Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Did Jesus Renege On His Word? ---- Behold I Come Quickly


Thumbelina

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

Even if we assume the Bible is the 'Inspired Word of God', its verses are, in many crucial instances, open to interpretation. Everyone who claims to know what the text really means is absolutely convinced they have the key to understanding. Thumbs, you are but one of those millions of claimants. Nothing special, just another one.

 

But let's step back a second. We DO NOT assume the Bible has any special authority anyway. To us (most of us) finding True Meanings, Deeper Implications, and Author's Clues in this book is no different than discussing the universal themes found in Moby Dick or To Kill A Mockingbird.

 

This is why mud wrestling discussions and pictures would be ever so much more enlightening.

 

No, I do not expect you to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

 

 

 

The HS inspired Paul to write what he wrote. A lot of people were hoping that Jesus would come back soon and that's how they interpreted the scriptures. They all had to grow in their understanding.

 

Evidence please? Who are these alot of people? Because both paul and the gospel writers at many points seem to agree. The end was supposed to come during the disciples lifetimes. And really, the grow in understanding thing doesn't have much play for me anymore. Why, because of all the miracles they saw jesus do, and they still didn't get it. You would have to be the most stupid people in the world to not get it, or have something messing with you. It seems based of what gained traction in the traditions, that stupid was the most accepted response. John the baptist really doesn't apply here, because all we know from him, was that he thought someone like jesus was coming. About your claim of people waiting 1000 years. Does that justify lying? Dishonesty is dishonesty regardless of who is dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010
We have seen how a broad promise attributed to Jesus, that his generation would live to see the coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 13:30), created more and and more embarrassment as the years went by and more Christians died. What would happen to the ones who died in the meantime (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13)? And had the promise failed? Mark 9:1 comes from a time when some of that generation still lived. 2 Pet. 3:4 and John 21:20-24 come from some time later, when no one from that generation could still be alive. John (desperately) reinterprets the promise, which by his time had been whittled down to the single Christian leader believed to have lived at the time of Jesus.

 

Source for that quote:

 

Robert M Price

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

Page 343

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HS inspired Paul to write what he wrote. A lot of people were hoping that Jesus would come back soon and that's how they interpreted the scriptures. They all had to grow in their understanding.

 

Evidence please? Who are these alot of people? Because both paul and the gospel writers at many points seem to agree. The end was supposed to come during the disciples lifetimes. And really, the grow in understanding thing doesn't have much play for me anymore. Why, because of all the miracles they saw jesus do, and they still didn't get it. You would have to be the most stupid people in the world to not get it, or have something messing with you. It seems based of what gained traction in the traditions, that stupid was the most accepted response. John the baptist really doesn't apply here, because all we know from him, was that he thought someone like jesus was coming. About your claim of people waiting 1000 years. Does that justify lying? Dishonesty is dishonesty regardless of who is dishonest.

 

I was referring to the believers at that time. The church was growing fast. The end was NOT supposed to come during their lifetimes, the prophecies in Daniel show that. The bible also says that toward the end of time knowledge will increase (it means undersatanding scripture also).

 

Why, because of all the miracles they saw jesus do, and they still didn't get it. You would have to be the most stupid people in the world to not get it,

 

 

 

The bible says rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. People are rebellious, I see gluttonous type 2 diabetics eating their way to their graves. They rather lose a limb or eyesight instead of restraining their appetite. People do things like that a LOT no matter what EVIDENCE they get to show them a better way. John did identify Jesus as Messiah and then took it back when he was in jail then he took that back again when Jesus comforted him. The bible is honest, the prophecies tell what will happen, the people just did not understand but the bible says we who are living in the last stretch will understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Umm still no evidence, thumb, come on. Paul would have known about the verses in Daniel, the writer of 2 peter would. I don't totally know what you think about gospel authorship. But presumably you think its the apostles. They would all know, about the Daniel verses but still they wrote, what they did, saying things like the kingdom of god(which I have only ever read used in describing the end times) and the disciples lifetime. Increasing in understanding, is more or less irrelevant. Look at the verses and what they say. Your making more of them then what they are. Your basically saying that God, is saying there coming soon, to just jerk there chains and get them to do more. It turns god into a liar. If he says soon would have to mean soon, anything other then that, is dishonest. If that makes a claim about the prophecies of the OT, so be it, as far as I can see.

 

Yep rebelliousness is the answer, Jesus says things like let the dead bury the dead and they agree to follow him, yet they don't get what he says. yeah that is the answer(hope you get the sarcasm there). Seriously false analogy there thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I suspect there is such a thing as ex post facto reasoning in christianity as well. Wait, there is just a seeming delay because it came a few days late. That is a perfect example of that. Its also a fallacy as far as I am aware. It also violates either

post hoc ergo propter hoc or cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

 

No there was a actual delay. Again, dishonesty is the same no matter who does it.

 

Making a rationalisation for something after the fact, is not a argument for the validity of some that happened previously. In this case its just rationalising errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumbelina, you talk about Matthew 16:28 being misunderstood and having been fulfilled by Jesus' transfiguration.

 

Here is Matthew 26:28

 

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

 

However, there are parallel versions of what Jesus supposedly said which are markedly different.

 

Here's Mark's version found in Mark 9:1

 

 

And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

 

In Mark's version of Jesus' words, the people will not see the Son of Man [Jesus] coming in his kingdom as Matthew says, but they will see that the the kingdom of god has come with power. Not a word about the son of man.

 

Here's Luke's version found in Luke 9:27

 

 

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

 

Luke's version is similar to Marks in that it says not a word about the Son of Man doing anything, only that people will see the kingdom of god but nothing about any power.

 

So which of these three versions was fulfilled by the transfiguration? And if any or all of them were fulfilled by the transfiguration, was it the transfiguration that occurred six days after Jesus said what he said (see Mark 9:2 and Matthew 17:1) or the transfiguration that occured about eight days after Jesus said what he said (see Luke 9:28)? Or were there two separate transfigurations? Or did Jesus speak these things on three separate occasions? Or what?

 

These are the types of problems you open yourself up to when you start using the bible passages to prove your points. It is an unreliable source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valk if there is no opponent who will debate the other side then maybe we should ask the mods to move this to the Lion's Den where Christian trickery belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Thumbelina, you talk about Matthew 16:28 being misunderstood and having been fulfilled by Jesus' transfiguration.

 

Here is Matthew 26:28

 

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

 

However, there are parallel versions of what Jesus supposedly said which are markedly different.

 

Here's Mark's version found in Mark 9:1

 

 

And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

 

In Mark's version of Jesus' words, the people will not see the Son of Man [Jesus] coming in his kingdom as Matthew says, but they will see that the the kingdom of god has come with power. Not a word about the son of man.

 

Here's Luke's version found in Luke 9:27

 

 

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

 

Luke's version is similar to Marks in that it says not a word about the Son of Man doing anything, only that people will see the kingdom of god but nothing about any power.

 

So which of these three versions was fulfilled by the transfiguration? And if any or all of them were fulfilled by the transfiguration, was it the transfiguration that occurred six days after Jesus said what he said (see Mark 9:2 and Matthew 17:1) or the transfiguration that occured about eight days after Jesus said what he said (see Luke 9:28)? Or were there two separate transfigurations? Or did Jesus speak these things on three separate occasions? Or what?

 

These are the types of problems you open yourself up to when you start using the bible passages to prove your points. It is an unreliable source.

And contradictory as I think I have done fairly well in showing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumbelina, you talk about Matthew 16:28 being misunderstood and having been fulfilled by Jesus' transfiguration.

 

Here is Matthew 26:28

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you meant Matthew 16:28. I went to 26:28 and said huh?

 

 

 

 

However, there are parallel versions of what Jesus supposedly said which are markedly different.

 

 

Here's Mark's version found in Mark 9:1

 

 

And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

 

In Mark's version of Jesus' words, the people will not see the Son of Man [Jesus] coming in his kingdom as Matthew says, but they will see that the the kingdom of god has come with power. Not a word about the son of man.

 

Here's Luke's version found in Luke 9:27

 

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

 

Luke's version is similar to Marks in that it says not a word about the Son of Man doing anything, only that people will see the kingdom of god but nothing about any power.

 

 

There is no discrepancy. If you are a professor and you had students that are writing about a certain event and all of them wrote everything verbatim, what would you think? The biblical writers explained the same event differently.

 

 

So which of these three versions was fulfilled by the transfiguration? And if any or all of them were fulfilled by the transfiguration, was it the transfiguration that occurred six days after Jesus said what he said (see Mark 9:2 and Matthew 17:1) or the transfiguration that occured about eight days after Jesus said what he said (see Luke 9:28)? Or were there two separate transfigurations? Or did Jesus speak these things on three separate occasions? Or what?

 

These are the types of problems you open yourself up to when you start using the bible passages to prove your points. It is an unreliable source.

 

 

 

There is no discrepancy, the commentators explain how the writers calculated the days:

 

 

 

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And it came to pass, about an eight days after those sayings,.... About a week after he had declared the above things, at, or near to Caesarea Philippi. The other evangelists, Matthew and Mark, say it was six days after: the reason of this difference is, because Luke takes in the day in which he delivered these sayings, and that in which he was transfigured, and they only reckon the intermediate days:

he took Peter, and John, and James; the same that he admitted to be with him at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and in the garden afterwards:

and went up into a mountain to pray; to his God and Father, that his disciples might have a visible display of his glory, as an emblem and pledge of that in which he shall hereafter appear: it was usual with Christ to go up into a mountain to pray; Matthew 14:23. See Gill on Matthew 17:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
...but i have more or less burnt my interest out on this. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.

Exactly. Jesus, people, it's only a story! We might as well dissect 'Dexter'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you meant Matthew 16:28. I went to 26:28 and said huh?

 

Yes, that's what I meant.

 

There is no discrepancy. If you are a professor and you had students that are writing about a certain event and all of them wrote everything verbatim, what would you think? The biblical writers explained the same event differently.

 

Yes, it is correct that individuals who see events will almost invaribly convey things differently in their telling. It's quite common. But the fact that it is common among people is the whole point. One would expect a document as supposedly important as the word of god to be a vastly superior piece of work than what the average person can do. After all, if one believes the theology, what is told in the Bible has to do with eternal consequences like whether one goes to heaven or suffers an eternity in hell and, depending on your theology, belief in Jesus is central. A written work which purports to have such enormous, eternal consequences must have an extremely high standard and these discrepancies show the work for what it is. It is the work of mere common people as fallible as any of the rest of us (like me citing the wrong chapter and verse in Matthew).

 

There is no discrepancy, the commentators explain how the writers calculated the days:

 

 

 

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And it came to pass, about an eight days after those sayings,.... About a week after he had declared the above things, at, or near to Caesarea Philippi. The other evangelists, Matthew and Mark, say it was six days after: the reason of this difference is, because Luke takes in the day in which he delivered these sayings, and that in which he was transfigured, and they only reckon the intermediate days:

he took Peter, and John, and James; the same that he admitted to be with him at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and in the garden afterwards:

and went up into a mountain to pray; to his God and Father, that his disciples might have a visible display of his glory, as an emblem and pledge of that in which he shall hereafter appear: it was usual with Christ to go up into a mountain to pray; Matthew 14:23. See Gill on Matthew 17:1.

 

I know the commentators work diligently to try to shore up the problems like the one I pointed out between whether the transfiguration was six or eight days after Jesus said what we have been discussing. But all they do is to try to make excuses for the fallible and totally human authors of the gospels. Think about this: how could the commentator possibly know how Luke figured his eight days? Luke does not explain it so how could this person know what was on Luke's mind? He could not. That commentator has nothing more than what the rest of us have before us which are the words that were written by Luke. His attempt to reconcile the accounts is nothing short of guessing and his guess is no better than anyone else's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

That is the great thing about being a unbeliever, you can just accept there is a error, rather then be convoluted and bizarre in explanation. Occam's Razor....it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Jesus? Prove that much before getting into particulars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no discrepancy. If you are a professor and you had students that are writing about a certain event and all of them wrote everything verbatim, what would you think? The biblical writers explained the same event differently.

 

 

 

and if all the students wrote everything ALMOST verbatim, with slight changes between them, what would you think? Collusion. Smartest kid in the class handing out essays and collecting money, imploring the students to change them all slightly.

 

The OP says everything. A ream of apologetic diahorrhea, to explain a concept which is apparently so simple that everyone should be able to understand it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

There is no discrepancy. If you are a professor and you had students that are writing about a certain event and all of them wrote everything verbatim, what would you think? The biblical writers explained the same event differently.

 

 

 

and if all the students wrote everything ALMOST verbatim, with slight changes between them, what would you think? Collusion. Smartest kid in the class handing out essays and collecting money, imploring the students to change them all slightly.

 

The OP says everything. A ream of apologetic diahorrhea, to explain a concept which is apparently so simple that everyone should be able to understand it.

Yeah no amount of just calling the events differently, explains to any open minded reader how freaking contradictory the gospels are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revelation 22:12 says: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

 

What does the bible mean by "quickly" in this context? Its meaning in Greek is "without any delay". It does not mean "in a very short time" though a superficial reading of the text may make it seem that way.

And the context of Revelation was that the events would happen shortly, which is reinforced by the word "behold", which indicates that something is about to transpire.

 

Rev 1:1-3

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

Rev 22:7

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

Superficial readers look at passages such as Matthew 16:28 and say 'Jesus' prophecy failed, the second coming was supposed to be in the lifetime of His contemporaries.However, one needs to not isolate the texts from the surrounding passages and chapters otherwise it will seem as if Jesus' prediction did not pan out.

 

In the bible I have, there are symbols that indicate when one set of circumstances begin and when they end. The events surrounding Jesus' prophecy in vs. 28 are described from Matthew 16:21- Matthew 17:8. Matthew Chapter 17 describes Jesus' transfiguration which happened shortly after Jesus told His disciples that some of them will see Him coming in His kingdom.

The context of Matt 16:28 includes verse 27.

 

Matt 16:27-28

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.

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.

 

Superficial apologetics will often grasp at any excuse in order to ignore the implications of failure.

At the Transfiguration Jesus didn't come from anywhere, he was already there.

There was no kingdom, no angels, and no rewards given out.

 

Jesus' inner circle of friends (Peter, James and John) did see Jesus coming in His kingdom; Jesus' prophecy did not fail. He gave some of His disciples a preview of what He would be like when returns in His glory at the end of the world. So, Matthew 16:28 was describing the transfiguration.

No, it wasn't because there was no coming in a kingdom by Jesus at the Transfiguration.

 

The bible states that Christians ought to know that there WILL be a SEEMING delay before the second coming. In fact, other passages cited by superficial readers are Matthew 24 where the disciples asked Jesus two questions. They asked Jesus“when will these things be?” (i.e. concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem etc.). They then asked Him about the signs of His coming and the end of the world? Jesus tied in the two questions into one in His response.

Jesus was addressing his disciples in Matthew 24 and the signs were for them and the people of that generation to recognize.

 

Matt 24:33-34

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

...Also the events outlined in Matthew would require time to be fulfilled. How were the disciples supposed to get the gospel to the ENTIRE world within one short generation?

Oh ye of little faith.

With God all things are possible.

The gospel had been preached to the world.

 

Col 1:23

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister

 

Col 1:23(NLT)

...The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God’s servant to proclaim it.

 

You can't claim delays of thousands of years are appropriate when the stipulations are for a resolution within the lifetimes of the followers, as Jesus promised.

 

This is further confirmed by:

 

1 Peter 4:7

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

 

James 5:8

Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

 

Rom 13:11-12

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

 

Matt 10:22-23

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

 

The disciples expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we assume the Bible is the 'Inspired Word of God', its verses are, in many crucial instances, open to interpretation. Everyone who claims to know what the text really means is absolutely convinced they have the key to understanding. Thumbs, you are but one of those millions of claimants. Nothing special, just another one.

 

But let's step back a second. We DO NOT assume the Bible has any special authority anyway. To us (most of us) finding True Meanings, Deeper Implications, and Author's Clues in this book is no different than discussing the universal themes found in Moby Dick or To Kill A Mockingbird.

 

This is why mud wrestling discussions and pictures would be ever so much more enlightening.

 

No, I do not expect you to understand.

 

Oh but Thumbelina does understand, Florduh.

 

She understands only too well that we give the Bible no special authority.

That's why all of her efforts to evangelize stay strictly within the contents of that book and never leave it. That book is her key to understanding life and reality. If she can just keep up her Bible-only onslaught on us, eventually we will weaken and accept it as she does. That's why she doesn't care that we don't recognize it's authority. She does and that's all that matters. It's the Bible first, second and last. The Bible and nothing else. It's the Bible, always the Bible and only the Bible.

 

Have you noticed?

She never, ever moves from that Bible-only position.

She never, ever uses anything extra-Biblical in her arguments.

She can't afford to get into anything outside of scripture because she knows that reality and scripture don't match up.

 

That's why she'll never confirm that she's a Seventh Day Adventist.

That's why she'll never get into any examination of her Creationist views.

That's why she'll never introduce any science to back up her arguments.

That's why she'll always rely on unverifiable anecdotes and not bona fide science.

That's why she'll always use the Bible to interpret itself and never compare it with what secular, scientific knowledge says about life and reality.

All of these things would force her to deal with extra-Biblical matters, which she fears and hates to even think about.

This is Thumbelina's Achilles heel. Everythin and anything outside of her precious Bible.

That's why she won't go there.

 

Yes, Floduh.

She's 'clever' enough to understand that if she strays outside of the Bible, her beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny. They don't add up. They actually don't explain anything much about life and reality. They aren't they key to anything but a prison of her own making. A prison that she desperately wants us to join her in.

 

So that's why she persistently bombards us with her 'TRUE' understanding of scripture.

That's because that's all she's got.

Nothing else.

 

Thumbelina's not offering us a real life and a real understanding - she's just enticing us into bondage.

 

No thanks, sister! PageofCupsNono.gif

 

BAA.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a shitload of completely rationalized twaddle

 

seriously what the fuck is this shit

 

Thumby, you know we don't actually believe the Bible is the word of an omniscient God, so why don't you start with (non-circular) proof that it is?

 

Once you've got that, then you can try to explain why Jesus didn't just say what the fuck he meant. Seriously. He was supposed to be a 30-year-old man by that time, talking to other mature mortal men. THEY all knew what the words meant, just like I do and like everybody non-Christian; nobody but a fundamentalist fails to understand what "you won't taste death before I return in glory" type statements mean. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what Jesus meant by that. And this was supposed to be a divinely inspired creed given us by an infallible god-man, so surely it shouldn't take pages of commentary to dissect a very simple, plainly-worded bunch of contradictory verses.

 

The simple view is this: it is a failed prophecy by yet another Judean god-wizard, one of a dozen floating around at the time, and after the prophecy was clearly failed his followers had to pick up the pieces and figure out how to keep their religion going. Your tortured apologetics screed is part of how that happened.

 

I'll take the simple explanation over pages and pages of biased, fallacious reasoning trying to force this failed prophecy into a preconceived conclusion. You start with premises that I cannot accept without proof--that Jesus existed in the form the Bible says he did, and that the Bible itself is actually divinely inspired, and you argue it to death with your own very odd, quirky take on the Bible. First you need to prove that the character of Jesus--as outlined by the Bible--existed at all. Then we can work on proving that the Bible's theology is true. Then we can worry about the failed prophecy of his triumphant return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul understood a lot and the NT is in harmony with the rest of scripture.

No, it is not.

 

But you can demonstrate this so-called "harmony" by doing the following:

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says an expected king messiah would make parts of the law irrelevant and no longer binding, as Paul claimed.

To make things easier for us ignorant skeptics, place the chapter and verses(s) below, right on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

_______________________________________

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says the new covenant would eliminate parts of the law and be based on faith in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

Place it below on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

_______________________________________

 

Cite the section of the law that says a human being is a valid sin sacrifice.

Place it below on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

________________________________________

 

The bible says they wrote what the HS inspired them to write.

The Bible also says that God warned his people not to be seduced by new doctrines (i.e. Christianity) that were not in keeping with his teachings.

Putting faith in a messianic impostor will only lead to disappointment.

 

Psa 146:3-4

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

 

The failure of Jesus, who called himself the "son of man", to make good on his promise to return makes the irony of this passage all the more biting for Christians.

 

The warning against false teachers and prophets that put words in God's mouth was rather clear, and Christianity, with its revisionist theology fits the bill.

 

Jer 23:31-32

Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He(God) saith.

Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

 

Christianity has no authorization from the Hebrew God.

 

Jesus was not lying and I said in the article, He told them that He will not be setting dates for His coming, they were supposed to watch for signs and to be ready.

The exact day and hour would not be known, but it would happen before all of Jesus' associates had died.

That was his declaration.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you meant Matthew 16:28. I went to 26:28 and said huh?

 

Yes, that's what I meant.

 

There is no discrepancy. If you are a professor and you had students that are writing about a certain event and all of them wrote everything verbatim, what would you think? The biblical writers explained the same event differently.

 

Yes, it is correct that individuals who see events will almost invaribly convey things differently in their telling. It's quite common. But the fact that it is common among people is the whole point. One would expect a document as supposedly important as the word of god to be a vastly superior piece of work than what the average person can do. After all, if one believes the theology, what is told in the Bible has to do with eternal consequences like whether one goes to heaven or suffers an eternity in hell and, depending on your theology, belief in Jesus is central. A written work which purports to have such enormous, eternal consequences must have an extremely high standard and these discrepancies show the work for what it is. It is the work of mere common people as fallible as any of the rest of us (like me citing the wrong chapter and verse in Matthew).

 

 

 

The bible is a vastly superior piece of work. There are no discrepancies but it's simply that its truthfulness is being misunderstood. Copiest errors are few and far between but they do not detract from salvific lessons. Let's think hypothetically here for a second, the biblical God wants people to come to Him IF they love Him, right?By allowing seeming discrepancies the biblical God would be able to show who would come to Him faithfully or who would doubt. It would be a test. I saw a seeming contradiction when I looked at the bible before I became a Christian but I later came to realize it was me being an inexperienced surface reader that made me think the texts were contradictory. You cited the right verse in Matthew but the wrong chapter. See? I know what you meant but I had some faith in you Overcame Faith so I did not just dismiss ALL you say because you wrote something wrong

 

 

There is no discrepancy, the commentators explain how the writers calculated the days:

 

 

 

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And it came to pass, about an eight days after those sayings,.... About a week after he had declared the above things, at, or near to Caesarea Philippi. The other evangelists, Matthew and Mark, say it was six days after: the reason of this difference is, because Luke takes in the day in which he delivered these sayings, and that in which he was transfigured, and they only reckon the intermediate days:

he took Peter, and John, and James; the same that he admitted to be with him at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and in the garden afterwards:

and went up into a mountain to pray; to his God and Father, that his disciples might have a visible display of his glory, as an emblem and pledge of that in which he shall hereafter appear: it was usual with Christ to go up into a mountain to pray; Matthew 14:23. See Gill on Matthew 17:1.

 

 

 

 

I know the commentators work diligently to try to shore up the problems like the one I pointed out between whether the transfiguration was six or eight days after Jesus said what we have been discussing. But all they do is to try to make excuses for the fallible and totally human authors of the gospels. Think about this: how could the commentator possibly know how Luke figured his eight days? Luke does not explain it so how could this person know what was on Luke's mind? He could not. That commentator has nothing more than what the rest of us have before us which are the words that were written by Luke. His attempt to reconcile the accounts is nothing short of guessing and his guess is no better than anyone else's guess.

 

 

 

What they did was show different ways of thinking. When Jesus spoke to the disciples it was around sunset, if He was transfigured on the 7th day after that (maybe in the evening) it would be about eight days. That is what Luke said, he said ABOUT eight days. He did not say exactly eight days. It's like if a husband promised his wife a spontaneous vacation trip. He told her about it on Sunday about sunset and by the following Sunday about sunset they were on a plane to Hawaii. If the wife is journaling all that transpired she may say about eight days went by and then the time arrived. If the husband is journaling he may write "it was gonna be six days until my sweetie and I get on our flight". It's NO big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revelation 22:12 says: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

 

What does the bible mean by "quickly" in this context? Its meaning in Greek is "without any delay". It does not mean "in a very short time" though a superficial reading of the text may make it seem that way.

And the context of Revelation was that the events would happen shortly, which is reinforced by the word "behold", which indicates that something is about to transpire.

 

Rev 1:1-3

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

Rev 22:7

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

Superficial readers look at passages such as Matthew 16:28 and say 'Jesus' prophecy failed, the second coming was supposed to be in the lifetime of His contemporaries.However, one needs to not isolate the texts from the surrounding passages and chapters otherwise it will seem as if Jesus' prediction did not pan out.

 

In the bible I have, there are symbols that indicate when one set of circumstances begin and when they end. The events surrounding Jesus' prophecy in vs. 28 are described from Matthew 16:21- Matthew 17:8. Matthew Chapter 17 describes Jesus' transfiguration which happened shortly after Jesus told His disciples that some of them will see Him coming in His kingdom.

The context of Matt 16:28 includes verse 27.

 

Matt 16:27-28

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.

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.

 

Superficial apologetics will often grasp at any excuse in order to ignore the implications of failure.

At the Transfiguration Jesus didn't come from anywhere, he was already there.

There was no kingdom, no angels, and no rewards given out.

 

 

 

Not suprficial at all, Centauri. I wish you would stop isolating verses. You need to know what the bible meant by coming in his kingdom. Look at some of the commentaries from Mark 9:1 , it means Jesus' glory and power, the disciples got a preview of it. In the past, texts were not separated into paragraphs, you need to take a look at the structure of the texts, you need to look at the literary devices used.

................

 

 

Centauri, I started to respond to the lengthy post but you are not reading the original post closely enough. I wish you would then we can get down to the real nitty gritty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point of all this 'End Times' talk, Thumbelina?

 

You haven't yet established that there was a real and historical 'Beginning Times', as described in Genesis.

 

Let's see you present some hard, scientific evidence for the origin of the entire human race from just two people.

 

Is that asking too much?

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.