ok, from a non-christian view(not neccessarily trying to witness here)… if all the sudden a large number of people vanish off the earth, you might start believing prophecies in the bible, the same happened back then, his birth and actions fulfilled prophecies that made people believe, so the same will happen at rapture, only the charismatic leader will not be jesus the son of god but the antichrist, but hewill come in the wake of prophecy, with all the answers for those without understanding…
we all know that jesus’ political and social views are supposedly obsolete?
From a purely secular POV, I think Jesus would have been able to acquire a mass following through television and the Net. As Judas says in Jesus Christ Superstar, “If you’d come today/ You could have reached the whole nation/ Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.” Discussions about Jesus not being executed are pointless because His mission as Redeemer (if you believe) required His death and resurrection.
“Family members thought he was crazy then, and I doubt that would change much today, and the only place he could make it is the nearest mental institution.”
Cite?
“He was executed as a danger to the Roman Empire”
Uh, the Jewish High Priests wanted him to be crucified, not the Roman Empire. Pilate tried to get them to free Jesus, bu they wouldn’t.
“the movement that now bears his name was started years later by someone else and it bears little resemblance in its activity to the message He allegedly gave.”
My understanding is that they were not harvesting, but conducting the practice of gleaning, which is not quite the same thing. Also, why do you think “the son of man” refers exclusively to Jesus? Does not that description apply to all men?
David Simmons
Or Superman for being “brave”.
DtC
It was prophesized that he would be called “Emmanuel”. And in the book of Matthew, he is referred to as “Emmanuel”. You don’t think Matthew referred to him as Emmanuel simply to fulfill prophesies, do you?
dwalin, you need a cite for that? Do you have a Bible? Why not try that? Or if it interests you that much do a google with +Jesus +crazy, you’ll have over one million cites to wade through. I don’t care to wade through and get the pertinent quotes on all of them, since many of these hits are irrelevant, but here is one that comes from a Christian cite and the pertinent part states:
If you’ll re-read through the first few chapters of Luke it should refresh your memory. Also for his extended family thinking he was out of his freakin’ mind, re-read Mark 3.
And if you think that anyone today claiming to be the Messiah and preaching some of this doomsday and other nonsense isn’t a good candidate for a mental institution, then what would qualify?
That never went on, did it? Matthew is referring to Isaiah 7:14-The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The biggest problem with this is that Jesus was never called Emmanuel/Immanuel, and by reading the next chapter it seems Isaiah had somebody else in mind. Matthew also says he would be called Jesus. In today’s language, I believe that is called covering your bases. A quick look at Strong’s concordance shows Emmanuel/Immanuel to be used only that one time in the NT. In the OT it’s used with this verse and one other. There is another part of this verse that is just as screwed up, unless its generally being told by a conservative, and if that is the case, it’s another prophesy fulfilled.
“Virgin” is also a mistranslation. The Hebrew just says a “young woman” will bear a child, not a virgin. In context, the passage is only talking about a character in that story and is not a Messianic prophesy. It has nothing at all to do with Jesus.
Matthew is referring to Isaiah 7:14-The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.