Recommended Posts

SeaJay    51

I will use orange type to indicate when I am typing my own thoughts in the below narrative.

 

Did Jesus fail to return?

 

Matthew 16:28Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

 

Jesus also advised against going to court over someone who steals something and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future.

 

Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near.

 

Christians claim the return Jesus spoke of was his resurrection, not the Day of Judgment. But in order to uphold this belief, Christians must in fact also account for his explicit description of what will happen.

 

Matthew 24:29-34.

29 Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. 32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

 

None of these things happened upon his resurrection according to the gospels, and this clearly describes Jesus coming from the clouds, not going up into them and disappearing, as well as a cataclysmic series of events and gathering people up. This is his alleged second coming, not his resurrection from the dead.

 

In Matthew 16:27-28 he identifies “coming in his kingdom” with coming in God’s glory with angels and give each person their due reward. This is judgment Day, not his resurrection:

 

“27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

 

And finally, when referring to the event in question in Matthew 24:36 he said:

 

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” 

 

Remember that this is the event which he said would occur before those he was speaking to would die.

 

Yet in Mark 10:33-34, Matthew 20:18-19, and Luke 18:31-33, when Jesus is speaking of his resurrection, he says that he will be executed then on “the third day he [referring to himself] shall rise again”.

 

So Jesus clearly knows exactly the day he will be resurrected and he lets everyone else know as well. In other words, the “coming of the Son of Man” he promised would come within the current generation could not refer to his resurrection because if it did, then Jesus would be directly contradicting his own words.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But then the rebuttal (By Dr William Lane Craig): www.reasonablefaith.org/was-jesus-a-failed-eschatological-prophet

 

In his Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24; Mark 13:1-27; Luke 21), Jesus gives many signs that must take place prior to his return or the coming of the Son of Man. These included things like widespread persecution and the worldwide witness of the church; the fulfilment of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20); a time of religious apostasy; wars and conflicts throughout the world; and natural disturbances in the world. Paul as well said that certain things must take place before the Son of Man comes, such as the coming of the lawless one predicted in II Thessalonians 2; the ingathering of the full number of the Gentiles into the church; and then finally the repentance and salvation of all of Israel (Romans 11:25-6).

 

When you read these passages, you have the impression that it is going to be a very long time until Christ comes again. There’s a lot that has to transpire first.

 

Ok, I think, fair enough. I'm not convinced but there does seem to be a flow to what Jesus said that points to a lot of things having to happen worldwide that could not (?) have occurred rapidly. But then WLC says this (upon giving his reasons for the so-called prophetic failure)

 

"I appeal to the well-known fact that we often do not have the original context in which Jesus’ sayings were spoken, much less their precise wording. When we remember that the Gospels do not give us a tape recording of Jesus’ words, that the Gospels are written in Greek, whereas Jesus probably spoke most of the time in Aramaic, that the Gospel writers didn’t even have the device of quotation marks to distinguish direct and indirect speech, we can already see that we don’t have a verbatim transcript of what Jesus said. Jesus’ speeches would often be paraphrased or summarized. The Evangelists sometimes arrange these sayings in different ways. So we shouldn’t think that we always have the words of Jesus exactly as they were spoken or in their original context."

 

Say what you like about WLC, I think he is a preeminent defender/scholar of Christianity. But he is here saying he thinks Jesus didn't say what he said or perhaps the author did not accurately convey what Jesus actually said. Here he gives an example of what he means:

 

A striking example of this phenomenon which has direct relevance to our question may be seen by comparing Matthew 10:23 with Mark 6:7-13.

 

In the Markan passage, we have the mission of the Twelve described. Jesus calls the twelve disciples and sends them out two-by-two to preach in the various towns of Israel. So this is a mission during the lifetime of Jesus on which the disciples go and from which they then return and continue their apprenticeship to Jesus. But when you turn over to Matthew 10 and look at his account of the ministry of the Twelve, what you discover is that Matthew blends in with Jesus’ mission charge to the twelve disciples certain prophecies about the end times, about the coming of the Son of Man.

 

So you get a verse like Matthew 10:23, “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” Originally this was probably a saying about the end of the world, the coming of the Son of Man; but here Matthew has woven it into this mission discourse to the Twelve.

 

Yet Matthew obviously knew when he wrote that the coming of the Son of Man didn’t occur before the mission of the Twelve was over! He knew that they went through the towns of Israel, that they came back, and that they continued their apprenticeship with Jesus. Jesus then went on to the cross, and you know the rest of the story. Yet, by putting this saying in this context, Matthew makes it sound as if Jesus is saying to the twelve disciples, “Before you have gone through all the towns of the Israel, the coming of the Son of Man will occur.”

 

This is a perfect illustration of my contention. If Matthew 10:23 did not mean that the Son of Man was going to come again before the mission of the Twelve was over, there is no reason to think that Matthew 24:34 means that the Son of Man is going to come again within the first generation. We can’t be sure how this saying was originally given or what its context was.

 

He says a bunch of other stuff which flat out confuses me, but the above two are the best explanation he gives. The explanation about there sounding like a long period of time needs to pass sounds more credible. 

 

What are your thoughts on all of this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



Storm    611
Quote

In the Markan passage, we have the mission of the Twelve described. Jesus calls the twelve disciples and sends them out two-by-two to preach in the various towns of Israel. So this is a mission during the lifetime of Jesus on which the disciples go and from which they then return and continue their apprenticeship to Jesus. But when you turn over to Matthew 10 and look at his account of the ministry of the Twelve, what you discover is that Matthew blends in with Jesus’ mission charge to the twelve disciples certain prophecies about the end times, about the coming of the Son of Man.

 

So you get a verse like Matthew 10:23, “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” Originally this was probably a saying about the end of the world, the coming of the Son of Man; but here Matthew has woven it into this mission discourse to the Twelve.

 

Yet Matthew obviously knew when he wrote that the coming of the Son of Man didn’t occur before the mission of the Twelve was over! He knew that they went through the towns of Israel, that they came back, and that they continued their apprenticeship with Jesus. Jesus then went on to the cross, and you know the rest of the story. Yet, by putting this saying in this context, Matthew makes it sound as if Jesus is saying to the twelve disciples, “Before you have gone through all the towns of the Israel, the coming of the Son of Man will occur.”

 

This is a perfect illustration of my contention. If Matthew 10:23 did not mean that the Son of Man was going to come again before the mission of the Twelve was over, there is no reason to think that Matthew 24:34 means that the Son of Man is going to come again within the first generation. We can’t be sure how this saying was originally given or what its context was.

My initial thought is based on what WLC said earlier:

"I appeal to the well-known fact that we often do not have the original context in which Jesus’ sayings were spoken, much less their precise wording. When we remember that the Gospels do not give us a tape recording of Jesus’ words, that the Gospels are written in Greek, whereas Jesus probably spoke most of the time in Aramaic, that the Gospel writers didn’t even have the device of quotation marks to distinguish direct and indirect speech, we can already see that we don’t have a verbatim transcript of what Jesus said. Jesus’ speeches would often be paraphrased or summarized. The Evangelists sometimes arrange these sayings in different ways. So we shouldn’t think that we always have the words of Jesus exactly as they were spoken or in their original context."

I don't know if he realizes his statement cuts both ways. While it may be a valid point to refute the first argument presented, it also becomes a valid point to go against his second argument. While it does in fact seem plausible that Matthew utilized Jesus' statement to apply to the mission of the twelve, if you're randomly plucking Jesus quotes out of some source, like Q, for example, its easy to create a scenario like this one.

 

Another thought: we don't actually know for certain who wrote Matthew. We do know that it was not an eyewitness account. We also know it was written decades after these supposed events actually happened. When you write a story about past events, it sure makes it a lot easier to manipulate the story and change it how you feel it needs to be changed in order to achieve your point of the story. "Matthew" has an end game here and it isn't about being correct, its about making Jesus out to be the Messiah, the savior of the world.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshpantera    514

My first thought is to ask what is the point of Jesus coming to earth as god in the first place if his words to humanity were never accurately preserved? Where is Craig going with this? Also, what value is scripture if not accurately transmitted, and why is it that an all powerful, all present and all knowing god couldn't do any better than this? 

 

At this point we must consider that if god is real, that god must not be too concerned with whether or not the bible is accurate. If that's the case, then the protestant notion of, "scripture only," looses all meaning. 

 

That leaves us with a situation where we don't have any idea what's really going on, and the god must want it that way. 

 

Do you see Craigs apology heading to any other conclusion? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51
18 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

My first thought is to ask what is the point of Jesus coming to earth as god in the first place if his words to humanity were never accurately preserved? Where is Craig going with this? Also, what value is scripture if not accurately transmitted, and why is it that an all powerful, all present and all knowing god couldn't do any better than this? 

 

At this point we must consider that if god is real, that god must not be too concerned with whether or not the bible is accurate. If that's the case, then the protestant notion of, "scripture only," looses all meaning. 

 

That leaves us with a situation where we don't have any idea what's really going on, and the god must want it that way. 

 

Do you see Craigs apology heading to any other conclusion? 

 
 

 

It seems the bible is both the inerrant word of the divine and not accurately written at the same time

 

Both cannot be true

 

But do the scriptures mention the bible is perfect or is that merely assumed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416

@Geezer pointed me in a good direction and I read some of the work of Bart Ehrmann. You should read one or more of his books on forgeries. I read one on the Pauline forgeries and found out that many of the epistles of Paul that made it I to the bible were most likely forged. Whether or not there was even an actual man named Paul has been debated as well. Never the less in the Bart ehrman book I read "forgeries and counter forgeries" he first goes into agonizing detail on the criteria he uses in determining whether or not a document is forged. I read through over half of that but then decided to skip ahead a bit to his analysis of the epistles of Paul. 

      He presents a very good arguement on his findings and even points out possible reasons behind the forgery after he has made his case on that epistle. He determined that 1 and 2 Timothy were forgeries. He pointed out that in the accepted Pauline Epistles that Paul was very adamant, like Jesus was in the gospels, that the second coming would be within their life times. 1st and 2nd Timothy are completely going against pauls original message and setting up the church for the long run and urging the followers to look for signs that may or may not be in the near or distant future. Such as that the son of perdition, that man of sin must be revealed before his coming. Also Paul urged the men to be celibate if possible in 1 corinthians chapter 7.

1 Corinthians 7

 1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

 2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

 3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

 4  The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

 5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

 6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

 7  For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

 8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

 9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

But in 1 Tim 3 there is a completely different message

 1 Timothy 3

 1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

 2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

 

In the accepted epistle he says it is good for a man not to touch a woman and says he would that all men were as he was. (Celibate and unmarried). But in 1 Tim he says to be a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. I think corinthians Paul would have loved for a Bishop to be a celibate man like himself

 

Yah see at some point people  began to realise that Jesus wasn't coming. So they had to forge an epistle to reorganize  the church and kick the can down the road indefinitely.  There are many epistles like this. Out of 13 epistles only 6 I believe he said are accepted to be the original man who is known as paul. And, as I said before, the teachings are not the same as what is reflected in  the forgeries. 

 

Many men and women have attempted to determine the time of the second coming and all have failed. Because he isn't coming back. It is all a lie to keep you under the thumb of the church. It has been edited, added too, falsified, and re-translated into a weapon of oppression in the guise of a book of love. It is a true Trojan horse.

 

Dark Bishop

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When you read these passages, you have the impression that it is going to be a very long time until Christ comes again.

 

That's simply not true. The text clearly specifies that it would happen within that particular generation, so the time-frame was limited to a few decades, not millennia.

 

22 hours ago, SeaJay said:

Say what you like about WLC, I think he is a preeminent defender/scholar of Christianity. But he is here saying he thinks Jesus didn't say what he said or perhaps the author did not accurately convey what Jesus actually said.

 

That's the problem with Christian apologists. They're like snake oil salesmen. They'll say anything that they think will help their case, even if it conflicts with claims they make in other instances to help their case. They want you to take the Bible as accurate and authoritative, but then when they see no way to reconcile problems in what the text actually says, all of a sudden it's not intended to be taken as conveying the meaning accurately in a literal sense. That's nothing more than a sleight of hand.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every promise of something soon to come has failed in the bible. Every attempt to predict the time of coming has failed.

 

Paul said to the Church at Corinth "But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!"

 

Heads up - history lesson incoming: They all died!

 

John says in the start of his Revelation :

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants[a] the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

 

And at the end of Revelations he ends with: He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!: The bolded part is apparently Jesus speaking during the revelation. 

 

These writers were writing to the people of their time. To say so otherwise is dishonest. The only way around this for a Christian is to say that God couldn't tell the people back then that the return wasn't for 2,000 years (Apparently now is about the time of the second coming.. any decade now.. century, millennium) but that God encoded a message in the bible for the chosen ones today.

 

Or of course God could have just deceived those people back then... in which case I see no reason to suppose he won't deceive us now. 

 

This message by WLC own admission is lost to time. We have no idea of the original. The NT has been changed, altered, copied and faked so much that deciding what the actual message was is impossible.

 

This allows men, 'called of the spirit' to interpret the word of god to whatever flock listens to them.

 

But is there any truth? No, its just more astounding rubbish from the new testament.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaJay said:

But do the scriptures mention the bible is perfect or is that merely assumed?

 

I don't think it ever uses the word perfect in reference to itself, but what is usually pointed to is 2 Timothy 3:16, which claims that all scripture is inspired by God. At the time that that was written, there wasn't a canonized New Testament, so it would be referring more specifically to the Old Testament. And, of course, merely claiming that it was inspired by God does not make it so.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

1 Corinthians 7

 1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

 2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

 9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

 1 Timothy 3

 2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

 

 

I don't see any problems with the scriptures posted. I've highlighted what I think are the key points. 

 

Paul isn't say you must stay away from women. He is saying ideally, stay celibate, BUT, if you cannot, have just one wife. Again in 9, it's a case of stay widowed, BUT if you can't, then by all means marry. 

 

Likewise in Timothy, it's just reiterated that a Bishop is only to have one wife and not many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51
20 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

That's simply not true. The text clearly specifies that it would happen within that particular generation, so the time-frame was limited to a few decades, not millennia.

 

 

I really hadn't considered it this way. I suppose all the things mentioned really could take place in say, 40 years at the most. 

 

20 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

That's the problem with Christian apologists. They're like snake oil salesmen. They'll say anything that they think will help their case, even if it conflicts with claims they make in other instances to help their case. They want you to take the Bible as accurate and authoritative, but then when they see no way to reconcile problems in what the text actually says, all of a sudden it's not intended to be taken as conveying the meaning accurately in a literal sense. It's nothing more than a sleight of hand.

 

 

 

Duly noted

 

Thanks for the reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416
50 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

That's the problem with Christian apologists. They're like snake oil salesmen. They'll say anything that they think will help their case, even if it conflicts with claims they make in other instances to help their case. They want you to take the Bible as accurate and authoritative, but then when they see no way to reconcile problems in what the text actually says, all of a sudden it's not intended to be taken as conveying the meaning accurately in a literal sense. That's nothing more than a sleight of hand.

 

 

Hence the reason I took the route I did in mine and LB's debate. Christians are having to back up and reinterpret the scripture again now because of scientific findings that are unable to be refuted now. I was making up my own apologies concerning get God's time frame.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416
33 minutes ago, SeaJay said:

 

I don't see any problems with the scriptures posted. I've highlighted what I think are the key points. 

 

Paul isn't say you must stay away from women. He is saying ideally, stay celibate, BUT, if you cannot, have just one wife. Again in 9, it's a case of stay widowed, BUT if you can't, then by all means marry. 

 

Likewise in Timothy, it's just reiterated that a Bishop is only to have one wife and not many.

Yes but this is just one point that Ehrmann makes in his book. This is the one possible reason behind the one forgery after he has pointed out the massive differences in sentence phrasing, run on paragraphs, introduction differences, etc, etc, etc. The timothy's are definitely forgeries.  If you want to de-program your mind you need to read books that bring out the lies of the bible. What I gave you was just one example in a 600+ page book which is very well thought out and extensively referenced. Their are many other points he brings out in different books which address issues that didn't happen until after pauls death. How can he writes an epistle when he's dead?

 

You, my friend need to research the truth about the bible if you really want to get peace of mind.

 

DB

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51
14 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Yes but this is just one point that Ehrmann makes in his book. This is the one possible reason behind the one forgery after he has pointed out the massive differences in sentence phrasing, run on paragraphs, introduction differences, etc, etc, etc. The timothy's are definitely forgeries.  If you want to de-program your mind you need to read books that bring out the lies of the bible. What I gave you was just one example in a 600+ page book which is very well thought out and extensively referenced. Their are many other points he brings out in different books which address issues that didn't happen until after pauls death. How can he writes an epistle when he's dead?

 

You, my friend need to research the truth about the bible if you really want to get peace of mind.

 

DB

 

 

I have Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' which I read a few years ago. Can't remember most of it so I need to take a look once more

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416

Check out his books on forgeries. Misquoting Jesus probably isn't going to give the same info I just gave you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51

What do you make of the following:

 

In Mark, Jesus sends 12 disciples out to preach in the towns of Israel and they return to Jesus.

 

In Matthew 10:23 (written after Mark), he says“...you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” 

 

But when Matthew wrote this, he knew the Son of Man had not yet returned - so why tell them he would return?

 

WLC's argument then is:

 

If Matthew 10:23 did not mean the Son of Man was going to come again before the mission of the Twelve was over, there is no reason to think Matthew 24:34 means the Son of Man is going to come again within the first generation.

 

I don't agree with him, but I can't explain the verse in Mark 10:23 either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51
3 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Check out his books on forgeries. Misquoting Jesus probably isn't going to give the same info I just gave you.

 

Will do

 

Thanks DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51
11 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Check out his books on forgeries. Misquoting Jesus probably isn't going to give the same info I just gave you.

 

Is this the one: http://www.bartdehrman.com/forgery-and-counterforgery/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416

Yes that's the one I read but he wrote two other ones on forgeries also that may be a little more comprehensible.  Like I said. He goes into agonizing detail in that book on the different criteria he uses. When I was reading it I almost wished I had started with the other two first lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416
1 hour ago, SeaJay said:

What do you make of the following:

 

In Mark, Jesus sends 12 disciples out to preach in the towns of Israel and they return to Jesus.

 

In Matthew 10:23 (written after Mark), he says“...you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” 

 

But when Matthew wrote this, he knew the Son of Man had not yet returned - so why tell them he would return?

 

WLC's argument then is:

 

If Matthew 10:23 did not mean the Son of Man was going to come again before the mission of the Twelve was over, there is no reason to think Matthew 24:34 means the Son of Man is going to come again within the first generation.

 

I don't agree with him, but I can't explain the verse in Mark 10:23 either. 

I don't agree with him either. I believe that the intent of the scripture is literally saying that Jesus was going to come back before that generation of people died out. It is even more evident at the end of Mathew ch. 16

 

 21  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

 22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. note

 23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 24  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

 25  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 27  For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

 28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

First it opens this up with how he was going to suffer and die at the hands of the elders and priests and ends it saying that some standing their with him. (His disciples) would not taste of death until they saw him coming in his kingdom.

 

The early church truly believed that Jesus would come within their lifetime. Because supposedly he said so.

 

DB 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkBishop    416

PS. I will almost always use KJV unless comparing versions. The churches I went to were all very strict on the version of the bible that was used. I was never good at memorizing book chapter verse. But I've read the whole bible, most of it multiple times and I can usually quote scripture verbatim, so it makes it easy to look it up in the concordance to see what the book, chapters, and verses are that I'm thinking of. 

       But it should have the same meaning in whatever version you use. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geezer    1,979

There is volumes of historical evidence that confirms Jesus isn't going to return because he never came in the first place. The gospel story isn't history it's fiction and there is a ton of evidence that confirms that. If you're reading apologist for answers to your questions, please stop. An apologist job is to defend the faith at all cost. In that context they are a lot like defense lawyers. It's their job to defend the accursed, and that does not require them to tell the truth. It's their job to convince a jury that their client didn't do what the evidence clearly said he did.

 

Read historians for answers not apologist.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshpantera    514
On 5/6/2017 at 6:56 AM, SeaJay said:

What do you make of the following:

 

In Mark, Jesus sends 12 disciples out to preach in the towns of Israel and they return to Jesus.

 

In Matthew 10:23 (written after Mark), he says“...you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” 

 

But when Matthew wrote this, he knew the Son of Man had not yet returned - so why tell them he would return?

 

WLC's argument then is:

 

If Matthew 10:23 did not mean the Son of Man was going to come again before the mission of the Twelve was over, there is no reason to think Matthew 24:34 means the Son of Man is going to come again within the first generation.

 

I don't agree with him, but I can't explain the verse in Mark 10:23 either. 

 

Everyone tends to read over those bits about the Son of Man. There's actually whole studies that focus on this idea of a Son of Man which is something old that the writers were trying to shoe horn Jesus into. Erhman delves into the differences between Son of Man and Son of God, but I'm a bit foggy on the details at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these are some other NT passages that appear to indicate the authors believed Jesus was to return very soon:

  • The author of 1 John, in 1 John 2:18
  • Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:29-31
  • Paul in Romans 13:11 (related post:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExPCA    103

Probz. But who's to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaJay    51

Just read that when Jesus said "not pass away"

 

Matt 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

 

...the Greek here was used as a special "ingressive aorist" form (no idea what that means) so the phrase means "start to pass". So it wasn't that certain things would start and end before the generation passed away, but that certain things would merely start to pass away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now