It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

(To christians... ) So.... just hypothetically....what if Jesus returns... (Serious responses only p

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Me thinks ye don't understand what he meant by..." i came not to bring peace, but a sword"


It was in the context of family, which concluded that a man's enemy would be someone within his own household, whereby an enemy is someone who would oppose our evolutionary progress towards divinity, and this is true.

It's about the ties that bind and hinder, not literal violence.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Jesus was also clear that his return would not be in the form of an individual personage, and that no one would be able to point in any particular direction and say "there he is". Thus, his return will be from all directions and all at once, as, I summize, a return of God-consciousness en mass. It will slay (spiritually) the humorless and the hard hearted, because the door would be closed to them therafter, the line drawn as a point of demarcation in a final judgement, while "the good will continue to do good, and the evil, evil" ie: many won't even notice it, oblivious to the kingdom of heaven having come to the Earth.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Conchobar
 


Islam also has an image of Jesus descending from the clouds.

But once he is on earth, his mission is to fight the AC. Jesus could appear as an mujahideen, like the one who fought back the non-religious Russian army.




I seriously don't see Jesus needing an RPG, or a turban for that matter...may wear one for the nostalgia factor though.


Of course Jesus does not need an RPG to get things done.
But there is also a decent chance that Islamic beliefs and eschatology are correct. (you may think its wrong by default, but thats just your opinion) Consider that Islamic prophecy also present a somewhat more realistic account of end time events involving Jesus.

So just what if..what if the returning Jesus turned out to be someone portrayed as an islamic militant.



I didn't say I thought anything was wrong, I keep an open mind on such topics. If He was portrayed as an Islamic militant (by the media) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, but then again, look at how accurate they are. If it was the real Jesus then all those who have truly followed Him would recognize Him and join Him in that scenario, IMO anyways. So as far as my reaction, if it was the real Him (not saying He is/was/will be militant or not) then I would simply be eager to join.



Jesus was also clear that his return would not be in the form of an individual personage, and that no one would be able to point in any particular direction and say "there he is".

edit on 12-5-2011 by Conchobar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Ok I'm sorry, but this thread just makes me think of this clip from Family Guy


If you thought people are dumb today, they were even dumber back then...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
So just what if..what if the returning Jesus turned out to be someone portrayed as an islamic militant.



Jesus taught the doctrine of Love and this is the measure. If your hypothetical islamic militant brings about the end of Man's treachery, that Earth is no longer drenched with the blood of the innocents; brings about the end to broken lives and heals the nations, then I will take heed.
edit on 12/5/2011 by teapot because: edit



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Conchobar
 



"I didn't say I thought anything was wrong, I keep an open mind on such topics. If He was portrayed as an Islamic militant (by the media) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, but then again, look at how accurate they are. If it was the real Jesus then all those who have truly followed Him would recognize Him and join Him in that scenario, IMO anyways. So as far as my reaction, if it was the real Him (not saying He is/was/will be militant or not) then I would simply be eager to join. "


Going by the Christian/Islamic premise that Jesus would return to fight the forces of AC, we can expect some sort of a conflict. The muslim version of end times events simply portrays a scenario thats easier to imagine in terms of the real world. Which is why I presented elements that we are familiar with... modern day weapons, militancy, crooked media etc.

Jesus said that he would come as a thief in the night... which I interpret to mean he would come in secret. The scenario of Jesus returning as an islamic militiant seems plausible in this context. Regardless of how he is portrayed in the media, this militant Jesus' mission will remain divine.

On a side note, I dont really think that the returning Jesus even needs the support of the corrupt media of these days. He did say, he would come as a thief in the night after all.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 



Jesus taught the doctrine of Love and this is the measure. If your hypothetical islamic militant brings about the end of Man's treachery, that Earth is no longer drenched with the blood of the innocents; brings about the end to broken lives and heals the nations, then I will take heed.


Islams version of Jesus also has him end mans treachery once and for all in the final battle ...and bringing about an era of realpeace. The word "militant" does not necassarily have to be "negative". It is often a label with no real objective meaning.

Think of the Afghan mujahideen who succesfully resisted the invading army of the irreligious Russians.. To the russians, they were "militants" and "bad guys" to the Russians... but to Afghans and Americans, they were freedom fighters and heroes. They were even compared to the founding fathers of the US by Reagan.
But show a picture of one of these '70s era mujahideen fighter ( beard, turban, AK, RPG etc) to someone who grew up in the 21st century and he will immediately identify him as a "terrorist" or a "taliban" or one of the "bad guys" due to his conditioning form the media.

Keeping that in mind, read what I said to another poster a while ago...
Jesus said that he would come as a thief in the night... which I interpret to mean he would come in secret. The scenario of Jesus returning as an islamic militiant seems plausible in this context. In other words, Jesus could be hiding in plain sight... but will not be recognized by most christians because of their conditioning to associate beared guys with turbans and AKs/ RPG with the "bad guys".

And also, eschatology is not quite the ]Christianity vs Islam thing as is often made to be by fundamentalists (from both sides). The only source material for the end times events involving Jesus and the AC are found in Christian and Islamic literature... and both have pretty much the same premise. It would be beneficial to anyone interested in these subjects to consider both perspectives.


edit on 12-5-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by superluminal11
Jesus returns each day when the sun rises..then he leaves when the sun goes down to return again the next day.

This is the most serious and truthful answer you will get as long as this thread is up.


The "Sun of God" not son. Thus Sunda not "Sonday". The Vatican is a huge sundial. The Romans wrote and published the Bible. The Romans blended their version of Mithraism (cult of Sol Invictus) with Judaism and various cults prevalent around the first century CE into a form of crowd control that was loosed upon the peoples conquered by the empire. It's still in use today.


Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.


Only a Roman could have written such a thing. There's much treachery in this scripture. For one, the Caesars considered themselves living Gods and thus they would receive everything (body and soul) from those that followed such an instruction. Such a scripture must have brought waves of laughter when discussed by the inner circle of Rome.

Consider too that by synching new scriptures to old Hebrew prophesies, the Romans did more than just destroy the physical Temple Mount. They hijacked Judaism. The Jews would never again be a serious threat to Rome as their Messiah was put to death and many would interpret in the scriptures, by the Jews themselves. Thus Rome gives us this:


When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves." - Matthew 27:24


Thus Pilate (Rome) throws the blame for the fictional crucifixion of the Jewish Messiah back upon the Jews.

The Roman court imposed Christianity on the conquered and the commoners. As for the ruling members of Roman society? Well, not so much. They of course were not held to such fictions. The Roman elite had created a palatable belief system for slaves that would now "turn the other cheek" to preserve a share in a "promised" next life rather than stand up to the Caesars in this one. One book did the work of countless Roman soldiers. The Romans gave hope to the hopeless, just not in this life. We can see the evidence of this still today, every time the Pope steps out on the balcony, giving hope to the hopeless gathered on that huge sundial. Quite a scheme.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
*BUMP*

second line

Im gonna have to keep doing this... can a mod please move it back to the religion section???
edit on 15-5-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
*BUMP*

second line

Im gonna have to keep doing this... can a mod please move it back to the religion section???
edit on 15-5-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


*bump*

second line



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Well I don't know where you got your 2nd quote from, but if you would be so intelligent as to quote the whole pare of the first quote, you would see quite clearly that it talks about dividing the saved and unsaved. Not by war. But by his own actions through preaching. There's really no way it cannot mean that once you read the whole section.

EDIT

Ah, the second is to for defense against those whom would attack the, as it is not yet time for them to die. Probably to fulfill the man's ear being cut off.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
@ the OP,

I just saw this thread and looked through the first two pages. You ask good questions, but as has been my experience too, many ATS members don't really care what the OP asks in terms of who they'd like to talk to. The early or majority responders are antagonists who don't belong to the group you're asking questions of (I ranted about that, and as expected, it devolved into another pointless mudslinging contest--- the mere statement of which will draw them here as well, sorry).

So if you'd like, I'm willing to either discuss this via U2U or carry on here but resolve to only respond to you and ignore all other comments. If not, that's fine, because it's your "house" and I respect that.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



So if you'd like, I'm willing to either discuss this via U2U or carry on here but resolve to only respond to you and ignore all other comments. If not, that's fine, because it's your "house" and I respect that.


By all means, make your contribution to the thread, whether or not you agree with what I say in the OP.

But please bear in mind that I am not neccassarily stating this as a prediction. The returning Jesus being portrayed as an islamic militant is just a hypothetical scenario, considering the fact that a Jesus character returns to fight a war in BOTH christian and islamic eschatology.

I believe that to understand the prophecies surrounding Jesus, it makes sense to look at it through both Islam and christianity. One cannot shurg away the Islamic perspective of things just because it came after christianity.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
I believe that to understand the prophecies surrounding Jesus, it makes sense to look at it through both Islam and christianity. One cannot shurg away the Islamic perspective of things just because it came after christianity.

Good enough.... but of course, I can only answer from the Christian perspective.

If I understand your original question correctly, you're saying that you want to know whether Jesus would be labeled a terrorist when he returns. You cite the (only two) passages in all the NT that mention swords and ask why it should matter whether the speaker was Jesus or Mohammad.

Further, you propose a future scenario where the world is in chaos and then "a skilled guerrilla warfare commander" appears, and that it turns out to be Jesus. You want to know how Christians would plan to react in that scenario.

I'd like to verify that this is accurate before I respond, so I'm not burning any straw men.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 




Good enough.... but of course, I can only answer from the Christian perspective.

If I understand your original question correctly, you're saying that you want to know whether Jesus would be labeled a terrorist when he returns. You cite the (only two) passages in all the NT that mention swords and ask why it should matter whether the speaker was Jesus or Mohammad.


The point I was trying to make with the OPs "sword verses" was that Jesus was not all "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek" as he is often portrayed. Perhaps I should have also included the verse where he physically threw out the money changers from the temple. Jesus did have a use for violence when he deemed it necessary and so the returning Jesus would use violence to deal with his enemies.




Further, you propose a future scenario where the world is in chaos and then "a skilled guerrilla warfare commander" appears, and that it turns out to be Jesus.


That would be correct.

Im depicting a "real world" scenario with regard to the return of Jesus, who will lead a guerilla style war for his religion against the anti-christs irreligious force... like the Afghan mujahideen who fought back the irreligious Russian army.

Also read my post which I made on page 5

Think of the Afghan mujahideen who succesfully resisted the invading army of the irreligious Russians.. To the russians, they were "militants" and "bad guys" to the Russians... but to Afghans and Americans, they were freedom fighters and heroes. They were even compared to the founding fathers of the US by Reagan. But show a picture of one of these '70s era mujahideen fighter ( beard, turban, AK, RPG etc) to someone who grew up in the 21st century and he will immediately identify him as a "terrorist" or a "taliban" or one of the "bad guys" due to his conditioning form the media.




You want to know how Christians would plan to react in that scenario.
I'd like to verify that this is accurate before I respond, so I'm not burning any straw men.


Pretty much.

Islamic militancy (and islam itself) is percieved by christians as an inherently evil force opposed to christianity. So its obvious that Jesus returning as an islamic militant would definitely shock christians, who expect to see him return accompanied by a spectacular show in the sky .

Also consider the verse that says Jesus would return as a thief in the night. I interpret it to mean that he would return in secret.... unnoticed by christians.
I believe this fits the militant Jesus scenario, where Jesus is hiding in plain sight and would perhaps even remain silent about his identity until he completes his mission.


edit on 25-5-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Actually, that is exactly what will happen.

First: the saying "he will come as a thief in the night", and
Seond: your saying "he will most probably be seen as in islamic militant"

Regarding the first statement: He will descend in the time of Fajr prayer (in islam: the prayer before sunrise) - thus it will indeed still be "night".

We even know exactly WHERE he will descend: At that time of Fajr, the leader of the army of the believers who are waging war against the Anti-Christ, will be leading the prayer in the Great Mosque of Damascus. In that moment Jesus will return. Our leader (Imam) will offer Jesus to lead the prayer, but Jesus will tell the Imam he should lead, and Jesus will pray behind him with the rest of the believers.

Since he will be WITH the islamic Army - of course he will be seen as an islamic militant - by whom? - by christians and Jews.

Christians cannot accept that Jesus always was and is indeed Muslim, a prophet, and not God - and Jews cannot accept that Jesus indeed was their awaited Messiah (since they rejected him the first time).

But Jesus will indeed fight against the Antichrist and his army and will DEFEAT them -> which will lastly convince both Jews and Christians that Jesus is who we said he is the whole time:

- by slaying the Antichrist will prove to the Jews that he indeed is the Messiah,and

- by upholding and leading using the last revelation - the Qur'an - and finally DYING will prove to Christians that he is not God, but a Sign of the Hour

Thus:
-> fulfilling these 2 prophecies in the Qur'an:


And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness. - Qur'an, 4:159



And indeed, Jesus will be [a sign for] knowledge of the Hour, so be not in doubt of it, and follow Me. This is a straight path. - Qur'an, 43:61



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The point I was trying to make with the OPs "sword verses" was that Jesus was not all "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek" as he is often portrayed. Perhaps I should have also included the verse where he physically threw out the money changers from the temple. Jesus did have a use for violence when he deemed it necessary and so the returning Jesus would use violence to deal with his enemies.

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, there were times Jesus got nasty with people, both verbally and physically. I get into this all the time with fellow believers who try to tell me I must be a doormat or punching bag because Jesus never said or did anything negative. But even a cursory reading of the gospels, including his diatribes against the religious leaders of his day, shows otherwise. So we are in agreement over the fact that the "lamb" truly will return as a "lion".

But as I often say on the topic of genetics, it isn't the similarities that matter, it's the differences. Jesus did not advocate overthrowing the Roman government, or even the Sanhedrin, or to start riots in the streets or kill infidels. All his negativity was directed at his own people, at those who were Jews but rejected him and oppressed his people. They were rebuked for only giving lip service to God while violating his laws in their hearts. This was never a method of proselytism or evangelization, but "house cleaning".

But he will come back again and this time as the God he is, immortal and all-powerful, to bring final justice to the earth. But that time has not yet come, and for 2000 years we who follow Jesus were never to use violence against unbelievers. Neither is there even a hint in scripture that when he returns we are to pick up swords and fight; in fact, all the destruction is done by Jesus or his angels, not us.




Also consider the verse that says Jesus would return as a thief in the night. I interpret it to mean that he would return in secret.... unnoticed by christians.

We know in hindsight that the promised Messiah would come twice-- a thought that had never occurred before he actually came. No OT scripture separates the lamb from the lion in explicit terms, yet this was the only way to reconcile the passages that said one thing and those that said another. So there is a precedent for what appears to be a contradiction to be solved by two separate "comings".

And so it is with the 2nd coming: Jesus will come twice, first as a thief in the night, second as a conquering king. But most are unaware of the full context of that "thief" statement:



1 Thes. 5:1-9
Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled... For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Christians are the ones who will NOT be surprised, who stay up and awake and watch for him. And for so doing, we are called crackpots.

edit on 25-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Christians are the ones who will NOT be surprised


Oh I'm sure you're in for a BIG surprise ...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi
Oh I'm sure you're in for a BIG surprise ...

The Bible disagrees. :-P



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 




But as I often say on the topic of genetics, it isn't the similarities that matter, it's the differences. Jesus did not advocate overthrowing the Roman government, or even the Sanhedrin, or to start riots in the streets or kill infidels. All his negativity was directed at his own people, at those who were Jews but rejected him and oppressed his people.


Yes, he criticized his own people, "the lost sheep of Israel".. who he said were the only people he was sent to.
And correct, he did not order his followers to use violence to achieve a goal.
This depiction of the lamb-like Jesus during his first era on earth is not conflict with the Islamic depiction of Jesus' during his first era as well.

Nothing to disagree with here.



But he will come back again and this time as the God he is, immortal and all-powerful, to bring final justice to the earth. But that time has not yet come, and for 2000 years we who follow Jesus were never to use violence against unbelievers. Neither is there even a hint in scripture that when he returns we are to pick up swords and fight; in fact, all the destruction is done by Jesus or his angels, not us.


Well, there is a verse in Revelations 13 that teaches that the anti-christ would wage war against Gods "holy people" and conquer them. This, in my opinion, is indicative of a conflict involving the forces of the AC and a resisting force (Gods holy people). This is BEFORE the 2nd appearance of Jesus..and highly relevant to the subject matter of the OP.

Jesus may not have instructed his followers to pick up weapons and fight, but there is a hint that the holy people would be at war with the AC. Now, who are these holy people involved in a war.

I would like to hear from you
a) What is your understanding of this verse in revelations 13, involving the AC waging war against and conquering a "holy people" ?
b) So who, in your opinion, are these "holy people" that the AC would wage war against and conquer?



And so it is with the 2nd coming: Jesus will come twice, first as a thief in the night, second as a conquering king. But most are unaware of the full context of that "thief" statement:

Hang on. I dont get what you are saying. Are you telling me that Jesus makes his second coming in two installments? First as a thief in the night and then as a conquering king? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I have gathered from your post.


Christians are the ones who will NOT be surprised, who stay up and awake and watch for him. And for so doing, we are called crackpots.


Yes, but the OP is challenging the christian portrayal of Jesus' return... and considering current events* posits a scenario where Jesus returns as an islamic militant. (Dont get me wrong, this is not a muslim vs christian thing, but rather looiking at prophecy from a different perspective.)
The basis for this is that Jesus is also mentioned in Islamic eschatology.




edit on 30-5-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join