Jesus Has Returned… and He’s Puerto Rican!

Jesus Christ Man

Apparently Dan Brown knew what he was talking about.  It seems that Dr. Jose Luis De Jesus claims to be a direct descendant of the one-and-only Jesus Christ.  Not only is he the great-great-great….grandson of Jesus, Dr. Luis (a.k.a Jesus Christ Man) is actually the Second Coming of Jesus and has established himself as the president of the Government of God on Earth.

What’s more, he has changed the date of Christmas to April 22, which is his own birthday.  He has declared that there is no such thing as sin, and embraces the number 666 as his own as well as the simultaneous title of Antichrist.

In what is titled the “Thesis of the Reformation,” he puts to death what he decrees as “2,000 years of theological lies.”

  1. Sin Does nOt Exist, It Was Removed.
  2. The Devil Does Not Exist, He Was Destroyed.
  3. There are Two Gospels.
  4. One Ministry: Reconciliation, Not Repentance.
  5. Predestination.
  6. THE BIBLE: SCRIPTURE, HISTORY, GOSPEL OF uncircumcision and circumcision.

This is not a joke, at least it is not intended to be.  Every indication seems to say that this man does indeed believe what he claims to be.

Sadly enough there are plenty of people out there that are perpetrating lies that are just as dastardly except they are being taken seriously by people who, even with a Bible in their hands, do not know how to decipher the truth from the lies that they are hearing.


About Aaron Gardner

Aaron is a counselor and student of the Bible, passionate about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. He lives in central Indiana with his wife, one-year-old son and their two dogs. View all posts by Aaron Gardner

10 responses to “Jesus Has Returned… and He’s Puerto Rican!

  • Renier

    As people probably know, Bill Maher took this nutcase out in his Religulous movie.

    On the other hand, his new doctrine is, in my opinion, a great deal better than the one he claims to replace.

  • Nathaniel

    Just a silly question, but… How do you know he’s not the second coming of Jesus? It seems to me that Jesus’ main argument that he was the son of God was that he said he was, and surely he wouldn’t lie? Sure, Jesus performed miracles, but maybe this guy has done the same, but without telling anyone?

    So, why believe a 2000 year old story of a person who said he was God’s son, but not the guy living among us today claiming the exact same thing?

    I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything, I’m honestly curious. Why dismiss this person, but not the mythical equivalent?

  • Aaron

    Nathaniel, I was wondering who would ask this question. Only a matter of time in these parts 😉

    Well, obviously I would not call Jesus (the first) a “mythological” anything.

    It also depends on your reading of the gospels. Jesus is very cryptic about his role and position. I happen to think, and there are a number of scholars who agree, that he was doing this simply because he was not the Messiah that they expected. The Jews expected that the Messiah would come and free them from the oppressive Roman government and set up an earthly kingdom.

    In the gospel of John, Jesus does claim to be a sort of “king” but immediately says that his kingdom is “not of this world.” It seems to me that this man is in complete contradiction to that position, actually establishing the “Government of God on Earth.”

  • Boz

    This guy’s supernatural claims are just as silly, and equally accurate as those of Scientologists, Sikhs, Jews, Jains, Shintos, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Wiccans.

  • Nathaniel

    Ok, but whether or not any of the two actually were (or are) God’s son, you have more evidence that the Jesus of today actually exists, and the evidence that the Jesus of 2000 years ago existed at all seems sketchy at best.

    And regarding the “king not of this world” and “king of this world”, isn’t that pretty comparable to Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus did, after all, come to change all the old ways, didn’t he? And if God sent this new Jesus to change our old ways again, who are you to argue?

    I’m just wondering if any Christian has taken him seriously enough to at least test him? I mean, surely you don’t want to end up where the Jews were last time, and be the judges and executioners of the second coming of the Messiah? It seems to me that you owe it to your faith to at least check him out properly

  • Aaron

    The “changes” that Jesus made were less of a rewrite than a “re-emphasis.” He did not come to do away with the Law (although I am having active conversations with fellow Christians about this very issue), but instead he came to put the meaning in it again. The religious leaders of his day were overly concerned with following the rules that they forgot that it was about loving God and one another. For instance, he took the sixth commandment (do not kill) and said that if you hate someone you have already murdered them in your heart. He basically made the law impossible to follow, then became the atoning sacrifice that cleared the debt and re-established our relationship with God.

    Dr. Luis (the subject of the post) is completely overhauling the Law and destroying the foundation of what the Bible teaches. He is not just recasting the Law, he is saying that it has no relevance. He does not act or speak in the biblical tradition and does not represent any sort of further revelation of God’s will or purposes. It is as if you were to look up at the expanse of sky and suddenly realize that there is a whole segment that has no clouds and appeared to be a wedge cut out of it. Yeah, not the same thing at all.

  • Nathaniel

    Ok, yeah, that sounds reasonable enough. I can understand why it doesn’t seem like he’s the actual second coming.

    However, just to keep being obnoxious, how do you know? How can you be sure that God hasn’t simply changed his mind and sent Dr. Luis to earth to up-end all the old teachings, Old and New Testament alike?

    I have a fundamentalist Christian colleague (in Sweden, I barely knew they existed here… but they do.) who has claimed, in an effort to wriggle himself out of a paradox I created for him, that God is actually incapable of changing his mind. To me, that doesn’t really sound right. Who are we to decide what God can and cannot do, and surely an omniscient and omnipotent being isn’t constrained by his own decisions?

    I guess my question is: what’s to stop God from simply changing his mind? He did it with the flood, after all. Being omniscient, he must have known how it all would turn out, but decided to let it anyway. Then, one day, he changed his mind and decided to start over (this is how I interpret it anyway, feel free to correct me). Even if he were unable to change his mind in the future, being omniscient he must have known enough not to make decisions that would turn out wrong in the future?

  • Boz

    Nathaniel, I suggest you ponder on 1 Corinthians 10:9 –

    9We should not test the Lord, as some of them did–and were killed by snakes.

    Perhaps this is why Christians do not test Luis – they fear that they will be killed by snakes. :-p 🙂

  • Boz

    re: God changing his mind:

    If a being is omnipotent and omniscient, she will know all the actions she will take in future. If she changes any of these future actions at a future time, she was not omniscient originally.

  • Aaron

    I have had this “changing his mind” debate with a new friend of mine. I have to say that I am uncomfortable with the idea that God doesn’t change his mind, although at least to some extent it is more comfortable than what Nathaniel is suggesting with this Dr. Luis character.

    The way I am making sense of this is that God can change his mind without changing his character. Things like the establishment of the Law to me is a hint at the character of God, because it is a statement of what he expects. When Dr. Luis totally eliminates any function of the Law, then to me it is not as simple as God changing his mind but more on the lines of God changing his character.

%d bloggers like this: