Son of God, you say? Can we throw that requirement out?

I never thought I would see this thread on this forum of all places.

I'm torn. I'd say no because of the nature of our society... but then say "maybe" because if it really were Big J, His message would resonate with a lot of folks.

Did you see the Boondocks with the alternate history where Martin Luther King Jr wasn't killed by that bullet? It'd be similar to that in a way, but we'd have more extreme reactions. Marginalization until exile, persecution until death, that sort of thing. Despite our cynicism, I think what he would say (teachings, not claims of godhood) would resonant so strongly that the majority of society couldn't handle being shaken in their complacency. Some would be genuinely stirred to better things, and others stirred to make sure they don't have to hear about it again.

I think there's a difference in Christ Himself and prophets, though. Not to get too much into Revelations, but when Christ returns....we will know it beyond question and NO ONE will have any questions.

As for prophets, that is a great question I've wondered about myself. On one hand, the Bible pretty much lays out the end game, so what's the need for a prophet? In the days of the great prophets (Ezekial, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc), they foretold the coming of Christ, but there hasn't been a prophet in that sense since Christ arrived. Certainly many great men of God, but not sooth-saying prophets like I usually think of.

I think we're more likely to see the anti-Christ before we see a true prophet. Anyone watch the old Omen movies, I love those. And, if anyone tells you they know the timing of any of these events, you can automatically count them as wrong...no one knows but the Father.

As to the cynical side, I believe that human nature is exactly the same today as it has been since Biblical times. Christ was greeted by some as the Messiah, He was mocked by others, kind of liked by some, and ultimately crucified by those He came to save. The same thing happens today, though not literally. Technology is irrelevant, we all have to make a decision concerning His role in our lives, either conciously or by default...that won't ever change.

I think that's a fantastic point. When He came the first time, Christ railed agains the Pharisees and Saducees the most. The very people who were to be closest to God had lost sight of the forest for the trees and He called them on it time and time again. They were obsessed with status, money, and power. Unfortunately, I believe the same will be true again--His harshet punishment will be for the churches and religious figures that do the same thing now. This includes all denominations, not just some. And, I think many red state political figures are in for a very rude awakening....

This is such a blind, all encompassing statement that I have trouble with it. If they were prophets, it would be the Father that had given it to them. There are plenty of old prophets who knew the timing of future events (years of famine, timing regarding order of events).

And as far as no one questioning the End Times in Revelations... there's a lot of symbolism in other prophecies of the Bible, I have a very hard time believing that if the End Times came, they'd be as we expect.

Nice little reminder of how our cultural values sometimes obscure an older message. Jesus criticized establish religion at the time and he most likely would butt heads with American Christian leaders as well.

So, why would you assume that he'd have any meaning during his lifetime? Look at what happened after Jesus started teaching; the first real circulating letters about him started a generation after his death, and his cult didn't even manage to settle on a single story for another 400 years or so.

He could have died on, oh, Nov 24, 1991, and he'd not even be seriously considered the Savior except among a few people who knew him into the 2050's. They'd be regarded as nuts and cranks, and probably the cult would be snuffed out by the Catholic Church and various Bible-believing sects before it could get a real start.

Now, this all assumes that we leave out Revelations and assume a sort of touristy, pre-Apocalypse look around. I'm picturing him in leather pants as a Rock and Roll icon, dedicated to charity and yet fashionably self-indulgent. Oh, and one of the down-trodden - that was a big Jesus thing. Right?

That's a terrorist if i've ever seen one.

Oh, God!

Well, bassmasa is working off of the New Testament here, answering the questions in this thread in that light, and not really a philosophical light. I've got to give him massive props for his knowledge of the Bible. According to the Bible, Jesus isn't coming back until the end of the world, and when he does, he'll show up in glory (rather than humility like the first time), coming from the sky, and the true believers will somehow join him in the sky. Seems like it would be hard to miss.

He's saying it because Jesus said it, nearly verbatim.

In fact, that goes very well with what I was just saying - Jesus said that if anyone tells you that he has returned, don't even bother to go and look. (Mark 13 is a great read on this whole topic)

On the topic of other prophets, according to Revelation (singular) there will be two prophets who speak about how the end is near, and they will be hated and killed - and people will be so happy about their deaths that they will celebrate by giving each other gifts.

I think Irongut wanted a more philosophical discussion than what I'm talking about, but that stuff is just F y'all's I.

On a philosophical level, I would hope that I'd recognize a divine message, but I'm not at all certain.

<---- still an agnostic. No, really.

I've actually been thinking about this for awhile, Irongut. (I haven't read the thread yet, just your post... I want to get my first thoughts out, and then I'll read the rest before actually posting this.) In talking with Bassmasa, for instance, who is absolutely certain that his way is right and true and forever correct... I was thinking very hard about bringing this up. If you're absolutely certain, but God sends a new messenger saying, "well, actually, you guys got this part wrong, this is the correct message", then you don't believe the new messenger. Period. If you're inclined that way, you hang the bastard for heresy. You HAVE your answers, your certainty. You don't need any new pesky ideas, even if they actually are from God.

Basically, many (most?) Christians would be the modern Jews; they'd stick with their book and ignore the new teachings.

In running over that likely conversation, though, I realized that the inevitable answer is: "our book says that can't happen". The argument will be that it's a hypothetical that couldn't possibly happen and is, thus, irrelevant. God CAN'T send another messenger because our book says he won't. Nevermind that they can't prove that it's the literal word of God and that it's been translated differently so many times and that they can't even translate one of the Commandments correctly.... the Book says that God won't send any new Messiah with new instructions, so it won't happen.

It's a catch-22... all the answers are in the book because the book says it has all the answers. If they did get it wrong somewhere along the way -- which has demonstrably happened on numerous occasions, they'll just not believe the truth.

(okay, now I'm going to go read the rest of the thread.)

Hmm, only thing I really wanted to comment to was this bit by Fedaykin:

Doesn't it say he'll show up like a thief in the night?

Edwin, you beat me to say it, you!

I get frustrated with the circular thinking inherent in fundamentalist Christianity, souldaddy, but I wasn't that frustrated. The book is holy because the book says so, and the proof that the book is holy is that the book is holy. The Pope can't make mistakes because the Pope says so, and the proof is that the Pope is always right. Stuff like that. I'm sure I'd be equally annoyed with fundamentalist Islam if I were more familiar with it.

I have no problem with the Christians who understand that their book, however it was created, has been in human hands for the last two thousand years, and that our present understanding of the original message is imperfect. If they choose to believe it's the best we can do with stuff that we were told two thousand years ago, that's really fine. But when they want to use that kind of hearsay, circular argumentation to override plain facts on the ground that we can actually measure.... that frustrates me. The Earth is not flat. It does go around the sun. Lightning is not a sign of God's wrath. Life, including humanity, did evolve. The evidence for these things is so overwhelming you couldn't possibly learn it all. Yet, somehow, this one book trumps all other evidence simply because it says it is holy, and the only evidence for that is that it says it is holy. Choosing to believe that, over the mountains of other evidence available, is willful ignorance. It's purposely putting blinders on your head and calling it 'faith'.

I think that blinder effect makes you spiritually dead; you can't hear new messages anymore. If/when God sends another messenger, the people who are most certain that they are correct are the ones who will most fervently ignore the message. If the Second Coming really does happen, it's the people who are the most intense believers in the Rapture that will be the least likely to actually be taken.

From what I have seen, Jesus was about spirituality, which is a constant asking of questions and a challenging of preconceptions. Religion is something else entirely; it's about answers, and looking things up in a book, and living according to a recipe.

Spirituality is about uncertainty; religion is the opposite. I don't think you can do both at once.

Thank you Gio.