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?!

It'd depend on the sources. BBC or ITV? Times or Guardian? What can we trust? Like anything I'd want to look into it for myself and determine whether it could possibly be true. I would of course discount the possibility unless faced by evidence and by a Penguin Experience in my own life. Which sounds quite fun.

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.

Yes, that's true. It is a crazy, wild claim. And I wouldn't just take someone's word for it - I would want to know that person, to know they were trustworthy, to know more about their character. And the character of Jesus is spilled out across the pages of the NT, as someone who was a voice for the oppressed, who cared about justice, who exposed the hypocrites, who didn't have time for false righteousness, who demonstrated the greatest compassion. It's like C.S Lewis puts it - was Jesus a liar? Was he deluded? Or was he Lord?

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

The early gospels were built on oral histories. But it's the shortness of time that gives us the most information and shows us what the stories were and what they believed - early creeds in use in the 30s, epistles written only 20 or less years later. Historians have shown that is not enough time for legend to creep in.

But absolutely possible for someone to do good things and be deluded about other things at the same time.

Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience so emphasised OT prophecy etc.

Except Matthew didn't write it. And neither did Mark, Luke or John. I have to be honest, when I was going to church I automatically assumed the gospels were written by the disciples. I had no idea of the time frame.

Anyway, I really must do some work.

@SirChing thank you. I'm no better today unfortunately, really struggling with breathing. It's hard work. How are you feeling today?

Historians have shown that is not enough time for legend to creep in.

Come on now, you don’t need any time for agenda pushing, shaping the narrative and selecting the evidence to kick in.

@Ronia. Yes it was! I was trying to remember the actor. Fab.

Except Matthew didn't write it. And neither did Mark, Luke or John.

What is your source for this?
The earliest traditions and earliest manuscript fragments we have attach these names to the gospels. They were written in the time frame of eyewitnesses, 60-70 and 90ish. They have many elements pointing to the use of eyewitness testimonies. I don't know for a fact Matthew the apostle wrote Matthew, but have no reason to disbelieve the earliest traditions and certainly his emphasis on Jesus' ministry to the Jews and status as an educated tax collector points to the possibility.
There's really very little doubt among scholars that Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke, companions to eyewitnesses.

Really. Should. Go.

The census story is a straightforward lie. The whole Bethlehem/Nativity kids' panto narrative is a concoction from several centuries later.

Jesus, whoever he was, seems to have emerged as a preacher as a fully formed adult. His origins are uncertain. As a potential jewish messiah, his lineage and birthplace etc would have been significant, but the overwhelming majority of jews weren't buying it, which says something to that.

The antisemtism in the Gospels, particularly the crucifiction story, qualifies these particular lies as hate speech.

What is your source for this?

Just google it I guess. This is from a Wikipedia page about their authorship.

During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle.[58] Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.

I always feel like abrahamic religion is constantly trying to reach higher to 'god/etc' yet we are humans. We are enough as we are. We do not need to constantly try and pray above.

How can praying to Earth Goddesses be the work of satan? So trying to praise nature and the earth is evil?

My friend had an attempted suicide. Many of the church went to visit yet all slagged her off behind her back and then stopped seeing her when she didnt go for ages anyway.

If anyone is interested in the reliability of what is written in the bible, an interesting book to read is "The case for christ" by Lee Strobel.

People can argue semantics forever, but there are actually factual consistencies written in the bible and the accounts of the gospels for the time they're written prove to be as reliable as they can be.

As a reference the biography of Alexander the Great is taught as fact and not disputed but was written 400 years after his death. The accounts of Jesus and his miracles were all written within the lifetime of people who witnessed then, all at different times by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (there is disputes about who specifically wrote the entirety of these from what I understand) but have many many consistencies. Even the people who persecuted and hated Jesus agreed that what he did was nothing short of miraculous. As for the New Testament being anti Semitic, that is actually not the case and something which people say from what they've heard through generations who haven't read it. Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jewish.

I consider myself lucky to have a strong faith and will never deny that, it's interesting reading through people's comments who oppose it because all it does it strengthen me and I'm sure that's the case for other Christians. I will follow Gods will for my whole life, and feel so lucky I feel his presence working in my life!

Alexander the Great is taught as fact and not disputed but was written 400 years after his death.

Do you know anyone who prays to Alexander The Great and believes they can spend eternity worshipping him? Its because the bible makes claims about the supernatural that means it gets spoken about more.

@Madhairday "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."

It's a bit late for supposedly eyewitness accounts., but in any case I think it makes a difference when the people making the claim are in the same club. it's like the only people who have seen the bridge this guy is selling me are his co-workers in his bridge selling company. But he can point to a couple of people who once saw a similar bridge.

For me I don't care much except that it's very revealing when many Christians appear to think the Romans had his birth certificate etc. Who told them that I wonder?

Regardless it's easy enough to dismiss the miracles and those were confirmed by the same people saying that Jesus existed so we know they were liars and can't be used as reliable sources at all.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that such a big deal as a new Messiah didn't get recorded by other historians, but Zombies?

Matthew says in chapter 27

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Earthquake and Zombies and no one thought that worthy of a footnote?

What particularly makes you feel happy or glad about having faith? I am generally wondering this? What is so bad about no faith?

boymum9 see my previous post for proof the gospel writers were liars and unreliable sources.

I'm curious though how you meant "factual consistencies written in the bible and the accounts of the gospels"

Sometimes people say that when they mean "he mentions Bethlehem and that's a real place so he must be telling the truth" but perhaps you had something else in mind

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 like C.S Lewis puts it - was Jesus a liar? Was he deluded? Or was he Lord?

This CS Lewis quote always makes me cringe. It is infinitely more plausible that he was deluded or a liar than the son of god. There just isn't the heft of evidence present to back up such an extraordinary claim. Jesus is one in an army of messiahs, and Christianity started from one of many resurrection cults in history.

You believe, and of course that's fair enough. But I doubt that you (or any Christian) bases their faith on the evidence available.

@SirChing thank you, I really prefer to debate in a civilised manner and I don't hate believers, but only what they believe in.

However I'm not gentle when it comes to the belief itself so if someone starts a thread such as "Would we WANT a second coming" or "What do we think of god" you might then find yourself grabbing the old pitchfork and torch and yelling "Kill the Blasphemer"

boymum9
I consider myself lucky to have a strong faith and will never deny that, it's interesting reading through people's comments who oppose it because all it does it strengthen me and I'm sure that's the case for other Christians. I will follow Gods will for my whole life, and feel so lucky I feel his presence working in my life!
How does it strengthen you?
What's God's will for you?
How do you feel his presence?

It's like C.S Lewis puts it - was Jesus a liar? Was he deluded? Or was he Lord?

Or a legend? (Not my words. Read it somewhere.)

For me I don't care much except that it's very revealing when many Christians appear to think the Romans had his birth certificate etc. Who told them that I wonder?

That'll be from Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, claiming that Jesus' birth could easily be found on the registers of 'the taxing made under Cyrenius'. I place no particular credence on this and wouldn't claim the Romans had his 'birth certificate'. I do think we have to be careful when claiming Luke 'lied' about the census - history tends to be a whole lot more nuanced, especially ancient history, and there are a few possible explanations to do with translation, error, whether Quirinius was governor twice, the translation of 'governor' etc. Some scholars even said Josephus had the date wrong - he's not immune to error either (FWIW I tend to think he was pretty accurate though - just pointing out that we must dig deeper into historical method to understand this stuff.) On balance it's more likely that Luke was talking about a different census, that either ended in the reign of Quirinius as governor, or was before that (some scholars say the translation is closer to 'before' than 'during'), or when he was 'procurator; a different post than governor. Luke may have made an error in dating, of course, but it's unlikely he'd have made such a big gaffe, being such a careful historian - and he would have been called out on it by eyewitnesses too.

The whole Bethlehem/Nativity kids' panto narrative is a concoction from several centuries later.

That's a difficult position to assert, when all the material is in Luke/Matthew, and the dating for those in the 1st century well attested. The only things in the 'kids nativity' narratives that are dodgy are the stable (not mentioned, more likely a cave/room under a home where animals were kept), and the three kings (an indeterminate number of wise ones) - embellishments not based on the text, but for the effect of story.

"That's not late, in terms of writings of antiquity. At all."

Not in terms of antiquity, but it is still late. Not contemporary, nor eyewitness, merely hearsay.

And, having studied Josephus in depth, I disagree strongly with anybody who claims the TF is authentic. The fact that it's even in the wrong place (between two paragraphs which should obviously be contiguous, and don't make sense with this in between) is something often ignored. The later reference literally makes no sense if it is referring to Jesus Christ. The "who was the Christ" must be an addition by a "helpful" scribe - remove it, and it's obviously about Jesus, son of Damneus.

And it is also noticeable that the TF was never so much as mentioned until the 3rd century. Particularly by Origen, who searched all his life for any references to Jesus that he could find from anywhere.

Strangely, it was only noticed by that self confessed forger of early Christian history, Bishop Eusebius. Who apparently found it in Origen's copy of Josephus!

What a coincidence!

Ah well, the less said about that annoyance Eusebius...

I think we've had this discussion a few times, Cardinal :) I still robustly disagree, as someone who has also studied Josephus and these passages in depth. The 'bittiness' of the passage is not ignored, but instead equated with the 'patchwork' nature of Josephus' writing in general. I really don't want to go down that whole rabbit hole, because from experience it is endless, but would recommend reading Mason on Josephus for some useful scholarly exploration: amazon.co.uk/Josephus-New-Testament-Steve-Mason/dp/0801047005/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=josephus+mason&qid=1578486748&sr=8-2]]