When Jesus does return will Christians even recognize him?

[geni]

According to Daniel he'll be "Coming on the clouds" with a host of Angels and standing on God's right hand. So I guess we'll know it's him.

No doubt he'll get arrested again...

Depends where he appears. Stray into the wrong airspace like that and I doubt they will bother collecting the chunks.

 

[Leumas]

Anyone claiming to be Jesus who cannot perform a miracle, I would simply dismiss as another person among many with delusions.

But that only verifies that he is able to perform things beyond our ability to understand. That does not mean that he is a god or even the son of a god or Jesus even if he were. He could be:

• An alien with advanced technology
• A demon
• A human being with a genetic mutation
• A citizen from Atlantis
• A time traveler from earth's future
• A trickster god
• A deluded god

We need further tests and examinations to finally verify his claim.

There is an episode of Star Trek Next Generation that deals with this issue in an entertaining manner

 

[HansMustermann]

Plus, as the Hitch pointed out, miracles were quite common in the Bible, and not all of them were from God. E.g., the Pharaoh's priests perform miracles. They do get out-magicked by Moses, 'cause obviously his miracle-fu is stronger, but they CAN perform miracles of their own.

Plus, even on God's side, not everyone who can perform miracles is the son of God. Moses was not the son of god, and he did a ton of miracle stuff.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

But Dumbledore could out-magic them all.

 

[Rincewind]

But that only verifies that he is able to perform things beyond our ability to understand. That does not mean that he is a god or even the son of a god or Jesus even if he were. He could be:

• An alien with advanced technology
• A demon
• A human being with a genetic mutation
• A citizen from Atlantis
• A time traveler from earth's future
• A trickster god
• A deluded god

We need further tests and examinations to finally verify his claim.

There is an episode of Star Trek Next Generation that deals with this issue in an entertaining manner

As you mention Star Trek - he could also be "Q"...

Ooops, sorry - that was covered with your first point.

Should wake up before posting...

 

[Duffy Moon]

So basically, Christians expecting him to look like Jim Caviezel will be sorely disappointed.

I'd be sorely disappointed if he did - surely he'd look like Robert Powell?
Jim could be his bodyguard though, he kicks ass in Person of Interest.

As for the circumcision, I've no idea whether RP is packing a sawn-off or not.

As I recall, JC's foreskin was a popular religious artifact during the Middle Ages, just like nails from cross and chunks of the cross itself.
Actually, there were more than a few of them...

When I was an altar boy I recall the priest showing us a rather ornate crucifix that had a matchstick-sized sliver of 'the true cross' inlaid at its centre.
I've no doubt that it was real but I'd question the authenticity of any others.

Similarly, in Florence last year I saw a cross which had a few of the thorns from JC's crown.

Again, whilst I'm sure the RCC wouldn't lie to us, it would be easy for an unscrupulous person or persons to simply pass off something as real when it was fake.

 

[Brainache]

"When Jesus does return will Christians even recognize him?"

Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, I'll ask the OP: When Jesus does return, will he recognise Muslims? What about Mormons? Or any of the Christian faiths? I seem to recall some fairly specific claims about the "Children of Israel"... Wouldn't Jesus be mostly concerned with the Jewish people?

 

[Donn]

It's easy, he'll be coming 'round the mountain when he comes.

 

[pakeha]

Well, supposedly he did manage it in a temple courtyard the size of a few football fields put together, and which had a battalion of guards to prevent exactly that kind of thing. So I guess his kung-fu was strong.

On the other hand, the curious thing is that after supposedly attacking people with a scourge in John 3:15, "the Jews" (it's always "the Jews" with John, but Matt 21:15-16 makes some priest talk to him there; N.B., Mark 11:18 doesn't agree with Matt) just talk to him and let him go on his merry way.

Furthermore, here's an interesting bit that people seem to gloss over, especially those who come up with the kind of rationalization where a HJ attacks the temple and is arrested on the same evening for it. And I don't mean just the fact that he wouldn't even make bail, much less get to walk away and be arrested later, if he pulled that stunt.

But here's what Matt 26:55-56 has Jesus say at his arrest. My emphasis:

55. In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.

56. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.”​

Note that he doesn't say, "this afternoon I went back to the temple and sat teaching" or "nor yesterday [...]". He says, "every day". That implies at least a few days.

We're also told in Matt 21:12 (or at least it's implied) that Jesus went to the temple and cleared it first thing upon reaching Jerusalem. So whatever days he might have sat in the temple teaching, must have been after that.

And nobody thought to arrest him after the attack? For DAYS? He just goes back to the temple where everyone knows him, and nobody notices that? Even now he's only getting arrested because he has a prophecy to fulfil?

I dunno, man... it's... I dunno... as if there was no attack on the people in the temple courtyard at all.

NT authors write in mysterious ways.

No, No.... that is probably what the treacherous Judas might have looked like, but we all know what Jesus looked like for sure. We have an undeniable perfectly preserved negative photographic record.

 

[catsmate]

Just making sure I have this clear. You dismiss the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics in regards to this matter, but you readily accept claims from anonymous internet individuals?

Or are you claiming this this to be some type of conspiracy?

That'd be the report co-authored by Dr. Andrew Freedman, who admitted to circumcising his son on his parents’ kitchen table? The report that was described as:

Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia

And the report that's contradicted by policy statements from the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Lets have a look at some other medical organisations, shall we?
Royal Dutch Medical Association

“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.”

Paediatric Society of Germany

There is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from underage boys or boys unable to give consent. ... The statement from the AAP ... has been graded by almost all other paediatric societies and associations worldwide as being scientifically untenable.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“newborn baby boys do not need to be circumcised unless there is a medical reason”
“After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”

British Medical Association

"Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate".

The BMA warns that there are no agreed "health benefits" in circumcision of children

Canadian Pediatric Society

“routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant is not recommended.”
...the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non-therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; it is a cosmetic surgical procedure; current evidence indicates that previously-thought prophylactic public health benefits do not outweigh the potential risks.

South African Medical Association

“After lengthy DISCUSSION on the matter, the Committee RESOLVED that it be conveyed to NOCIRC-SA that, from a medical point of view, there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in males and children.”

You invisible sky daddy may collect foreskins, but don't try and hide your advocacy of genital mutilation behind science.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"When Jesus does return will Christians even recognize him?"

Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, I'll ask the OP: When Jesus does return, will he recognise Muslims? [snip]

That conjured up a vision of Pascal's Wager.

If Jesus returns as the Muslim version, no problem for Christians, I think. But if Jesus returns as the Christian, esp. the Fundie version, then the Muslims do have a problem. So rather play it safe, huh?

 

[Butter!]

TL;DR - "You're all doing it wrong."


Proselytizing. Yawn.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

When Jesus finally does return most Christians will be expecting to an individual who fits the following description:

A blonde haired, blue eyed, white male...

That sounds like a rather provincial assumption.

In churches around the world Jesus is often portrayed in ways that the local worshippers can relate to.

Ethnic Jesus.

 

[SezMe]

I would propose to let James Randi authenticate the claim by seeing if he can perform a miracle under proper observation conditions. That's what separates Jesus from the rest of us, isn't it? Not mundane things like whether he is circumcised or eats pork or looks like a painting of what a certain artist imagined that Jesus looked like.

Anyone claiming to be Jesus who cannot perform a miracle, I would simply dismiss as another person among many with delusions.

I think it is despicable that you would stoop to bringing logic into a discussion of religion.

 

[George]

I'd be sorely disappointed if he did - surely he'd look like Robert Powell?
Jim could be his bodyguard though, he kicks ass in Person of Interest.

As for the circumcision, I've no idea whether RP is packing a sawn-off or not.


When I was an altar boy I recall the priest showing us a rather ornate crucifix that had a matchstick-sized sliver of 'the true cross' inlaid at its centre.
I've no doubt that it was real but I'd question the authenticity of any others.

Similarly, in Florence last year I saw a cross which had a few of the thorns from JC's crown.

Again, whilst I'm sure the RCC wouldn't lie to us, it would be easy for an unscrupulous person or persons to simply pass off something as real when it was fake.

I've never heard that one before

 

[ddt]

Just making sure I have this clear. You dismiss the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics in regards to this matter, but you readily accept claims from anonymous internet individuals?

Or are you claiming this this to be some type of conspiracy?

A sort of conspiracy by American doctors, yes. See catsmate's elaborate response. But really, this is something for another thread. Read the various threads about circumcision on this forum, that's plenty of work to begin with.

 

[Darth Rotor]

When Jesus does return will Christians even recognize him?

Probably not. Given what happened the first time around, my betting money on the Vegas line covering this is pretty safe in a "no" bet.

 

[gerdbonk]

c. 33 CE
Messiah: I am the messiah your prophets have foreseen.
Rabble: Huh?
Messiah: I am your king. I am the son of God.
Rabble: Says who?
Messiah: Uh, well, the prophets--
Rabble: Aren't you the carpenter's son? Who went on a bit of a walkabout spouting cheap platitudes and fanciful notions of self-importance?
Messiah: I am God's one true son! Believe in me!
Rabble: Rubbish. Someone call the soldiers.
Messiah: Now let's not be hasty--

****************

c. 2014 CE
Messiah: I am the messiah your prophets have foreseen.
Rabble: Huh?
Messiah: I am your king. I am the son of God.
Rabble: Says who?
Messiah: Uh, well, the prophets--
Rabble: Aren't you the venture capitalist's son? Who went on a bit of a walkabout spouting cheap platitudes and fanciful notions of self-importance?
Messiah: I am God's one true son! Believe in me!
Rabble: Rubbish. Someone call the cops.
Messiah: Now let's not be hasty--

****************

"The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results."

 

[mikeb768]

A sort of conspiracy by American doctors, yes. See catsmate's elaborate response. But really, this is something for another thread. Read the various threads about circumcision on this forum, that's plenty of work to begin with.

I'm not really that interested in the circumcision conspiracy theories, and cherry picked materials of you and your compadres.

Although Here is a statement from the AAP's website: "After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, 2012 says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

As well as a technical report which cite a number of references showing how they were able to come to this conclusion, Link.

 

[HansMustermann]

So, let me get this straight... if ONE organization kinda supports circumcision, but even their position is that it's not worth recommending, while a dozen organizations like the British Medical Association or the Paediatric Society of Germany are against it... your conclusion is that HE is cherry picking? Heh. Just heh.

No, seriously, the stupidity and dishonesty of that are downright comical.

But really, who cares what you're not interested in? As evidence goes, you have an empty bag, and as appeals to authority go, you have an empty bag too. Not only the majority is against your position, but again, even those you cherry-picked are not recommending it. 'RandomInternetBeliever1234567 chooses to believe only what confirms his retarded 7'th century book of lies' isn't exactly what's gonna settle which doctors are right.