The Return of an unfamiliar Jesus?

[brian]

Essentially Christianity is a sphere of diversity.

There are a myriad of paths and interpretations.

There are great extremes: from the somewhat heretical Unitarian-Universalists and Quakers - both of whm reject the Apostles Creed as a required belief - - to the other extreme of Roman Catholicism's insistance on accepting Papal Edicts as Holy, and the Sourthern Baptist's often hardline interpretion of scritpure.

Essentially, there often appears to be more disagreement than agreement over core issues.

The trouble is, there is the general expection, especially reinforced by John's stint on Patmos (but also mentioned in Matthew) that JEsus is coming back.

The big "Second Coming" event.

Essential to this question then is this:

Assuming that we do expect a Messianic return, what will Jesus actually represent in terms of teachings and meaning?


Obviously not every denominational perception can be entirely correct - so what would the possible foundation's of Christ's beliefs be when returning?

[Dave the Web]

I think you are really asking again but without realising, which is the most relevant denomination. The answer again is always personal. So what Jesus will look like on any return will be personal perhaps? If you want an objective answer then there simply is none.
Something that does intrigue me is the actual reference in Revlation 3:3 and the other is 16:15. some Christians I speak to expect a magnificent return announced by great trumpets.

[Elizabeth May]

You unfamiliar like this?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3513/christ_islam.html

[brian]

Hm, maybe I'm going to have to open up a new board for covering all aspects of humour. Not sure everyone would be happy with that last link.

But, still, I guess it relates to the issue in a somewhat sardonic way.

[Siege]

In a discussion at another message board, a Fundamentalist Christian once said that if Christ did not consider homosexuals sinful, he wouldn't worship him. I'm not an end-times oriented person; to me, I should behave the same whether I expect Christ to return in 5 minutes or 5 millenia.

My suspicion is, He'll return as something completely unexpected and quite possibly female. He certainly did a very good job of turning things on their head the first time around; next time, I think it will be the same, but different, if that's not a cliche. I can see him reconciling and uniting people, but at the same time, I can see Him suprising people who consider themselves righteous.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd recognize Him if I saw Him. I get the impression some of my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters would consider that blasphemous or an indication that my faith is not strong. The thing is, so many people were convinced that they were Right 2,000 years ago, and were proven wrong, how dare I lay claim to that. What if the person I referred to at the beginning of this post is right, and Christ did condemn homosexuals? What if He does come with a sword?

Will He do the same thing when He returns, bringing people back to the essence of the law, rather than the letter of it? That's what I lean toward, but at the same time, I can't see God doing the same thing the same way twice.

Sorry, this isn't much of an answer, and, what may be worse, it is not at all related to or based on my denomination's official positions. I hope I will greet my Lord with joy when and if He returns. On the other hand, I can be stubborn and short-sighted sometimes.

CJ

[Siege]

By the way, Brian, I love your sig!

CJ

[Polycarp]

[quote author=Seige link=board=7;threadid=190;start=msg861#msg861 date=1056064780]
In a discussion at another message board, a Fundamentalist Christian once said that if Christ did not consider homosexuals sinful, he wouldn't worship him. I'm not an end-times oriented person; to me, I should behave the same whether I expect Christ to return in 5 minutes or 5 millenia. [/quote]

The best eschatological sermon I ever heard consisted in its entirety of three sentences:

"Jesus said two things about the Second Coming. He said that nobody, including Himself, knew when it would happen, except the Father, but that it would happen unexpectedly. He also said, Be about God's business while you're waiting."

If I had the right midi link, I'd put in a passage of "Work, for the night is coming"!

My suspicion is, He'll return as something completely unexpected and quite possibly female. He certainly did a very good job of turning things on their head the first time around; next time, I think it will be the same, but different, if that's not a cliche. I can see him reconciling and uniting people, but at the same time, I can see Him suprising people who consider themselves righteous.

I alluded to my own suspicions in a recent e-mail. Other than being female, can you guess what he might come back as that would most confuse the fundamentalists?

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd recognize Him if I saw Him. I get the impression some of my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters would consider that blasphemous or an indication that my faith is not strong. The thing is, so many people were convinced that they were Right 2,000 years ago, and were proven wrong, how dare I lay claim to that. What if the person I referred to at the beginning of this post is right, and Christ did condemn homosexuals? What if He does come with a sword?

That is the gamble you and I take. But our job is not to try to figure out what His plans are -- it's to do what He said back then. (Which you do quite well, dear.)

Will He do the same thing when He returns, bringing people back to the essence of the law, rather than the letter of it? That's what I lean toward, but at the same time, I can't see God doing the same thing the same way twice.

Well, He had Isaiah and Micah say the same damn thing several hundred years before Christ. And you may have noticed that you and I have been Called to the same task today. I see no reason why He wouldn't repeat the process-- but with changes. The message hasn't changed, just the people who won't hear it.

[Elizabeth May]

sorry,,,,I wasn't trying to be offensive. I just kinda figured it related to the topic. You know, Jesus coming back in a way unexpected. But hey if I did wrong you can take it out.

[brian]

Elizabeth May, I wasn't trying to tell you off. It's early days yet so I'm uncertain where the actual boundaries of offence may be drawn up. Who knows - maybe the link was taken as religious humour. Or maybe it wasn't at all.

Either way, I was "thinking aloud" on the issue of an actual separate and distinct "humour" section - where any religious humour - from the mundane from the potentially offensive - may be posted.

Early days yet so I'm still playing by ear. Obviously, I'd prefer our early membership not to be blatantly offended.

But also this forum is still new (again), so it remains to be seen where the general sensibilities and boundaries are. Until the comparative-religion.com forums are established then that's going to be hard to gauage.

Anyway, I'll try and consider such issues more carefully.

[I, Brian]

I'm going to repeat the question:

Originally Posted by brian

Assuming that we do expect a Messianic return, what will Jesus actually represent in terms of teachings and meaning?

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Assuming that we do expect a Messianic return, what will Jesus actually represent in terms of teachings and meaning?

I was going to offer a lengthy reply, but then the word "assuming" jumped out at me and I decided not to.

My understanding of "return" is colored by the idea of Theosis, which in turn influences my understanding of the rest.

This is a great article: http://www.frimmin.com/faith/theosis.html

[mee]

.It should be noted that there is a difference between coming and presence.
Three days before Jesus’ death, four of his disciples approached him and earnestly asked: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming [Greek, pa·rou·si´a], and of the end of the world?" For centuries Christendom’s clergy and writers have interpreted these words spoken to Jesus at Matthew 24:3 (King James Version) to mean that he would again be visible in the flesh to be viewed by all mankind. Hence, they have taught that Christ’s return would be with great display and visible pomp. They refer to it as Christ’s second coming. But are their assumptions correct?
Jehovah’s people of the 19th century correctly understood that the pa·rou·si´a of Christ would be an invisible one

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by mee

Jehovah’s people of the 19th century correctly understood that the pa·rou·si´a of Christ would be an invisible one

As we've already seen in the other thread, "Jehovah's people" were looking for a very physical Jesus well into the 20th century - until none was forthcoming. So you end up with what can only politely be called a "theological fudge". There is no sign of Jesus on earth, physically or invisibly.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm going to repeat the question:

lol

Hey, Brian. Are you suffering from double personality disorder? It seems there are two Administrators here with the same name. I'm not sure which one's the True Administrator. I fear the return of an unfamiliar Brian.

Originally Posted by Elizabeth May

You unfamiliar like this?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3513/christ_islam.html

"Jesus Christ the Nazarene" converting to Islam? Is he some kind of actor posing for the Christ of 2,000 years ago? I'd have to say that I'm amused rather than offended.

[mee]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

As we've already seen in the other thread, "Jehovah's people" were looking for a very physical Jesus well into the 20th century - until none was forthcoming. So you end up with what can only politely be called a "theological fudge". There is no sign of Jesus on earth, physically or invisibly.

To some the evidence of Jesus presence is very clear.