Does the bit about Jesus coming back give the whole philosophies of his teachings and existence disservice?

Question

Is the "coming back" bit a tad ambiguous?

Does it really mean that his teachings and philosophies have been fully understood and are now in the minds of those who understood why he was murdered?

Are the true "understanders" the second coming? The people who were against him feared his teachings and influences on the dim uneducated.

The educated are the second coming.

Answer 1

"The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told

exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part, that of the

miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and

therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage,

that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected.

They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of

those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the

person of whom it was told could prove it himself.

"But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his

ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the

evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the

womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken

place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the

ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at

least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that

the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal;

and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only

evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of

it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead

of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are

introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all

the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears

that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say,

would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration

himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for

me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

"Christian Mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together.

They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at

once both God and Man, and also the Son of God, celestially

begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in

her longing had eaten an apple.

"Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its

absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining

ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to

conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent

with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.

"[Jesus']

historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner,

were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first

part of the story must have fallen to the ground."

Thomas Paine

"The Age of Reason"

I LOVE TH0MAS PAINE. He makes my day everytime I read that book, and I love pasting from it.

Answer 2

Yes.  I'm not especially religious, but this expects too much of other people (like leaders), and not enough of our own selves, where our real ability to change things lies.  Sometimes it seems that we've grown so lazy that we still expect to be made righteous, instead of going through the arduous collective process of making ourselves righteous.  

I sometimes think that a future day of judgement or messianic return was just the general prediction that comes from our instinctive knowledge that if something can happen once, it can happen again... still, some events remain unique.  What is more likely to happen in the future than this particular figure returning is that one like him in many ways (that is, a great ethical figure) could come to rule over society, and in such a society, one's righteousness (that is living according to righteous laws) would truly serve one, and Good would have officially triumphed.  That would be Jesus's return, in a sense.

(Plus, their viewpoint is like looking into the face of a man who broke the philosophical mould, and saying, "Um, we didn't get you the first time around.  So, could you tell us again?  It just means rising from the dead, but... you can do that, right?"

Jesus preached the universality of selflessness. If I were Jesus, I'd be thinking, "What?  Dying on the cross didn't show you that I valued anyone else's life as much as my own, even if it killed me?  Live in a selfless way, and your existence will be much better."

Answer 3

So simple minded. ...'the bit about...'  and yet an interesting idea.

If you knew the reason for His existence and understood His teaching it would be apparent to you that Jesus must return to fulfil his role.

It's known as 'The Second Coming' and is quite important.

Have a word with any Christian vicar.

Answer 4

I tend to agree with Daniel Wallace (expert in ancient texts and early Biblical manuscripts) in an interview in the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" he says  "It's disturbing that when it comes to the Christian faith, people don't really want, or know how, to investigate the evidence"

The book by Lee Stroebel "The Case for the Real Jesus" has much more than can be fit here.  Lee Stroebel's interviews with experts like Daniel Wallace just added more information to my belief that what we see prophecised in the Bible will happen and he will return on the clouds and judge all mankind.

As for the prophacies, many said that Isaiah 53 was a creation of Christian authors until a copy of Isaiah was found among the dead Sea scrolls and dated to between 300 and 250 BC.  Perhaps you should read it especially the part of placing the sins of all on him... you might start to learn the reason he came.

Up until 60 years ago many laughed because Israel would have had to exist for Christ's return.  I remember reading a piece written about 1890 that said Israel would be a nation and Iran and Russia would be allies.... read the news paper lately?

His philosphy is a relationship with God and accepting him as Lord and repentance of sins.  Those don't change.

Going back to Daniel Wallace  in the book "The Case for the Real Jesus he says this about the deity of Jesus's deity being invented later "That's just loony!  Do these authors know anything about history at all?  ... we have more than four dozen in Greek alone that are prior to the 4th century.  And these manuscripts have numerous passages (many examples) that affirm the deity of Jesus. "

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

May you stumble and learn from it... and try reading the New Testament and learn not just someones commentaries about it.

Bai

Answer 5

The bit about "coming back" was not contemporary but a later addition to attempt to explain why all the criteria were not fulfilled to qualify as Messiah.  Yes, it does the teachings disservice because he was teaching how to become "self-actualized" assuming that the father within is the true self we should mirror or have flow through us in the present moment.

The very idea that we have to wait for him to come back and take care of business is opposite to his teachings, which were that if we followed the path he was on we could become better than he at doing what he did.  He was teaching people how to be free and yet so many rely on vicarious atonement and having him solve our problems for us.  A definite disconnect there.

If one studies the New Testament, one discovers that it is not really very much about God or Jesus, but rather it is a story of the evolution and development of the early church.  If you follow the time-line of authorship (up till about 120 AD or later) one sees the evolution of doctrine from a grassroots movement to a hierarchial power structure.  

The very thing Jesus railed against.