Peterkin

I think ol' Zeke was impressed!

Not necessary. The word already has a quite respectable definitions in dictionaries. https://www.lexico.com/definition/respect Why? How did that come into respect for ideas? I disagree on both counts. A great many examples of each are very prominent in public discourse, political decision-making and interpersonal relations. If you don't know that, bringing examples would be a waste of my time. Here's just one that meets at least three of the criteria for disrespect: The national institute of health is not staffed by Okay.

Might there not also be an element of envy? Who has not dreamed of flying? Why should earth-bound humans not desire wings in their own afterlife?

Of course, the vast majority of angels, cherubim, seraphim, and the dear little putti so beloved of the Renaissance, don't come from the Bible at all, but from Bible-based or simply fanciful literature and art. There are also a number of angelic forms in other mythologies; that is, winged and/or flaming supernatural entities that have been co-opted into the christian folklore. They're more a cultural - Eurocentric - icon than a strictly religious one. Eastern and American traditions have plenty of demon-like creatures, but the divine avatars appear to be unlike the angel of winged human aspect.

Yes, most of the references are like that, vague. In many, they are specifically man-like. AFAIR only Ezekiel gives a vivid description.

You may think we need to, but we don't, and can't. Respect is also an emotion. You cannot remove emotion from human responses: if you could, you'd be left with a robot response; nor can you remove thought from human feelings. Comprehend, consider, reflect, assess; decide. Some ideas have more intellectual merit than others and deserve to be treated as more worthy. Some ideas are implausible, impractical, hare-brained, unethical, or just plain silly: having considered and assessed such ideas, we are intellectually, as well as emotionally correct to give them no credence. In some cases, we are even justified in withdrawing respect from the person putting forth a very bad idea.

Yes, most of the time: they do a lot of walking and teleporting. I suspect the wings are mostly for lift during combat. They never have to make long, directed flights - but if they did, I imagine they'd steer with their fists, like Superman. Satan did, and he talked a whole army into rebelling with him. Does "history" have a meaning in heaven?

They were described in several places, but not completely. Of course, many of the ancient writings have been lost or destroyed. (The early Christians did not well tolerate the documents, icons or monuments of other cultures.) Four wings, two faces, the second being that of a lion; man-like but radiant, carrying flaming swords. Since there nine classes of angel divided into three choirs, there can also be as many different physical types to do different jobs. The most frequently seen were the ones delivering messages from God, or sent out to test people's faith, and they always appear in the guise of men. Presumably the ones that mated with native girls were also man-like. That would be no surprise: God seems to like creating minions in his own image.

They seem rather a fractious lot. First the rebellion and civil war, then half of them get cast into the Pit and the other half hang out on the freshly created earth, delivering messages or making trouble and marrying all the prettiest girls* and having giant babies. I don't know about the wings, but I wouldn't trust of these guys as far as I could throw him - which might be quite a distance, what with the wings 'an all. *

Excellent! You go and do that. How about we respect the person, even if we despise the idea?

Yes. I'm talking about history and you're talking about popular belief among one insular group. All religions - all philosophies, all human ideas - are inventions. They do not occur in nature, and they did not come fully formed into anybody's mind: they evolved with and were developed by people. That's why crows and dolphins don't have any.

We've had intermittent snow since early November (which in is pretty late according to our accustomed seasons), sometimes heavy and deep enough to require ploughing, and sometimes it's lasted several days. Yet I still have some green grass in the front yard.

Very likely. How long it takes to kill the grass depends on how dense the snow is. If it's light and fluffy, some air will get through and the grass will stay alive, and green up very quickly spring, when it all melts. If it's packed down, and especially if intermittent melting or rain have turned it to solid ice, it still won't kill the grass, but the grass will go dormant. That is, the blades will turn brown and die, while the roots slow their metabolic function to near zero until conditions improve. It doesn't happen in a day, though. If it doesn't get any light for six or seven days, the grass will go limp and lose its colour, fading to straw-yellow, then brown. If the snow melts in a couple of days, the grass will be unchanged.

At the time Jesus is chronicled operating in the mortal world, Islam had not yet been invented. Where he is supposed to have lived, there was only Judaism and the imported pagan belief of the Roman occupying army. Next door was Egypt, where the Romans had well established their rule and the Greeks before them - so the native religion was all muddled up with their beliefs. There was no "Christian world" - and wouldn't be for about 300 years, when Emperor Constantine decreed Christianity the official religion of Rome - and as a consequence, eventually all of the vassal states. It took another few centuries for Christianity to spread through the empire. Later, the heirs of the Roman Empire - chiefly Spain, Portugal, France and England - imposed it on all of their conquests. You could say there was a 'Christianized World' by about 1600 AD. Islam only dates back to the early 600's and Muslim nations didn't establish empires until the latter part of the first millennium AD and the middle of the second. The Christians and Muslims were not so much 'doubtful' about each as constantly at war with each other. Not over religion - over territory and dominion. It cannot be considered holy by Christians, as it doesn't have Jesus and his redemptive power at the center of it, and that's what their whole belief is based on. Muhammad Accepted the Christian and Hebrew holy books, since they held some power in the region before he made his own religion: I understand he hoped to be at peace with "people of the book". But that could never happen, while they all wanted the same land and resources.

Exactly! That's what I've been saying: he's busy saving all the other dominant species on planets capable of growing fruit. But there are specific rules to how that's to be done. Fixing a misunderstanding or misrepresentation that took place after his ascension is not part of the assignment, and he's neither stupid nor petty enough to return and do the whole execution thing over again, when there's no redemption in it. Maybe he'll come back for the rats, when it's their turn to have gone astray.

I don't think so. It's not a question of powers or abilities; it's the nature of the mission. He's given some inconsequential little miracles to impress the rubes*, but he can't get out of the obligation to redeem them precisely by becoming one of them: mortal, temporal flesh. * Walk on water one time, sure; flood the Sahara - no way! Cure a leper, okay; cure leprosy - not a chance! Feed a crowd fish sandwiches one afternoon - no solving homelessness and hunger for the underclass. Bring one guy back to life for show; but no handing hall passes for original sin.

God can. Jesus can't. The whole point of the messianic menifestation is to actually take up flesh-and-blood residence in the body of the mortal species you're assigned to redeem - no leaves of absence, no coffee breaks, not even astral travel while being tortured. You have to go through diaper changes, teething, measles, sibling rivalry, getting your knuckles rapped by the village teacher, disputes with the clergy, puberty and zits, fights with his father-of-record about career options - the whole mortal process, in real time. Get crucified again, just on the off chance of setting the record straight? For whom? I'd rather assume he's not an idiot.

Sure, but why should he want to? And remember, in order to spend the requisite maturation period for each species to become their messiah, he would have to put in millions or billions of years in recordable mortal time, while humans are back here, busily cutting the planet out from under themselves. It wouldn't have been an issue: Joseph is the father of record, and they have no DNA kits. The problem arises as to how either Joseph or Mary, given their humble backgrounds, can be linked to the house of King Solomon, or how David, the shepherd boy, could have descended from kings.

I tried to treat the OP as a valid questions, but it's too difficult to get a handle on. I made some guesses as to the meaning. How do I think Jesus will return? (But I don't think he was ever here, so why should I think he'll return at all, never mind how.) What's my expectation compared to other people's? (Other people seem to have so many and varied expectations, there is no comparison between any of them and my own lack of expectation.) Are modern Christians locked in the same exclusive mind-set as were the 1st c BC Israelites: unable to accept a messiah not of their own design? (I have no idea what's in the heads of modern Christians: most of it doesn't seem remotely connected with the teachings of the Jesus I'v read about.) So, being unable to fit the question to any version of reality with which I'm familiar, I decided to treat it, instead, as an exercise in speculative theology. I don't know what a valid answer would look like.

JOOC, What mediocre arrangement of which song was interrupted by "Your call is utterly irrelevant to us, but we enjoy keeping you in limbo, so please stay on the line." ?

So.... we have to do the whole gruesome execution bit over again?

A second, perhaps more relevant question might be: If he does come again, what will his attitude be and how will the 'faithful' react? I'm pretty sure he'd roll up a wet robe and flail vigorously about the Christian theme parks - all of which seem to feature ancient Jews - and he might not thrilled with all the treasure stored up in the Vatican. And they, in turn, probably wouldn't heed his admonishments any more than then last time.

Christmas morning, when the greedy children rip all that gaudy paper off their toys. "Hurray for baby Jesus!" they prey.

Only, the imperialists never expect their empire to die. They have the example of all the empires before them, that had overreached its ambition, overpopulated its territory, was overcome by another empire or rotted from within through corruption, and collapse. Yet each new emergent empire believes itself invulnerable: "That can't happen here." "We won't make that mistake." "We're smarter and stronger and better than they were." "We have technology." That's a misplaced faith which seems to be common to all civilizations. Another is their faith in their gods, their kings, their ideology, their economic wealth, their military might - or whatever they worship in each particular funhouse mirror. Maybe he's come and gone several times, in the night.

Why? I'm not being facetious now; I'm sincerely curious about this rationale. If you believe this, you should be able to explain it. But I'd appreciate an explanation from anyone who understands the theology. Why would a god choose to conceal himself from the people whose fealty he desires? More particularly, why would Jesus, whose mission was to walk among mortals in the guise of a mortal; who stood in town squares, exhorting the people and went about the marketplace, healing them, and preached to them from the mount - whose whole purpose on Earth was to be seen and heard - sneak around in the night like thief?