If Jesus came to earth...?

[flobadob]

[naomi24]

^^May I add a bit to that? When Chakka says there was no evidence or eye witnesses, we can't say whether or not Paul spoke to eyewitnesses, but he certainly wasn't one himself, so whatever he wrote could only possibly have been hearsay - or invented.

[Greedyfly]

He would smite me!

[McMouse]

He would be in a great deal of trouble.

All the duty he'd have to pay on that water into wine business.

Food Standards on the loaves and fishes.

Doing Miracles without an Equity Card.

Immediate ASBO for abusing the money lenders in the Temple.

Would be branded a terrorist for all the "inciting" done in his name.

Suffer little children to come unto me..................I'n not going there!!!!!

[redman41]

salla thinks she's seen him on the A45 so keep your eyes peeled......

[flobadob]

Is what chakka and naomi mention in their last posts true and are there any web links to that theory.

[keyplus90]

When Jesus comes back to earth the important question is not if anyone would recognise him. More important question is if he would recognise the people who call themselves his believers.

[naomi24]

Flobadob, unless you, like Chakka, believe that Jesus didn't exist, it isn't really a theory, but we can only examine and try to piece together the information we have before us. St Paul began life as Saul of Tarsus. To put it simply, he persecuted what we call the early Christians (they weren't Christians - they were Jews) and then one day he was temporarily blinded by a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He then determined to 'spread the word' (even though he had never heard 'the word' - well at least since he never met Jesus he'd never heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak). He argued with Jesus' followers who, like Jesus, were Jews, and who it appears, again like Jesus, had no intention of founding a new religion. They, unlike Saul - aka Paul - insisted that Jewish law be adhered to and that Jesus' message was for the Jews alone. (Jesus, incidentally, instructed his followers to keep Jewish law). Paul subsequently took his own message to the Gentiles (non-Jews), abandoning in the process, and for the specific purpose of influencing the Gentiles, many of the Jewish laws including those relating to diet and to circumcision. That was the foundation of the Christian religion we know today.

continued...

[naomi24]

...continued

Eventually, the Emperor Constantine adopted the new Christianity and his mother, Helena, who is now one of the many saints recognised by the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, trailed around the relevant parts of the Middle East seeking out relics (which she claimed to have found) such as pieces of the 'true cross' and the nails from the crucifixion, and determining the whereabouts of holy sites (some of which on examination I find very difficult to believe). During that time, and since, the gospels were doctored to fit the bill - and the rest is history. Google any of this and you'll find it - and more.

Keyplus, you're quite right. The only people he might possibly recognise are the Orthodox Jews. The rest would be completely alien to him.

[237SJ]

If Jesus came to Earth he`d think humans worship at Tesco`s

[chakka35]

Don't know what you mean by 'theory', flobadob. That there was no mention of Jesus until Paul's epistles is a matter of fact, not a theory. That there was no mention of Jesus by anyone during his supposed lifetime is also a fact; it also a fact that there is no eyewitness account anywhere of anything Jesus did or said.
naomi isn't quite right when she says that I don't think Jesus existed. My position is like this:

There would certainly be lots of Jews called Jesus living early in the 1st century; it was a very common name.

There may well have been an itinerant rabbi called Jesus living at that time, though there is no evidence.

That absence of evidence makes it absurd to claim that there was a miracle-worker called Jesus who, among other astonishing things, rose from the dead.

But as naomi has often said any real Jesus would bear no resemblance to the Jesus invented by Paul (a Jew) and elaborated on by subsequent folk who later became Christians.

[naomi24]

Chakka, //naomi isn't quite right when she says that I don't think Jesus existed.//

Well, all I can say is you're giving a pretty good indication otherwise.

[chakka35]

naomi, I thought I'd explained that it depends on what you mean by 'Jesus'.

About the Jesus of religion, the fact that there is no evidence for his existence makes it reasonable to disbelieve in him until someone produces that evidence. The same with Zeus, Venus and Mars.

[naomi24]

Chakka, I would have thought it was pefectly clear that when people are talking about religion and mention 'Jesus', they mean the Jesus of religion. I can't see where the confusion lies.

Whilst there is no 'proof' of his existence, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no 'evidence'. The gospels don't provide 'proof', but they may provide some possible evidence that is worth examining.

[Ankou]

jesus did come back, but he changed his name to david icke and everyone laughed at him and thought he was a numpty.

all those years of preaching, persecution, exile, torture, death and resurrection, and what do you get ? nuffin.

[chakka35]

naomi, the gospels are not evidence. If I found a document tomorrow, unsigned, telling a story of magical things which the unknown author did not even claim to be a witness of, would that be evidence? If so, then I repeat that all stories of ancient miracles told by unknown people thousands of years ago must be considered evidence of those miracles.

The gospels are not even testimony, let alone evidence. And I have never even bothered to talk about 'proof'; that is way beyond imagining.

People are fully entitled to make personal judgments about whether they believe the gospels and to what extent. But evidence has to be something substantial, not just subjective opinion.

[naomi24]

Chakka, I wasn't talking about miracles, and I didn't say the gospels are evidence - I said they may provide some possible evidence that is worth examining. In my opinion, if we automatically dismiss every word written in the past for lack of a signature, we could be overlooking some vital history.

[chakka35]

What the gospels say HAS been examined - in great detail, but since there is absolutely nothing to back up their stories it is left to the individual whether to believe them or not. It is not a question that they might provide some evidence; they don't provide any evidence at all, merely assertions.

Compare this with the story of Caesar. We have Caesar's own writings about his campaigns, which can be checked against the histories of Rome and the countries concerned; we have plenty of first-hand testimony, during his lifetime and afterwards; we have lots of physical evidence on the ground of the places he visited and conquered. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to believe, at least in general terms, the stories of Caesar.

None of this applies evenly remotely to the Jesus story. All we have are tales.

Since I hate repeating myself (though often forced to do so!) can you tell me what you think of the standard Greek and Roman stories, concerning Zeus, Jupiter and so on?

[naomi24]

My apologies if you feel I'm forcing you to repeat yourself Chakka. I was under the impression that this was just a discussion and had no intention of forcing you to do anything. However, in answer to your question, and at the risk of repeating MYSELF, my opinions of the stories of the Greek and Romans are similar to my opinions of the stories in the bible. They may hold some truth (in fact, since the discovery of the fabled city of Troy, we now know that the Greek stories do hold at least an element of truth). Therefore, since I don't know whether these tales conceal any more historical facts, I'd be rather foolish to totally discount that possibility.