But how do you seperate him from a look-alike?

I mean, logically, there's nothing stopping me or you or anyone else from putting on a robe, growing long hair and a beard, and then figuring out a magic trick way of parting or walking on water...

One step further, computers today and plastic surgery today, I bet if someone REALLY wanted to they could take a "picture" of Jesus as he's depicted in Christian imagery, use a 3-D computer to make the image a 3-D, real face, a representation fo what he would look like, and then have plastic srugery to have him look exactly like Jesus.

So- if he looks like a Savior, quacks like a Savior, walks on water like a savior, but he's really just a guy from Chicago who decided to pull a hoax...

How can you tell the "real" Jesus, if he arrived and said "Believe me! I'm back!" from that impersonator?

There was once a man in the Bicetre asylum in France who famously believed himself to be Jesus. (This was in 1782, back when asylums were very very nasty places) He was eventually cured of his delusions by Philippe Pinel, who simply had everyone ignore him whenever he made that claim. It worked.
I'm not a religious person, so I don't actually believe in anything like this. But I think if he did come back we'd lock him up at worst. At best we'd ridicule and ignore him. Food for thought.

obi, why would you assume that jesus would wear robes and have a beard??

Locking Jesus up isn't the worst that could happen to Him, we did the worst the first time.

From what I understand, and eschatology is not something that interests me a great deal, it's supposed to be fairly obvious when Jesus comes back. You know, with all the famines and disasters and battling angles and all. So the real Jesus you'll definitely know, it's the fakes you'll be unsure of, or you should be unsure of. Or whatever.

@sean:

Good point... I was just using robes/long hair/beard as sort of a standard description, but point taken, and it actually adds to the issue...

What if Jesus is that guy on the bus with the huge hole in his jeans and pock marks and the mothers tell their children not to sit next to him, he's a "bad role model?"

Or the pizza delivery guy you snubbed on the tip?
Or the CEO of a business?
Or that butcher?

That's just my point- so many people say and plan according to Jesus' return... well...

HOW will they know?

Hell, how will I know, I don't believe it'll happen, but hey, if it does and it's proved, I'll be first in line to say I was wrong in my skepticism, forgive me please, I'll join...

How will they, I, anyone know?

So is the concept that Jesus will return looking exatly like He did the first time around?

@obi - let's assume for a second that Jesus has already made one appearance. Bearing in mind that he made quite an impression then before things like the internet, rolling TV news channels, video phones and even a reliable post service. i'm pretty sure he'd be able to get his message across today.

You want miss him if he turns up, don't worry.

If my memory serves, which it usually doesn't, neither Moses nor Muhammed have supernatural powers, so they would be quite easy to miss. Jesus is a 4th level magician and hocus pocuser.

If you are talking Biblical, I'm pretty sure that his return will be pretty hard to miss... :D

the problem that your argument has is that when jesus returns, he isnt coming for a visit. when he comes, Revelation tells us that he will come in the clouds and call his elect home and then bring about the judgement and wrath of God to the world.

after that time, various things will happen throughout the world that will kill, harm and affect massive portions of humanity. additionally, the anti-christ will come performing 'miracles' and many will be drawn to him.

so thats why its important for everyone to know where they stand with God in Jesus Christ.

The popular image of Jesus doesn't have anything to do with Jesus' actual appearance; it's drawn from Greek artistic motifs.

And there's a Biblical quote from Jesus: "The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. They will say to you, “Look there!” or “Look here!” Do not go, do not set off in pursuit. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day."

But Obiwan, Jesus also

told his followers that every time we met a person in need, we were meeting him personally...and that when we saw him, we would be held accountable for the way we treated him when we met him here. It would be nice if the Christians who spent the most time talking about Jesus' return paid more attention to that detail about Judgment Day.

If you're worrying about some future arrival of Jesus you've already missed the point.

Be here now.

Alright, let me phrase this a different way, to the point-

Some guy walks up to you on the street.

What would it take to convince you he was Jesus? What would convince you he was the real deal and not an impersonator? All I've gotten so far is that he wouldn't be hard to miss.

Well, if he'd be THAT unhard to miss, and you would so easily be able to pick him out...

Again, I ask- how would you distinguish him?

Wow - tru Ninja that's quite some story to scare the children with.

On the other hand I rather like the DJ vision of a 4th Level magician and hocus pocuser - makes a change from a spaceman. Consider the quote from Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

@ Obi- I would not be convinced no matter what he did/said. Jesus has already told us the way that he is returning, and it isn't as a man on the street.

@obiwan,

What are your basic assumptions? Are you assuming the biblical Jesus is real? If so, you have your answer: Revelation is going to cause everything to go bat-shit crazy. You won't miss it.

Or, are you assuming that a biblical Jesus is real, but the bible is wrong? In which case, Jesus still does take the form of a man and wanders around earth?

This is all lovely armchair philosophy, but it's entirely missing the point.

if some fool came to me and told me that he was Jesus, even if he performed untold miracles, i still wouldnt believe it. we live by faith and the fact that Scripture is God-breathed. Christ himself told his disciples on how the end times would come about and that he wouldn't have a second coming like the first. he also said to beware of false Christs since many would come in his name and fool the masses.

@hammac: scary or not, its the truth. God told us ahead of time so that we would watch and wait. of course there are going to be 'better' 'nicer' versions such as DJ's magician and hocus pocuser. the bible says also that the last days will be like the days of noah where people were eating and drinking up until the flood came. fools scoff at warnings of calamity and downplay the word of God.

im simply here to inform you of the truth of things. Christ wont come the same as he did the first time and he's been right on everything he said to date and so people need to be prepared for when he shows himself right in the future.

"the fact that Scripture is God-breathed." - i guess this is besides the point - but i get why the prohpets supposedly had God revealed to them and what they wrote was hence 'inspired by God' and thus somehow perfect - but the disciples just met Jesus (God inacrnate as you believe) and were perhaps filled with the holy spirit - but how does writing about this guy they actually met result in 'Godbreathed' (ie perfect) gospels?

more importantly how can you tell the difference between writings which are inspired by god and those which are not? (Say the Gospel of Thomas, and the Qur'an?) infact what about each translation?

Is it a property of the text that each translation is divinely inspired, or does God choose to inspire each translator? Infact if each is perfect then why is there more than one interpretation?

@ Orathaic- The common argument is that those scriptures (Gnostic) aren't first hand accounts. The gospel of Thomas (and Mary) is believed to have been written some time in the 2nd century, over 70 years after Jesus's death.

"Is it a property of the text that each translation is divinely inspired, or does God choose to inspire each translator? Infact if each is perfect then why is there more than one interpretation?"

I guess it would be the idea is what is divinely inspired. The original documents are the most accurate since they haven't been modified, but it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to learn Greek and Hebrew. Some meaning may be lost via translation, but the majority of it stays the same.

@hunter - i think that as meaning of a word drifts over hundreds of year that an english bible if retranslated today would result in different wording (compared with, say the 400 year old King James bible)

Translation into local language also had a lot to do with breaking the monopoly of scholars/priests over the 'holy words' to actually bring the bible/teachings of Jesus to the people you need to translate it into their local language (not leave it in latin/hebrew) or you just end up with a highly educated class of people who control right/wrong in their local communities - which i think may have been a serious issue in the Roman Catholic church...

I agree. There are a lot of newer translations that use very modern language that are interesting. One example is "The Message" which translates whole phrases rather then word by word, so that it takes the whole meaning. The Lord's Prayer is translated to:
"With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes."

Holding any translated version as better then the rest (King James) is ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure that biblical scholars often translate and re-translate to keep up with modern language changes. The more translations the better, because it makes it harder for there to be a major mistake made and then have it overlooked.

sorry for going completely off-topic, i just thought it is vitally important to the 'second coming' (shouldn't that be third, jesus came to earth twice before, right? once after the ressurection...)

Actually, orathaic, Jesus body didn't return, he was resurrected in the same body, albeit with a major overhaul or his nearly skinless torso from the whipping would have scared the crap out of anyone who saw him. But the point is, his soul went down and tore open the gates of hell while his body lay waiting the resurrection. His ascension was the first leaving and therefore it will be the second coming when he returns.

But his return will be such that there will be no doubt it is him. No parlor tricks like walking on water or anything else man might be able to duplicate will suffice. It will be obvious, and it will be too late for those who don't believe.

I think obiwanobiwan has just been listening to that song called What if God Was One of Us, or whatever it is, and decided to make another of his signature inane threads based on this momentary ejaculation of interest.

i dont think that you find a serious minded individual out there fully capable of arguing the authenticity of scripture as a valid first-hand account of the happenings of the time. names, dates and locations have continued to be validated regardless of scepticism.
im sure youd also be hard-pressed to find an honest scholar that can honestly back up the gospel of thomas as well as the other gnostic writings as authentic. additionally, Scripture is the best preserved of any work the world has ever seen. that also is never an argument among scholars. plus, the reasonable translations dont translate into an english language from an english language, but rather use the closest copies to Scripture available. therefore where some meaning may be lost, the meaning that is lost is very basic and has nothing to do with the theology that Scripture is teaching.
i wouldnt go so far as hunter49r as to back up 'the message' Bible (which i wouldnt even use as a paper weight or bed-tme reading for anyone over the age of 4) but the real debate on the issue comes at what is contained within the Bible, its overall theme and its hint at future events. to that, i personally try not to argue over it. God has proven and re-proven Himself many times and if people choose to ignore the current evidence that God has provided, how can i possibly prove it even further.

im simply stating where Scripture stands on the issue and if you choose to ignore it, then thats your call. i would talk to someone who is asking genuine questions and not simply someone wishing to argue.

also, the closest gnostic writing came well over a century and a half after the death of christ and none of the gnostic writers were contemporaries of Christ or his disciples.

"It will be obvious, and it will be too late for those who don't believe." - that sounds like a threat to me. I think it hollow and childish, good luck to your religion and the people who believe it. I intend to do my best to make the world 'better' as i see it and if that coincides with the Christian idea of 'heaven on earth' then i will happily co-operate. However I don't like being threatened, it does not make me sympathetic to your cause.

"not simply someone wishing to argue" - i'm not arguing with people of what i don't beleive, but i am putting questions to what they do believe. I clearly consider the original texts to be the product of flawed humans (we are all flawed) and while they may still have valuable messages (which i woudl be sympathetic to, and willing to have taught in public schools) i do not consider them somehow divine.

All of the theologians i've talked to agree that the Gospel of thomas is very late.

An atheist was walking through the woods.

'What majestic trees!
'What powerful rivers!
'What beautiful animals!
He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him..

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer.

He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident.' 'Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?
Am I to count you as a believer?

The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian'?

'Very well,' said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty , Amen

@orathaic - not me threatening, just referencing the typical belief of scripture. I am more agnostic in that I believe a benevolent God won't refuse anyone entry into the after life. But Revalations would indicate otherwise with the whole lake of fire thing. Personally, I think certain aspect of Revalations were John in a drunken stupor, but I know I'm gonna get hell from some of this group for that statement.

*Revelations - I can't believe I typo'd it twice exactly the same...

Haha, can't believe I hadn't seen this before.
@Obi: I remember thinking this before.

<For the rest of this post I will make the assumption Jesus is the son of God. Please if you comment on my thoughts don't just criticise this point, its a different debate!>

However, the bible does say he'd come back as a king, and given he's the son of God I think that would be rather a spectacular arrival that none of us would be able to question.

<Decided I didn't have much to say>

@ Draugnar- I think some of Revelations may be misinterpreted by John, because of the time he was writing, but I don't think he was drunk. :) For example, when he mentions something like stars falling he could be talking about missiles, but had no past-day word for them at the time. You know?

@ Tru Ninja- lol, I don't own "The Message" or anything, I just thought it served well as an example to get the point across. :)

@ Orathaic- It is not really intended as a threat, although the wording could probably be better. There is supposed to be a period (7 years is an agreed upon time by Christian scholars) between rapture and second coming which will very obviously allow people to choose their sides.

*misinterpreted is too strong a word for what I had in mind. But if someone from 100 years even was shown the modern world, words would pretty much be useless, and things would be misnamed to fit into more common words.

Please note that Hunter49r's view on premillennialism is unique to certain branches of Protestant Christianity. I lack the time to explain this right now, but this more or less covers the General (Last) Judgement and associated whatnot:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

@Tru Ninja,
"additionally, Scripture is the best preserved of any work the world has ever seen. "
What about the Vedas of India?

hands down, the Bible. over 5000 handwritten copies of the NT alone and concerning the OT, theyve found 2000 year old texts that are still basically word for word true to what we have today. the dead sea scrolls have been the greatest testament to Biblical scholarship and authenticity that we have found to date.

2000 years old? thats not that old. the Vedas were 1500-1000BCE. The bible might have been preserved well but it is a relatively new "ancient book"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature

first off, im not here to debate. the scriptures arent the oldest work and thats not what i was stating. what i was saying is there was large scale scepticism to how true what we have was to an original text and so far, theyre basically word for word via handwritten scripts passed down through untold generations for 2000 years. and that is better than any work available.

i think you misinterpreted what i said earlier.

@Tru: I was curious how you determined that the Message was so worthless. I've found that it is often a lot better at expressing the original meaning than a more traditional translations. Other times it's totally off base.