What if on May 21st, 2011, "Christ" does "return"?

N A U S E A T I N G!

most people will be led away out of their ' own ' understanding. because people with little to no faith are easily side tracked by their own prideful thinking and by the ' evil one ' who deliberately leads you to doubt the very small amount of faith you once had.

you must be stern and trusting in the Lord Jesus. Always asking for more faith, more belief. He is the giver of faith and by asking the Holy Father through Jesus wholeheartedly with true hope and genuine intent to know Him..He will offer His hand and He will gladly and lovingly serve you faith.

He is not your enemy. we are our own enemies. the world listens to their own and accepts their own but stubbornly refuses to shun the doubt the world has placed in you.
As a child you absorbed readily anything placed in front of you. anything you've heard and placed in front of you by ' teachers '. Today we battle ourselves.

..And The Lord Jesus who loves us all and pleads with us says " Deny yourselves! and Follow Me.. "

Originally posted by mwood
If he is real and he returns on that date then obviously the bible is true,

and there are a whole bunch of people going to hell. Myself included.

The only true part of the bible is the message hidden in the text. It is by far a coincidence that the texts chosen are the ones we read now. The other biblical texts were discarded because they would interfere with the message.

So what is the message? You are wise to ask.

If you take the first letter of every seventh chapter, you can set them up in a grid based on how many commandments there are in the bible.
(seven being the sacred number and 631 being the number of commandments in the bible)

You then use transpositional decryption techniques and eventually come up with this message:

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet", which in itself is quite astonishing given that in 300AD only the keenest minds were remotely aware that the internet would come to light.

And the strangest part is that whatever language you choose, the message comes out the same.

reply to post by CarlitosAmsel
As Adam fell, The Christ returned the Sprit of the Creator to Man, by proving that man could stand in the Pure Truth before the Creator. The Christ was to of said do as I have done, become as I am.
It's not so much as to be forgiven, but to forgive yourself, to become whole.

It's strange, I posted in this thread last night, and stated somethings I thought to be true, I then found the thread on the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, upon reading in to these Tablets, I found they were saying what I had just posted. This is what I said, "relize there will come a time when this Universe is Perfected and in Perfect Balance".
These Emerald Tablets of Thorth are a very deep read, and must be read hundreds of time to understand the wisdom, within. I am deep into the Kabbalah, it is not intended to just be Jewish, there is also Mayan Kabbalah, the Emerald Tablets of Thorth speak of the Dweller, this Creation is very complex, most do not even have a clue as to what is really going on.

I am not saying I know that much, but if lost in this place as so many are, humble yourself, get down on your knees and ask for guidance.

reply to post by SaberTruth

If you mean "defend the Bible", you might consider making that clearer initially next time the topic comes up.

I don't know which of my statements you are referring to here.

Nice analogy with the cosmic chess game, you get points for that.

Who says he didn't? In light of what I just wrote about limited free will and cosmic chess, I think him coming down among us personally, sticking around for three years, then rising from the dead is bending over backwards to tell us.

Are you saying that Jesus was a human incarnation of God? Don't want to make any assumptions. Islam does not recognise Jesus as either the son of God or God himself, do you think that they are any less valid in their worship of God than Christians? Surely there is only one truth within this dimension.

We are called his "ambassadors" and though we fail miserably at the job, many of us do try, and God will take all our human frailties into account. I honestly think that some people could watch Jesus walk on water, raise others from the dead, and create a dinosaur in front of their very eyes and they'd still demand "proof".

I really doubt that... I'm quite certain that if most people saw him walk on water or create a dinosaur they would believe it was him - however, all these supposed miracles occurred a long time ago. I've never seen a miracle in person, I've only read about them.

But for now I'll just say that I don't need anything but hard, empirical science to debunk the THEORY of evolution

Yes evolution is a theory, but it seems to be an extremely reliable one - the most rational. What is your take on the origins of man?

I see no contradiction at all in calling it free will to choose whether or not to be reconciled to God. If you don't believe this, or that there is a God to reconcile with, you came to that point (hopefully) by examining evidence and then choosing what to do with it.

It is not a choice if one cannot believe in God and it is arrogant to assume that they should simply because you do. As aforementioned, I happen to believe in some form of God but I know plenty of people who cannot (they don't 'choose' not to) and should not be condemned on that basis. As you've written, that is for Him to judge and no one else but I personally feel he would understand.

You confine yourself to what you can observe, while I think it's reasonable to deduce certain things from what is observed, though I cannot prove them. You too give your opinions and have made several assertions about Jesus and the Bible without knowing either very well through years of study.

One does not need several years of study to question something. I wasn't raised in a Christian environment, though I still have a basic grasp of the commonly held Christian views towards Jesus. I already stated that I do not need physical evidence, but in the absence of such evidence I need personal experience or rationality as validation.

And who are you to presume God's reason for making us? Have you considered that what he wants from us is love, which is only genuine if given freely? You also make yourself the judge of your creator, a notion I find incredibly arrogant and egotistical. Just sayin'.

I assume that if God made everything, he is infinitely intelligent. With intelligence comes understanding and thereafter, compassion and love. On this basis, I assume he would not create us towards egotistical ends. You may view the notion in any manner you'd like but it certainly isn't arrogant as I have not negatively judged the creator, I'm viewing him favourably. Just sayin'.

I already gave one reason: no one would write a book that condemns the writer.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement? a) some might write a book that condemns the writer. b) if he did not write the book, someone else is condemning him.

You might also actually try reading the Bible for yourself and then compare it to other writings of the time, as well as other religious writings of other times. But that will take you years, so no need to respond immediately

I've read a lot of the Qur'an but have little interest in reading the entire Bible...

If you haven't demanded proof then what has this whole conversation been about? And here again you deny eyewitness testimony about the resurrection of Jesus yet claim you don't always demand that level of proof. I also strongly disagree that a liar or a lunatic is considered "good".

If something seems rational to me, I am more willing to accept it. Similarly, if a personal experience indicates it seems valid I will accept it - I have a big problem accepting information that I have no way of proving to myself. Even through lying or insanity, one can spread good. I didn't say that liars and lunatics are objectively good, but they're not objectively 'bad'.

Point being, that the sins Jesus paid for are the ones you admit and repent of, but this only holds true for those who have put their trust in Jesus as Savior. In fact, such people are "adopted" as children of God and heirs to his "wealth" and blessings. As one of those children you would not have to pay for defying the infinite and holy God any more than an adopted child in this life is disowned on the occasion of every misbehavior. God loves his children and wants them to love him too, but we aren't his children if we ignore him or continually do things we know he hates.

What sins did he pay for? I still fail to see how it is relevant or applicable to my own life, or anyone else's for that matter. How can someone pay for the sins of others? It is up to them to redeem themselves. If Jesus was not either the son of God or God himself, then he didn't really have much authority to pay for the sins of others. In Islam he didn't even die on the cross in the first place and wasn't resurrected- how would you respond to these assertions?

Well, I didn't stroke out last night. So me and Jesus must still be BFF's.

Anyways, isn't there a 3rd coming also? So even if he shows up this time he's just on vacation. This second coming is just on a green card. He will need to renew it for his 3rd coming.

Originally posted by arollingstone


What sins did he pay for? I still fail to see how it is relevant or applicable to my own life, or anyone else's for that matter. How can someone pay for the sins of others?

Good point! Why should I pay for the sins of others when I wasn't even born yet? Moreover, I didn't ask to BE born. If I'm going to be judged for sins then I at least should have the option of being born or not.

It's going to get nasty.

reply to post by LosLobos


I agree, he died for our sins what good did that do? I see more'sin' than ever

Originally posted by arollingstone
I don't know which of my statements you are referring to here.

You initially said "it" when asking why I defended "it", and it wasn't clear what you were referring to. If that isn't it, please clarify.

Nice analogy with the cosmic chess game, you get points for that.

Tanx. :-D It works for me.

Are you saying that Jesus was a human incarnation of God? Don't want to make any assumptions. Islam does not recognise Jesus as either the son of God or God himself, do you think that they are any less valid in their worship of God than Christians? Surely there is only one truth within this dimension.

Yes, per Phil. 2:5-11 Jesus set aside his divine privileges and took on humanity. And while Muslims may be entirely sincere in their worship, I believe they're worshiping the wrong one. A good passage to illustrate how Christians are to view other beliefs is Paul's speech to the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill. He observed their many idols and one in particular caught his attention: "To the Unknown God". He used that, not as an affirmation of their beliefs, but as a "hook" or springboard to present the gospel of Jesus Christ. He told them that in the past God "overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent" (and "repent" in the Greek simply means to change one's mind, not confess sins) and accept Jesus because he was "raised from the dead". The Greeks laughed at that part, which proves they didn't accept all kinds of resurrection myths. But the point is that Paul did not accept the other faiths as having some truth in them or worshiping the same God, and it is the risen Jesus that sets this "unknown God" apart from all the others.

I really doubt that... I'm quite certain that if most people saw him walk on water or create a dinosaur they would believe it was him - however, all these supposed miracles occurred a long time ago. I've never seen a miracle in person, I've only read about them.

In my experience, almost without exception, atheists say they would only believe if God did some trick in front of them. Of course, the question then arises, "How would you tell this from a hallucination?" But the thing about miracles is that they are by definition violations of natural law, and the pattern in scripture seems to be that they are only used when words fail or to put a divine stamp of approval on some epochal change, such as when the "church" was begun. So I don't put great emphasis on them as a pillar of my faith.

Yes evolution is a theory, but it seems to be an extremely reliable one - the most rational. What is your take on the origins of man?

As you know, science cannot study origins because they are one-off events that happened before we were around to watch. Every evo will refuse to say that the ToE has anything to do with this question, though it's very difficult to get two evo's to agree on what the ToE actually is these days. [/sarcasm] So regardless of how I answer it, science has nothing to say about it except to presume, for no scientific reason, that "the present is the key to the past".

On that point I hold that all theories of origins are unscientific. I reject most of them because they only move the line in the sand as to when the origination took place, instead of answering the question. Panspermia, aliens, the uni as a giant perpetual motion machine, etc. are all "just so" stories and thus not superior to the belief that what exists came from an intelligent and powerful First Cause outside of the physical universe. But, to quote a line from The Incredibles, "yet here we are". Based upon the observation that "no effect is greater than its cause", and observing entropy and the vast design evidence I see everywhere, I have come to the conclusion that the First Cause is an intelligent being.

As a theory of "change in allele frequency over time" instead of one on origins, I still reject ToE because it is unfalsifiable, as I already stated. I can't find the quote right now, but on one of the evo sites someone said that no matter what science ever discovers, the ToE will remain (or words to that effect). That is a clear statement of unfalsifiability, and of an almost religious faith in ToE as the grand "theory of everything". Every known and observed fact (the def. of "real" science) can be interpreted as a support of ToE or a support of YEC (young earth creationism), so science itself does not prove ToE nor disprove YEC.

It is not a choice if one cannot believe in God

You can choose between belief or not. If you had no choice then God would force you one way or the other.

and it is arrogant to assume that they should simply because you do.

I agree, but who says this?

As aforementioned, I happen to believe in some form of God but I know plenty of people who cannot (they don't 'choose' not to) and should not be condemned on that basis. As you've written, that is for Him to judge and no one else but I personally feel he would understand.

How do you know they lack the ability to choose whether or not to believe in God? Experiment? Analysis? Any kind of proof other than their word? But at least we agree that God will sort it out. However, my charge as a Christian is to do everything possible to spread the gospel, regardless of what people do with it.

One does not need several years of study to question something.

Oh, how I wish you'd repeat this every time someone beats me over the head with their scientifical degrees or superior enlightenment and maturity. On the other hand, if I claimed to know something about the lifecycle of the gnat I'd better be able to back it up, and so I think it's only reasonable to ask those who claim to know something about Jesus to back it up. All I'm asking is for the same standard applied to all. And I'm not saying you can't ask questions, but that you can't make baseless assertions.

I assume that if God made everything, he is infinitely intelligent. With intelligence comes understanding and thereafter, compassion and love. On this basis, I assume he would not create us towards egotistical ends. You may view the notion in any manner you'd like but it certainly isn't arrogant as I have not negatively judged the creator, I'm viewing him favourably. Just sayin'.

God did not create us toward egotistical ends, but as sentient beings "in his image". What we do with that is our business. And if God prevented us from making poor decisions then he might as well have made robots.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement? a) some might write a book that condemns the writer. b) if he did not write the book, someone else is condemning him.

Do you know of any examples of (a)? Elitists and hoaxers typically make up rules for other people and exempt themselves, yet the Bible is filled with condemnation of all kinds of typical human sins, such that there is no one who could possibly claim an exemption. And if the Bible were written by rivals who condemned each other there would be no consistency at all, no central moral theme throughout. And consider that the Bible took over 1500 years to complete and about 40 different writers from various places and times. Some may then claim that there was later editing to pull it all together, but such claims have to pass standards of textual criticism. And that's beyond the scope of this site.

I've read a lot of the Qur'an but have little interest in reading the entire Bible..

Which is why it might not be a good idea for you to make claims about Jesus. I've read the Qur'an too. And the Book of Mormon.

If something seems rational to me, I am more willing to accept it. Similarly, if a personal experience indicates it seems valid I will accept it - I have a big problem accepting information that I have no way of proving to myself. Even through lying or insanity, one can spread good. I didn't say that liars and lunatics are objectively good, but they're not objectively 'bad'.

That's fine, I do that too. And my point about "good" people was made in the context of revered teachers of great influence.

What sins did he pay for? I still fail to see how it is relevant or applicable to my own life, or anyone else's for that matter. How can someone pay for the sins of others? It is up to them to redeem themselves. If Jesus was not either the son of God or God himself, then he didn't really have much authority to pay for the sins of others. In Islam he didn't even die on the cross in the first place and wasn't resurrected- how would you respond to these assertions?

He paid for the general separation of God and mankind, such that if anyone repents of their sin they can be forgiven just for asking. So in the end, it's the sins you choose to turn away from and renounce, but only if you are God's child through faith in Jesus. That's how it applies to you. And please, see the links I've given for more detail on what else Jesus accomplished on the cross.

As for how I respond to your assertions, I already have. No one but Jesus rose from the dead, and the Bible (OT specifically) is what he quoted from when telling people things God said. So any religion that differs from what the Bible teaches is a false religion. Jesus could reconcile God and mankind because he was both divine and human; no one else qualifies.

And this is all about who goes to heaven, not "settling accounts" once that destination is chosen. There will be two judgments: one for believers and another for unbelievers (I will give references if demanded), so one's destination is known before this even happens. Instead, believers' actions in this life will be tested and whatever doesn't measure up is a lost reward. Conversely, though it isn't stated as clearly, I believe the unrighteous dead will also get more or less suffering (some really good people might not "suffer" at all beyond being separated from God) depending on how they lived. But given all the Bible says about that eternal separation, I'd strongly advise against gambling that it won't be all that bad. ;-)

Originally posted by LosLobos
Moreover, I didn't ask to BE born. If I'm going to be judged for sins then I at least should have the option of being born or not.

Not even God had a choice as to whether he existed or not. And how exactly was he supposed to ask you anything before you existed? Absolute nonsense.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Then where do they go?

I don't understand your question.

reply to post by CarlitosAmsel


Not even close. It's just the punk rock in me making noise, as usual. :p

reply to post by SaberTruth

You initially said "it" when asking why I defended "it", and it wasn't clear what you were referring to. If that isn't it, please clarify.

Which sentence? Still not sure ..

And while Muslims may be entirely sincere in their worship, I believe they're worshiping the wrong one.

Why do you feel that way? Because Islam does not recognise the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ - as in the story with the Greeks? Many elements are shared between the two religions - Islam mentions and respects most of the prophets associated with Judaism and Christianity. However, it is careful to ensure that the prophets are not worshipped or placed on the same level as God - their miracles are performed with his approval. I don't know all that much about Judaism, but I'm fairly certain they share similar key values with both religions. And they got here first - are they, too, wrong?

In my experience, almost without exception, atheists say they would only believe if God did some trick in front of them. Of course, the question then arises, "How would you tell this from a hallucination?"

Or Project Bluebeam lol - I know the point you're making. Some are cynics for the sake of it, but I do feel most would be swayed by Jesus creating a dinosaur out of thin air! That would be awesome.

On that point I hold that all theories of origins are unscientific. I reject most of them because they only move the line in the sand as to when the origination took place, instead of answering the question. Panspermia, aliens, the uni as a giant perpetual motion machine, etc. are all "just so" stories and thus not superior to the belief that what exists came from an intelligent and powerful First Cause outside of the physical universe. But, to quote a line from The Incredibles, "yet here we are".

I do agree that the theory of evolution, panspermia etc. should be treated as such, and not as truths. However, I place it in the larger context of the 'evolution' of the universe. By 'evolution' of the universe I mean that I see everything from the start of the universe to its eventual demise as one motion, including everything thats going on here on earth at the moment. This is one of the reasons I feel there has to be a God - we cannot comprehend how anything is here at all - it defies the law that energy cannot be created. Science cannot, as you mention, come up with any viable theories as to what happened before the big bang and I've even read 'it is irrelevant'.

Based upon the observation that "no effect is greater than its cause", and observing entropy and the vast design evidence I see everywhere, I have come to the conclusion that the First Cause is an intelligent being.

Here, however I must argue that science can respond to the vast design evidence point (if by vast design you mean intelligent design). I mean, the probability of life occurring is ridiculously low but the universe is enormous. We just happen to be on one of the most suitable known planets for life to emerge. In the particular conditions in which it can form, it is inevitable that over millions/billions of years, the most suited animals will survive and appear engineered. Sometimes, even that doesn't suffice for me but I do feel it is possible given the size of the universe. I sort of see it as God putting all the ingredients necessary together (laws of physics, forces, matter etc) and starting it all off.

Even more, I think God created infinite possibility - and we are merely one manifestation of that.

He paid for the general separation of God and mankind, such that if anyone repents of their sin they can be forgiven just for asking. So in the end, it's the sins you choose to turn away from and renounce, but only if you are God's child through faith in Jesus.

So before he was crucified, it took more to be forgiven than just repentance of sins? Was it impossible to be redeemed? And I still don't understand the necessity of accepting Jesus as one's saviour.. why not simply redeem one's sins and worship God?

No one but Jesus rose from the dead, and the Bible (OT specifically) is what he quoted from when telling people things God said. So any religion that differs from what the Bible teaches is a false religion. Jesus could reconcile God and mankind because he was both divine and human; no one else qualifies.

No one rose from the dead, but Abraham allegedly survived being burnt alive unscathed, Muhammad was illiterate yet could write when Gabriel commanded him to and also recited elaborate Surahs to his followers. Moses had his fair share of good miracles too. Why prioritise this miracle over other unique ones? I don't see how this de-validates other religions, it only does so through the Christian perspective. You have already mentioned that it took 1500 years and 40 writers to complete the Bible, therefore how do you know his original words remained intact in the Bible? Is this based on cross examining the Bible with quotes of those who were present during his time?

reply to post by arollingstone

No one rose from the dead

Odd you'd think that considering the first place Christianity grew was in Jerusalem. It would take an empty tomb to convert Jews to Christianity in Jerusalem don't you think?

reply to post by SonicInfinity


What if on May 21st, 2011, "Christ" does "return"?

Lets just hope he doesn't try to fly anywhere....A scruffy bearded man in a robe without ID?...the TSA would go berserk.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I meant no one else was alleged to have risen from the dead.

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by LosLobos

 

I agree, he died for our sins what good did that do? I see more'sin' than ever

Christ showed us ' sin ' seperates us from GOD.

He poured His cleansing blood for you and i that we might have a relationship with Him, with GOD.

you will see a difference in those who deliberately sin measured against those who do not.
perhaps the unbelieving cannot.

Originally posted by arollingstone
Which sentence? Still not sure

..

Aw, no biggie... at this point I don't want to hunt it down, if that's okay.

Why do you feel that way? Because Islam does not recognise the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ - as in the story with the Greeks? Many elements are shared between the two religions - Islam mentions and respects most of the prophets associated with Judaism and Christianity. However, it is careful to ensure that the prophets are not worshipped or placed on the same level as God - their miracles are performed with his approval. I don't know all that much about Judaism, but I'm fairly certain they share similar key values with both religions. And they got here first

- are they, too, wrong?

If X is true and Y is false, then anyone who says the opposite believes a falsehood. Of course, in any debate on any topic, each side believes the other is wrong, because each side operates from their own perspective. When it comes to various religions, faiths, and philosophies, each view has every right to say what they believe and that other beliefs are therefore wrong; it's what they believe and they're just saying so.

But as I mentioned before, it's the differences that count, not the similarities. Even atheists can have codes of ethics that match much of what any given religion has, after all. And since I can't believe two contradictory things, then if one belief about God says he is X while the other says he is not X, then they are two different gods. As for Judaism, they have the right God, but after Jesus came Peter gave his famous speech on Pentecost wherein he said that they all had to repent of crucifying their Messiah. So once again it all hinges on Jesus and everyone, Jew or not, is saved the same way.

I do agree that the theory of evolution, panspermia etc. should be treated as such, and not as truths. However, I place it in the larger context of the 'evolution' of the universe. By 'evolution' of the universe I mean that I see everything from the start of the universe to its eventual demise as one motion, including everything thats going on here on earth at the moment. This is one of the reasons I feel there has to be a God - we cannot comprehend how anything is here at all - it defies the law that energy cannot be created. Science cannot, as you mention, come up with any viable theories as to what happened before the big bang and I've even read 'it is irrelevant'.

Hey, that's something! :-D But technically, I'd call entropy devolution.

Here, however I must argue that science can respond to the vast design evidence point (if by vast design you mean intelligent design). I mean, the probability of life occurring is ridiculously low but the universe is enormous. We just happen to be on one of the most suitable known planets for life to emerge. In the particular conditions in which it can form, it is inevitable that over millions/billions of years, the most suited animals will survive and appear engineered. Sometimes, even that doesn't suffice for me but I do feel it is possible given the size of the universe. I sort of see it as God putting all the ingredients necessary together (laws of physics, forces, matter etc) and starting it all off.

If life in all its complexity, including symbiotic relationships, only appears to be designed but really isn't, then it is impossible to tell design from non-design. As I like to say, how can people look at the space shuttle and say "Design!" but look at the designers and say "Accident!"? With all that has been learned about DNA etc., the odds of any such communication system not being designed stretches credulity to the point of absurdity. So if something as amazingly complex as the human brain does not show evidence of design, then nothing does. When you say God put the ingredients together, you're saying "design", so I'm not sure how you reconcile these two beliefs.

I'd also like to just mention that NS (natural selection) can never produce anything new, because to select is to take out a subset of what already exists. And in order for any net gain to result, there must be a goal being worked toward, which is impossible for a purely naturalistic system, having no intelligence directing it. In fact, the longer time goes on, the closer we should reach a statistical equilibrium, meaning no net gain at all. Time is truly the enemy of evolution by NS.

So before he was crucified, it took more to be forgiven than just repentance of sins? Was it impossible to be redeemed? And I still don't understand the necessity of accepting Jesus as one's saviour.. why not simply redeem one's sins and worship God? .

It took a proper animal sacrifice. But as the NT explains, such rituals for Israel were only a "shadow" of the reality to come, which was Jesus. Again, this is covered in my Reconciled book. But in both Testaments, there had to be faith; a purely mechanical sacrifice would mean nothing. As I mentioned before when Paul spoke to the Greeks, God did cut people a lot of slack before Jesus came.

Regardless of whether we know precisely why God requires what he does, the point is that we know what he requires, and it isn't much to ask. Why pay for your own sins when you can have that for free? It's like a marriage proposal... if a man buys an expensive ring, should the woman he wants to marry insist upon paying for at least part of it? And how could it then be called a gift? Salvation is a gift; you can't earn it or pay for it, even partially. But I don't know why anyone would want to.

No one rose from the dead, but Abraham allegedly survived being burnt alive unscathed, Muhammad was illiterate yet could write when Gabriel commanded him to and also recited elaborate Surahs to his followers. Moses had his fair share of good miracles too. Why prioritise this miracle over other unique ones? I don't see how this de-validates other religions, it only does so through the Christian perspective.

A woman's son was raised from the dead in the OT by one of the prophets, and Jesus raised several himself. In fact, the raising of Lazarus is what prompted the Pharisees to plot not only Jesus' death but also Lazarus, because just like today's politicians, they valued their places in society more than truth or justice. Mohammad is said to have had others write for him; depends on who you ask I think. Moses, if you read the account before Pharaoh, had the first few of his miracles duplicated by the court magicians, but eventually even they admitted that some of what Moses was doing was "the finger of God".

But Jesus' rising from the dead was predicted, not only by him but also in the OT. The key difference, which I suppose I should have thought to mention earlier, is that he arose with an immortal body, just as all of us are promised when the Rapture happens. That is, the key difference between this miracle and all the others is that it was predicted and that Jesus never died again. And because of these key things and a bazillion other details, I trust what Jesus said and compare all other beliefs by that.

You have already mentioned that it took 1500 years and 40 writers to complete the Bible, therefore how do you know his original words remained intact in the Bible? Is this based on cross examining the Bible with quotes of those who were present during his time?

There is a science called textual criticism, and worth your time to study if you want to know how that works. Having read the research of such experts I am convinced that the scriptures we have are very accurate. One OT scholar, Robert Wilson, was an expert like no other: in college he could read the NT in 9 languages, and in the first 15 years of his career he mastered more than 40 semitic languages and dialects (link). When people of that caliber tell you a text is accurate, it's accurate.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Gazrok

Even if he did show himself, and exhibited some grand demonstration, he'd likely be shot and then his blood drank to see if it has supernatural powers, etc.

Just imagine what we'd learn from those stem cells!

I also think the recognition issue would come into play. Most westerners think he was white yet he was from Galilee which makes the probability of him being very dark skinned fairly high. I think he'll look pretty similar to Osama Bin Laden, actually, and that'll turn off a lot of westerners.

Not at all, the big tribal migration's of darker skinned folk from the east (think Islamic Arabian tribes) didn't happen until circa 600 AD (thanks to the Byzantine's being over-run).
Also the climate and region were more fertile. Many of the indigineous people to the ME moved west and north to escape.
Modern-day 'tribes' in the ME are somewhat different to back in those times.