Jesus Has Returned. Several Of Them

A new book features photographs of men who know they are Jesus. Each has a band of followers.

The link has pictures of these men who live all over the world. Mostly, they have received a message telling them they are the Messiah. Some live lives bordering on poverty, others seem to be doing better. The author does not make judgments as to their validity.

I looked up Christian sources to learn about what we are to expect when Jesus returns. I wanted to see if any of the current crop qualifies as the real thing. It seems to me they neither qualify nor can be disqualified.

Apparently, the Bible says when the big show happens everyone will see it, but few will believe it. Certainly that it the case today with these men and I’m sure nearly all Christians are scoffers.

The event is to be preceded by a big upheaval. I would guess there have been people during every period of history who said, “This is the big upheaval talked of in the Bible.”

The pictures of these Jesuses highlight the problem Christian debaters have when challenged to spell out exactly what we are to expect at the “second coming”. It is all quite vague. That, of course, it the reason there is writing from around the forth century saying the Bible should not be taken literally.

We are left with a crop of new Jesuses every few years. My guess is they are as “real” as anything anyone will ever see.


29 Responses

    1. 8:00 Lol, its been that way for centuries! I have no interest in sorting them out

      For some reason I can’t stop thinking about the Elvis impersonators. There are so many clever ideas, like the Flying Elvis’ that sky dive out of airplanes. Might there ever be flying Jesuses?

  1. entech

    Second coming, as it has been for a couple thousand years that the “imminent return” has been spoken of. Is it surprising that many have given up on the possibility and are actually starting to doubt that there was a first coming.

    I don’t mean the “Mythical Jesus” proponents, I am quite sure that the Yeshua character existed, probably one of many peripatetic preachers around the period. But as the existence of the creator has not been demonstrated it could not be the creator incarnate as claimed.

      1. entech

        Oh yes, it can exist in many forms. Consider modern American politics, if it were a card game we would have a Trump suit with only one card 🙂

      1. entech

        Jon, are you sure you have been following correctly 🙂
        I thought it was that they could not all be right, but it is beyond doubt that they could all be wrong. 👿

        1. entech 8:59 Jon, are you sure you have been following correctly ?
          I thought it was that they could not all be right, but it is beyond doubt that they could all be wrong. ?

          On further reflection, the correct answer is, “It all depends.” 🙂

    1. entech

      At least one 😆

      Reminds of the old Jewish comment, two Jews three opinions, my Jewish friends say it is closer to being true than many would care to admit.

  2. Rob

    Jesus warned there would be false prophets and false messiahs.
    As far as what exactly is going to happen at the second coming, I agree with you the Bible is quite vague.
    It’s like the Big Bang theory; those who believe it can’t exactly explain it, but their faith in it carries their belief in it.

    1. Rob 7:40 JJesus warned there would be false prophets and false messiahs.

      Which raises the possibility whoever wrote that was himself a false prophet. We don’t know who wrote the Bible. None claimed they personally knew the main character, Jesus. Writing of that time was filled with accusations of false authorship and imposters. If one is wary of false information, I’d suggest being skeptical of what you see in the Bible.

    2. entech
      What’s This Big Bang All About?

      In 1927, an astronomer named Georges Lemaître had a big idea. He said that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point. He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now, and that it could keep on stretching.

      What an Idea!
      The universe is a very big place, and it’s been around for a very long time. Thinking about how it all started is hard to imagine.

      Some More Information
      Just two years later, an astronomer named Edwin Hubble noticed that other galaxies were moving away from us. And that’s not all. The farthest galaxies were moving faster than the ones close to us.
      Galaxies separating and saying goodbye to each other.
      This meant that the universe was still expanding, just like Lemaître thought. If things were moving apart, it meant that long ago, everything had been close together.
      Hubble looks into a big telescope and says
      Everything we can see in our universe today—stars, planets, comets, asteroids—they weren’t there at the beginning. Where did they come from?

      A Tiny, Hot Beginning
      When the universe began, it was just hot, tiny particles mixed with light and energy. It was nothing like what we see now. As everything expanded and took up more space, it cooled down.
      The tiny particles grouped together. They formed atoms. Then those atoms grouped together. Over lots of time, atoms came together to form stars and galaxies.
      The first stars created bigger atoms and groups of atoms called molecules. That led to more stars being born. At the same time, galaxies were crashing and grouping together. As new stars were being born and dying, then things like asteroids, comets, planets, and black holes formed!
      A black hole says woohoo!

      A Super Long Time
      How long did all of this take? Well, we now know that the universe is 13,800,000,000 years old—that’s 13.8 billion. That is a very long time.

      Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit priest and is credited with the first coherent theory of the”Big Bang” or the beginning of the universe as we know it. Whether this is the actual beginning of everything is something beyond speculation. What came before the BigBang? That is something outside of the universe as we know, before space and time as we know it, many people accept the idea of a creator entity “outside of space and time”, it is something we simply cannot know. Many Jesuit Astronomers and astrophysicists have and do contribute much to the science of space and evolutionary theory, I disagree with much of catholocism but it does make a joke of “Creation Science”, not that that is hard because the pseudo science of creationism and Intelligent Design is a joke.
      A commonly held theory is that before the universe that we know it began all that there is existed in some inchoate form. This universe expands until such time that gravity becomes so weakened by the distances that even the atoms break up and everything returns to that inchoate form. A cyclical thing, this is a theory that holds some attraction for me (because I find it attractive does not mean it is true anymore than the idea that humans are the special product of a special creation has a special attraction for humans who feel a huge need to be special is true) it does explain the need for a beginning – there was no beginning everything that exists has always existed in some changeable form; to me this is no more unlikely than the idea of a God that has always existed somewhere outside of space and time.
      This cyclical universe is essential to Hinduism, Brahman as the creator God with the one God creating a universe that grows and eventually dies only to be recycled as a dream of God.
      While the cyclical universe as a repeating dream of God is an idea with some appeal and one which existed long, long before the Abrahamic idea it can exist without the need for God. The ongoing cycle can continue as a natural phenomena even without the need for a prime mover.

        1. entech

          Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit priest and is credited with the first coherent theory of the”Big Bang” or the beginning of the universe as we know it. Whether this is the actual beginning of everything is something beyond speculation. What came before the BigBang? That is something outside of the universe as we know, before space and time as we know it, many people accept the idea of a creator entity “outside of space and time”, it is something we simply cannot know.
          Note what I said here – two things stand out:
          it is all beyond speculation, that is the concepts are all speculative –
          transitive verb
          1 :to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence :theorize
          2 :to be curious or doubtful about :wonder
          It is something we cannot know.

          And then we have your introduced word:
          hypocrisy n., pl. -sies.
          1. the false profession of desirable or publicly approved qualities, beliefs, or feelings, esp. a pretense of having virtues, moral principles, or religious beliefs that one does not really possess.
          2. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

          So here we have me saying it is all guesswork and that we can’t really know, that you try and portray this as hypocrisy, is not only amusing, but an amusing example of your abysmal ignorance.

          Hypocracy is best exemplified by the likes of Donald Trump, Joel Osteen, preachers in general preaching the existence of an entity of which they cannot possibly have a true knowledgeable as the pretend.
          And of course YOU.

          1. Rob

            I’ll try spell it out for you. Also, it would help if you would learn to follow along on these threads, and realize what someone is responding to, before you decide to respond to them. Context.

            Jon’s first and only play in his atheist playbook is to attack the evidence of Christianity. For example, if there isn’t a smart phone video downloaded to youtube of the immaculate conception, it didn’t happen. This is The Gospel according to Jon.

            So yes, I find it amusing when the evidence relating to Christianity is attacked, while the ever changing story of evolution, and the ever changing theory of the big bang, is to be taken as absolute gospel.

          2. entech

            Once again total ignorance:
            The changing story of evolution and the ever changing story of the BigBang. You need to consider the scientific method (not your own pseudo science) All scientific “FACTS” are actually qualified by saying that they are the best of our current knowledge, that things considered scinence need to be able to make prognostications – this is quite different than the so called Biblical prophecies. Science needs to derive an experiment based on the theory, the experiment must be able to produce an expected result and must be able to repeat that result consistently and reliably. The thing that you call changing is actually correcting based on improved knowledge, if something new gives a more correct result it is added to the theory, if a rsult cannat be consistently correct it does not matter how well it is loved and adopted IT IS WRONG.
            The main difference between science and you – if the result is wrong science is wrong and needs to be redone: for you if the science does not agree with your predetermined ideas of what God has created then science is wrong (unlike real science that continues working on it) and is rejected because your God is always right. Your God is so great that he does not even need to exist to be right.

            Of course Jon does not accept the immaculate conception, that is that Mary was conceive normally but the element of sin was removed, forgiven or whatever. Don’t believe in God = don’t believe in (original) sin.
            Not actually that new but described a little differently, Moses Mother took a little baby home from the river – “Daddy, look what I, your innocent daughter, found in the bulrushes , can we keep him. We all know what happens in the hidden depths of the river foliage.

  3. Catcher

    @ 8;50; I don’t know Franco Harris. Not relevant. ROFLMAO

    Re. immaculate conjecture;

    @ 8;49; “Conception of Mary” Mary in her mother’s womb?, or Mary conceived? (The conception of Mary.)? Mat. 1;18; :When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to have conceived”.

    If Mary’s mother had conceived Mary immaculately , please provide biblical evidence. A dogmatic statement by Trent is insufficient.

    1. Catcher

      @ 9;33; In addition; Luke 1;31; “And behold, you (Mary) will conceive in your womb,,”

      “Since Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, Luke 1;35, His nature was not corrupted by sin, (Immaculate conception). However for Mary, His mother, no immaculate conception can be claimed since she was born according to the ordinary mode of generation, and was therefore in need of a Savior herself; ‘ And Mary said; My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God –MY–Savior.” Luke 1; 46-47. Christian Dogmatics Mueller page 218

    2. Rob

      Yeah I don’t know, i’m not catholic nor have I studied much about Mary’s own conception; I just know it was referring to her conception, not Christ’s….

      I just mentioned it earlier as something catchy for the point I was trying to make at the time.

          1. entech

            El Robo, One thing we all learned pretty early that is what should be taken literately and whats shouldn’t, what actually has context and what doesn’t.

            Essentially it breaks down to you not being taken seriously in any circumstance. You just throw words around to no real purpose rather like a monkey throws shit.

          1. Rob

            What pointy thing? You see, like you and Catcher, me no understand metaphors, exaggeration, tone, and every day conversation.

Leave a Reply