Caramel Frappe said:
You know.. Jesus was real. You don't have to believe that he was the son of God, but there is proof that he existed as a real person.
Madara XIII said:
Secondly Jesus was proven to exist as a historical figure
Some of this material was covered above.
What proof is that? Evidence of the actual life of Jeshua bin Josef is rather scant. Even the Roman census data shows nothing that can be clearly traced to the carpenter's birth or execution. And Rome was pretty diligent about cataloging their executions.
Regarding
proof with miracles, the alleged return of the Christ would have to be pretty spectacular to convince everyone world-wide that it was, indeed, supernatural and brought about by a singular, specific agent. Our technology is so advanced that media is an unreliable witness. And even seeing firsthand tricks such as water walking or transformation of foodstuffs could be attributed to stage illusion. Perhaps he or she would only want to provide proof to world leaders, still a daunting task. Of course that would be recognizing the current world order.
It would be more in character of Jesus to not bother, but then to what true purpose his return, if it isn't to subjugate our civilizations in grandiose style?
Heck, what counts as Jesus returning to life? If Jesus did exist, I can assure you that some of us share the same molecules that inhabited his body, and many others will again. Does that count? Does the new Jesus have to have the same body and memories of the previous one? He'd be a (non-white) Arabian Jew who spoke an ancient tongue. Could he look different? Be female? Be born outside the official lineage? What makes an authentic messiah, and how do we substantiate one?
Regardless,
an authentic return of Jesus Christ to the living would not prove true the bible (any interpretation) the validity of Christianity (any denomination) or any passage or presumption thereof. At best, it would be up to the new incarnation what his or her return means. And it would be up to the churches to decide whether or not to accept this meaning.[footnote]Note that most major Christian organized churches have a significant investment in Jesus
not returning, at least in the present, and would seek to defame, debunk, or even destroy this new incarnation if they could do so.[/footnote]
As a naturalist, I would presume there are natural explanations for any miraculous phenomena, even if I cannot personally explain it, but would be eager to learn how they work. And, no, AmaterasuGrim [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.308707-What-would-you-do-if-Jesus-turned-out-to-be-real-and-came-back#12456151], to the contrary, we atheists would want to know what it is to be reborn. We wouldn't be interested in Jesus as a deity, but we would be interested in him as a phenomenon.[footnote]...bob-dooo be-doobee.[/footnote]
As a humanist, I have specific values of my own which hold sacrosanct to the progress of civilization and humankind, including social equality and personal freedom to a higher degree than is listed in the New Testament, or in the Book of Mormon, and I hold these principles more dear than I would fear any divine stick wielded by any god.[footnote]Of course, as a mere mortal, my personal values could be changed, say, if I were subject to extreme torture or some other kind of thought-annihilating process. Would you follow a Jesus who openly condoned such acts, even
to redeem those deceived by Satan or somesuch?[/footnote] So my own moral foundation wouldn't change just because some talking head on the telly claiming to be divine reveals his or her idea of the truth.
238U.
ACKNOWLEDGED: Ninja'd by
Ralfy.