What does it say? If he comes back is that armaggeden or whatever? I've forgotten I suppose. Seems like I used to know that. Hmm. Regardless, is the "second coming" the end of all things? Do all christian sects agree on that?
Whether or not the Second Coming is the end itself would depend on what one considers the beginning of the end.
I will not elaborate on that, but I will provide scripture concerning the Son as He will be in those days.
"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth and the ends of the heavens."
~Mark 13:26-27~
I believe that this indicates that He will come as a divinity and will gather not only the living but also the dead elect, whose ashes would have been long scattered to the "ends of the heavens" in the "four winds".
A human being would certainly not be capable of that.
If you wish to know a few more details, this might be helpful:
"... and among the lampstands was someone 'like a son of man'... His head and hair were white like wool, white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters."
~Revelations 1:13-15~
Bear in mind that this is a line from Revelations, and might mean merely that the Son appeared in this form to John alone. However, I take it to mean that this is how the Son appears to mortals. This is, perhaps, not the best 'exempli gratia,' but it is the first which came to my mind.
He'd have to withstand hardcore scientific scrutiny and likely be the target in a number of international interestes, but yeah I guess it's mixing apples and oranges a bit?
God is not without His designs, and He surely orchestrated the events of the Gospels in the time which was most proper for them.
I believe that as man grows harsher, stronger, and less conscious of his own fragility, the coming of God, not a human as before, will be proper.
Note that, in this prophesied future, He will not be coming to forgive, as once He did. It will be vastly different, though specifics are hard to tell.
I mean, a really charming crazy person 2000 years ago might have been able to do who knows what. *shrug**
What if it's a "new resolution" to someone besides yourself?
There is no tangible evidence that Jesus existed as scripture describes Him. In that you propose He was insane, you imply that He was ungodly, and, in doing so, you might as well propose that He never existed at all.
It is as baseless a belief as any of them.
It's not as though I can argue against you successfully or happily. On your grounds, my belief in Jesus' sanity is probably quite baseless, and I understand that.
What I'm getting at here is that any discussion on Jesus' possible sanity or insanity is a conflict of irrational beliefs, something that will likely prove bleak and unfulfilling to all parties.
Truthfully, most theological debates between nonbelievers and believers are.
Perhaps there are some that might benefit.
I'm not sure though. Most browsers here seem quite decidedly entrenched to me.
