New Jesus - mark my words

[son]

Ultimately, regardless of what we believe we have to take into account MJ's own religious beliefs (as many people have already said). Michael would not likely want to take an anti-christ-esque role.

[son]

Writers of the Gospels is what most religious scholars posit today.  Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has written several books on the origins of the Gospels, the Bible as a whole, and Christianity in general including his latest:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  
Although I haven't read Ehrman's latest book, I have read some of his earlier books on the subject.  He is a respected scholar in his field, but of course, there are other scholars who beg to differ with his perspective who are just as respected.

I wouldn't trust Bart Ehrman, he has a sort of reverse Dogma which he posits in his writing.

In his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium he tells the reader to watch out for bias of the gospel writers, thus innoculating himself of this bias. Like reverse apologetics.

[Starchild]

Writers of the Gospels is what most religious scholars posit today.  Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has written several books on the origins of the Gospels, the Bible as a whole, and Christianity in general including his latest:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  
Although I haven't read Ehrman's latest book, I have read some of his earlier books on the subject.  He is a respected scholar in his field, but of course, there are other scholars who beg to differ with his perspective who are just as respected.

I wouldn't trust Bart Ehrman, he has a sort of reverse Dogma which he posits in his writing.

In his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium he tells the reader to watch out for bias of the gospel writers, thus innoculating himself of this bias. Like reverse apologetics.

Yet all scholars are presumably biased towards their own theses.

[son]

Writers of the Gospels is what most religious scholars posit today.  Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has written several books on the origins of the Gospels, the Bible as a whole, and Christianity in general including his latest:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  
Although I haven't read Ehrman's latest book, I have read some of his earlier books on the subject.  He is a respected scholar in his field, but of course, there are other scholars who beg to differ with his perspective who are just as respected.

I wouldn't trust Bart Ehrman, he has a sort of reverse Dogma which he posits in his writing.

In his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium he tells the reader to watch out for bias of the gospel writers, thus innoculating himself of this bias. Like reverse apologetics.

Yet all scholars are presumably biased towards their own theses.

He could at least be open about it. A problem with theorists like him in religious studies is that were led to believe that defending the tradition is too biased and short sighted. However, as long as it stands up to historical scrutiny does one's agenda really matter (whether it is positive or negative of the default-traditional story)? When I say that I'm referring to the intentions of the gospel writers, not whether or not it actually happened (which is a matter of faith). I do agree with some of Ehrman's points, just not how he presented them.

[Starchild]

Writers of the Gospels is what most religious scholars posit today.  Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has written several books on the origins of the Gospels, the Bible as a whole, and Christianity in general including his latest:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  
Although I haven't read Ehrman's latest book, I have read some of his earlier books on the subject.  He is a respected scholar in his field, but of course, there are other scholars who beg to differ with his perspective who are just as respected.

I wouldn't trust Bart Ehrman, he has a sort of reverse Dogma which he posits in his writing.

In his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium he tells the reader to watch out for bias of the gospel writers, thus innoculating himself of this bias. Like reverse apologetics.

Yet all scholars are presumably biased towards their own theses.

He could at least be open about it. A problem with theorists like him in religious studies is that were led to believe that defending the tradition is too biased and short sighted. However, as long as it stands up to historical scrutiny does one's agenda really matter (whether it is positive or negative of the default-traditional story)? When I say that I'm referring to the intentions of the gospel writers, not whether or not it actually happened (which is a matter of faith). I do agree with some of Ehrman's points, just not how he presented them.

Although I really enjoy discussing this subject, we’re really off-topic regarding the subject of the thread.  So if it’s okay with you, I’ll PM you instead, in the next day or two.

[eternalflame]

My theory about it is quite simple.

Michael isn´t the new Jesus. And he wouldn´t want to be in that role.
MJ is MJ, and Jesus is Jesus.
 What both have in common is to spread the idea of love, respect and absence of violence.
The idea is abstract and needs to be spread by a real person from time to time, so people can cope with it in an easier way.
More examples, only for 20. century: Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mother Teresa...
What gets my attention is that obviosly the number of personifications for the idea increases during the 20. century.
And the antichrist is already there. It´s the anti-idea of you want to call it that way, not a person.
It´s money, waste of resources, manipulation by media...

It probably shocked some people here that someone mentioned Jesus wasn´t a real person.
My opinion:
Jeshua ben Joseph was a carpenter and a carpenter´s son. He was extremely intelligent and had an extraordinary sense for justice. He could cope well with women´s intelligence which was not usual at that time.
 And probably he was married, unless the Roman Catholic Church made him a single and got something mystic around him, especially by removing parts of the bible that made him very "human", e.g. the apokryphes.

Has anyone read "Mirjam" by Luise Rinser?

The problem is that lots of people are awaiting the end of the world and a new armageddon just because of Maya´s calendar, a special planet´s constellation and of course movies like "2012".
I´m not afraid of armageddon. I´m just afraid of people´s reaction and panic next year.

And I surely don´t need any "new Jesus" to believe in the idea!

[son]

I feel obligated to reply to this, I won't discuss this further here

you all could PM me though    

It probably shocked some people here that someone mentioned Jesus wasn´t a real person.
My opinion:
Jeshua ben Joseph was a carpenter and a carpenter´s son. He was extremely intelligent and had an extraordinary sense for justice. He could cope well with women´s intelligence which was not usual at that time.
 And probably he was married, unless the Roman Catholic Church made him a single and got something mystic around him, especially by removing parts of the bible that made him very "human", e.g. the apokryphes.

1. Technically he wasn't necessarily a carpenter.

2. Mark (the oldest gospel account) has a "derogatory" euphemism alluding to the controversy surrounding his birth (he is referred to as Mary's son, Joseph isn't even mentioned in that book. Take that into consideration when you read the birth accounts of Matthew and Luke.) As well as Paul's epistles mentioning him being formed by a woman.

3. Most scholars (including Bart Ehrman whom I generally disagree with believe he likely wasn't married). This is due to his message about the coming of the kingdom of God (and his own actions that would usher it in). Either Jesus knew he was going to die (and raise from the dead) or he thought the kingdom imminence meant he be there in his life time. A common theme of early Christians was not be be married (not that it was condemned but it wasn't a good idea). The idea that he was married came from a 2nd or 3rd century sect.

4. The apochrypha was removed due to there late datings, gnostic leanings, and inconsistent messages. (In many ways they make Jesus more mystic than the canon gospels and Paul's epistles do.)

[eternalflame]

Well I´m not too much into all this, I´m somewhere between science ( which is probably difficult to do because it all happened long time ago ) and things Church tries to suggest me.
This all is a discussion with a black hole, just as it is e.g. for the subject: what was first, egg or hen.

As I already mentioned, my theory is quite simple, and I believe in the idea Jesus spread, it´s not important if Jesus was a carpenter or not, or if Joseph was his dad or not.

[son]

As I already mentioned, my theory is quite simple, and I believe in the idea Jesus spread, it´s not important if Jesus was a carpenter or not, or if Joseph was his dad or not.

The carpenter thing isn't really a big deal and we're all entitled to our own opinions. But it is important whether or not Jesus was a "wise yet otherwise normal man" or if we was actually divine. If the latter is true, it gives his words much more authority than if he was just a smart dude. Michael himself made it clear that he isn't trying to be Jesus, but rather to be like him. I think that settles this theory.

[eternalflame]

The carpenter thing isn't really a big deal and we're all entitled to our own opinions. But it is important whether or not Jesus was a "wise yet otherwise normal man" or if we was actually divine. If the latter is true, it gives his words much more authority than if he was just a smart dude. Michael himself made it clear that he isn't trying to be Jesus, but rather to be like him. I think that settles this theory.

Agree.

[son]

The carpenter thing isn't really a big deal and we're all entitled to our own opinions. But it is important whether or not Jesus was a "wise yet otherwise normal man" or if we was actually divine. If the latter is true, it gives his words much more authority than if he was just a smart dude. Michael himself made it clear that he isn't trying to be Jesus, but rather to be like him. I think that settles this theory.

Agree.

[Moonwalker500]

Michael wouldn't claim he is something he isn't
the hoax refers to Jesus because thats a story of a Man who dies and comes back to life thats my opinion

[GINAFELICIA]

Michael isn't Jesus second coming.

Michael is Archangel Michael 8-)

But you know what, Michael can be what he wants to be, all he needs is just the right silicon mask on :twisted: .

He earned this right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To be honest, I think Michael was and is and always will be a showman. He can play any role he wants.

[paula-c]

~Souza~ wrote:

jacilovesmichael wrote:
Andrea wrote:
EarthEnigma, from your blog:

If Michael Jackson is indeed alive, he is without doubt the most powerful tool at the illuminati’s disposal and he will be used to full effect.


I believe their most powerful tool is FEAR.

I have actually considered before what you said in your blog, that Michael is being used by TPTB. But, it makes much more sense to me that Michael is very much against their agenda and will expose them when he returns. He may have been under their influence many years ago but I truly believe that he is nobody's puppet.

Agreed.

I agree as well, he's not their puppet anymore, they don't control him anymore. He made that very clear in his silent panther dance and it was confirmed when they started to take him down. He is the puppeteer now. Mark MY words.

also agree

Antichrist is a Word made up by 'anti' and for 'Christ'. The word "anti", from the Greek [anti], means "instead of". In our language the word 'anti', means "against" and although the Antichrist when it appears it does is precisely that "being against'...
2 Thessalonians
"…the which is opposed to all that he is God and is the subject of worship…"
This word, the biblical meaning that bears is the of "get in the place of". The work of the Antichrist will be that, "put in place of" Christ and act as if he were Christ. It is the word 'anti' together with the word 'Christ' which means 'anointed' and is used in the Bible with reference to the Messiah, Jesus, has to do with "put in the place of the anointed."!


This is quite the opposite to what I perceive are the beliefs of Michael

[Rottiestyl]

I am new to the site, I have done nothing but research for months on all the speculation, in every direction, size, for, color, past tense, present tense, etc, etc,. I am a published poet, so I am always dissecting verses and lyrics and just interesting blogs/articles etc. to get ideas for my writing. What I am seeing evolving right before everyone's eyes, believers and non is one common denominator. We are all talking about Michael and what he stood for. His love of humanity and the world we live in and are destroying with every second that ticks on. We are hashing out if he pulled a hoax, I believe he has, but I believe it based on my research on other music industry performers and some of the lyrics they are now using, which leads right back to what Michael has always talked about. How many of us actually truly listened in the past 20 years alone to Michael talking about how we need to love one another? That this unity would build a world-wind of " Oh, I get it!"  and spread even further out. I myself am writing poetry I didn't like to write. I don't write poetry about love because everyone always uses the same words, rainbows, love, stars, soul etc, etc. To me love is serious business and it's owed it's due. After reading a 100 of those in a sitting and reviewing them for the writer what can you can say? Nice use of stars with Mars??? No, He has changed my entire way of thinking because I get it.
      This is the only way he could get the world at large to hear the message he has been delivering all his life but no one ever heard it. Oh they watch him say it, but they never really felt it. This man truly, in his soul(sorry had to use it) believes that love will save us and so do I. Me, being a product of no childhood, no pure honest love ever in my life, now at my age, I have found it because we are all talking about it through Michael. I have put it in my work.
      Some of you my blow this off, and that's fine but being an extreme insomniac for the past 2 plus years, staying awake at least 34 to 42 hrs. at a time several times a week, having a horde of dr's who have no clue why, I can tell you no anesthetic will give you rest. You need REM sleep for rest. I probably take more meds in a day than Michael did in a month. My doctors have mixed my pain meds (2 kinds) with Ambien and Xanax. As you know Xanax is prescribed for anxiety. Mine is prescribed for sleep with the aide of Ambien. Usually 1 1/2 of each I double dose them both with pain meds and am still wide awake for days. The physical draw backs to all this is no energy whats so ever, shaking and being unbalanced, as well as diminished site and diminished appetite.
     There is no way he could have been taking the drugs they claimed he was taking, much stronger than mine and with Propofol and preform in rehearsals they way he did.I believe he is accomplishing exactly the three things he needed most, first getting away to rest, second make sure his children are in safe hands while this plays out and third and most important, get the world to start talking.
    The Illuminati are a part of this but not they way you think. They control the music Industry as well as governments all over the world and Michael used to wear their "brand" the red string. I have noticed in the past few years I have not seen him with one. I believe he knows his fans are smart and will figure this out and how do things spread?? By word of mouth. There are no dark forces working here on MJ's side, he wants us to understand that he is asking for our help to stop it on the other side. The Governments etc. It's only my opinion but some pretty strange things have been happening to me personally since I started researching and believing. My writing has kicked up to a level I never thought I could go to, and that is because I see the signs and know how to read them. And I not referring to just autopsy reports and people talking in present tense, it's a bit more complex than that yet right in front of your eyes. The more you discuss and compare notes and do the research you see it really is just as simple as Michael has always said. It's all about love, LO.V.E. It's one four letter word Michael lived his life by and all he wants is for the rest of to do what we are doing right, right now, pass it on, pay it forward, use whatever phrase you like, just get it out there, in unity we can take our world back. Read that again.....WE can take OUR world BACK. God gave it to us, not to the Governments and money whores. They can't beat us if we are all together in Michael 's plan. So, MJ, I get it and I hate hiding behind a screen name, love and saving our planet is nothing to be ashamed of, it's actually the only thing in 2011 that makes any sense at all.

Just my humble newbie opinion.
K. Mulroney
(V)