from their POV. Genealogies etc were written in antiquity with differing emphases too, so some concentrating more on the royal line and some other branches.

However, proving that Jesus is the son of God is another matter. I think the NT makes a good case for Jesus believing he was, so our question should be if he was who he said he was.

And they were the only ones trying to do that you think?

Do you not think the church should be held to a higher standard?

Say I claimed to see penguins in the Thames. I have numerous eye witnesses, but only use four. Would you think me objective and reliable? Would you trust my claim about the penguins? Or does it appear I am ignoring evidence that undermines my claim?

And they were the only ones trying to do that you think?

I'm well aware of the bias in the gospels. The difference is that these writers were not trying to shape a different narrative from another source, like the gnostic gospels later - they were recounting the eyewitness stories they had seen and believed. You might call their emphasis a shaping of their own, of course. But it was not a later channeling of something earlier into something different.

But it was not a later channeling of something earlier into something different.

Given that we have no access to the oral tradition they were working off, you have absolutely no way of knowing that.

I think the NT makes a good case for Jesus believing he was, so our question should be if he was who he said he was.

It's a pretty extraordinary claim. It would be a huge leap to simply take his word for it, even if came across as genuine in his belief.