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

[bornagainathiest]

[Centauri, I started to respond to the lenghty 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.

 

I'm probably telling my granny to go suck eggs here folks, but you do see what Thumby's playing at here, right?

 

She's treating Revelation and everything before it, right back to Genesis ...as FACT.

 

As undisputable history. As unequivocal truth. As a given fact.

It's a none-too-subtle ploy on her part to get us to engage her on her home ground (the Bible) without first establishing if there's anything genuinely historical in the first chapters of Genesis. She wants to talk only about the nitty-gritty of what's in the Bible, not if the Bible itself is backed up by authentic historical records. Not if the Bible is historical. She always begins with the (unproven) assumption that it is.

 

But Science tells us that Genesis isn't true, isn't real and isn't historical.

 

So why does Thumbelina never, ever dispute what science tells us?

 

Why does she never make any effort to present any corroborating evidence which would confirm Genesis as real history?

 

Why not Thumbelina?

 

If you won't respond to me on this, I'm sure that there are others in this forum who'd like to know?

 

Will you tell them why you never try to establish Genesis as history?

 

BAA.

[Guest Valk0010]

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.

Yeah and the nitty gritty to you, is taking the most obtuse, improbable and irrational view of the text you can and beating it over our heads. And then you insult us when we call you on your bullshit. Its absurd. Just because you have a explanation doesn't mean its the best one. You wanna know what I think when I read your thoughts thumb. Gosh this girl is so scared of it not being true that she will take the most absurd explanations she can, to survive. Most absurd isn't what the damn text says. The explanations you give, so defy logic and rationality there laughable really. Give it up.

 

Yes the apologetics you gave were superfical, they also made no real sense, unless your biased towards your belief system in the first place. Occam's razor still applies thumb.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

 

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.

Yeah and committing special pleading, when you say that, unlike all the many many many times, the phrase kingdom of god is used. That phrase is used in regards to the end of days. But no, in this one time, it is used to preface a magical experience. I don't get how you don't realize how convoluted your reasoning is. A seeming delay, is another way to say God is a liar. Either your going to have a delay or your not. Its adhoc and illogical to use terms like seeming delay. It falls under this fallacy as well, unless you can prove otherwise, which you can't

 

In ex post facto hypothesizing, the same data that were used to develop a hypothesis are used to test it. The trouble is that, while a hypothesis can be tailor made to fit almost any data, it may not hold up for other, similar data and, as a result, it may be fairly useless.

http://publish.uwo.ca/~craven/504/504fal.htm

 

This is can and in your case is a fallacy, because it doesn't hold up to, the original claims(the parts of the story that led to need a seeming delay). Its morphing the story to fit your purposes. In other words your doing like alot of cults do, taking a failure and rationalizing a success. Its got a pyschological term as well. Cognitive dissonance reduction.

 

About things like chaism, I read the links, they aren't relevant. For example a common apologetic about these verses, is that kingdom of god actually means royal splender. But just because it could mean it, doesn't mean it does? Just because it could refer to the transfiguration, and by some really twisted ass backwards reasoning you did wrongly point out how it could. But does it. I would venture to say no. Your having to twist words to make it fit. A quickly means quickly or soon means soon. Also why the hell say lifetime, if you know what your saying is going to happen in supposedly 8 days. Your view of the text is just plain unreasonable. How you can't see that, I dunno.

[centauri]

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.

 

Thumbelina:

Not suprficial at all, Centauri. I wish you would stop isolating verses.

Your apologetic is extremely superficial Thumbelina.

I wish you would stop ignoring context while pretending that a failure isn't a failure.

 

You're trying to redefine the statement of Jesus to mean this:

 

"Some of you will not die until you see me Transfigured six days from now."

 

That's a pretty silly prediction and is not at all what he said in Matt 16:27-28.

 

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.

The elements presented in Matt 16:27-28 are the same elements described in Revelation and Matt 24:27-31 of Jesus coming in his kingdom.

There was no coming in a kingdom at the Transfiguration.

[Vigile]

Christians always misinterpret this passage. If they truly had on their holy ghost goggles they would see that Jesus was referring to his prowess, or lack their of. In fact, in the gospel of Magdalene, which didn't make the cut at Nicea, Mary playfully referred to him as the minute man.

[Thumbelina]

To say that, they said that, to have a carrot for them to reach, is a form of lying. They were simply wrong.

 

 

So what

 

 

The bible is not written for people with a so what attitude, for scoffers.

 

 

 

....

 

Paul understood a lot and the NT is in harmony with the rest of scripture. The bible says they wrote what the HS inspired them to write. They were not only writing for their generation, they were writing to future generations too.

Paul stated that ALL the righteous will be together with Christ. Paul will be resurrected at the second coming. Believers will be one with God, the bible states we will all be together and that is what Paul was explaining. Jesus' coming will be like a thief (unexpected and dreadful) to unbelievers and shirkers for they did not WATCH as they were commanded to do. 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.

So what to what you said. Your just plainly not making a very good arguement here.

And your twisting Pauls words.

 

Writing for future generations, says who you?

 

The bible claims to be the word of God and in order to understand it one must not scoff so why are you saying "so what" and still trying to determine what it says?

 

I am not twisting Paul's words, he wrote most of the NT and he wrote a beautiful message. I explained in the article that Jesus' coming was afar off but to them it would not be because they died and they have not been hanging around waiting all these years. For them His coming will be quick.

I think your arguements suck, hence the so what. Its a so what, because what your saying doesn't even answer the question.

 

Now to as what your saying specifically. Paul, would probably know the OT better then any other christian. He was a pharisee himself if you trust acts.

 

He would have not, said to believers as well as non believers though in a slightly different way(a plain reading of the text). To be on guard for the world coming to the end.(Again a plain reading of his words). If he thought the same things you did. He thought the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of the disciples. Inerrantists, think Paul speaks for Jesus right? yeah.

 

If he was writing about the end of the world as it relates to future generations besides the apostles and the immediate disciples of jesus. He would have not used the word remain. Its awful word choice if your correct.

 

If he meant as you mean in regards to the end of the world in any other of his letters, then he would not have wrote this the way he did.

 

 

 

 

I was looking at a lecture on April 20th and I learned about the following:

 

Based on the following passage: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the people in the church in Thessaloniki thought that Jesus would have come during their lifetime. When Paul realized that they misunderstood his epistle, he sent them another epistle ( 2 Thessalonians) to clarify what he was saying. In 1 Thessalonians Paul was saying IF we are alive then we will be translated, he was NOT predicting that that generation was going to be alive.

 

The theologian started explaining what Paul was saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 . He explained that in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul let the people know that the second coming will not come unless there was a SPECIFIC falling away (apostasy) first. He pointed out that the falling away was specific because Paul used a definite article before the expression "falling away".

[Thumbelina]

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.

 

Thumbelina:

Not suprficial at all, Centauri. I wish you would stop isolating verses.

Your apologetic is extremely superficial Thumbelina.

I wish you would stop ignoring context while pretending that a failure isn't a failure.

 

You're trying to redefine the statement of Jesus to mean this:

 

"Some of you will not die until you see me Transfigured six days from now."

 

That's a pretty silly prediction and is not at all what he said in Matt 16:27-28.

 

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.

The elements presented in Matt 16:27-28 are the same elements described in Revelation and Matt 24:27-31 of Jesus coming in his kingdom.

There was no coming in a kingdom at the Transfiguration.

 

 

 

 

Peter said that they saw/witnessed the coming of Jesus:

 

2 Peter 1:16-18

 

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

 

You have to study the texts thematically and contextually and you need to compare scripture with scripture to understand it, Centauri. You can't be a little Jimminy cricket jumping all over the bible for if you do the scripture would appear to not complement each other.

[florduh]

I was looking at a lecture on April 20th and I learned about the following:

So someone else has to explain the Bible to one who is guided by the Holy Spirit? I thought the Bible interpreted itself (to the Special Believers, of course).

 

Still, I'll wager you only take instruction from those who already fit into your preconceived version of the Truth. Have you ever had an original thought? Have you ever even noticed the tortured twists your instructors must inflict upon even plain, simple verses in order to make them match the program? No, I guess not. Never mind.

[Guest Valk0010]

I was looking at a lecture on April 20th and I learned about the following:

 

Based on the following passage: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the people in the church in Thessaloniki thought that Jesus would have come during their lifetime. When Paul realized that they misunderstood his epistle, he sent them another epistle ( 2 Thessalonians) to clarify what he was saying. In 1 Thessalonians Paul was saying IF we are alive then we will be translated, he was NOT predicting that that generation was going to be alive.

 

The theologian started explaining what Paul was saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 . He explained that in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul let the people know that the second coming will not come unless there was a SPECIFIC falling away (apostasy) first. He pointed out that the falling away was specific because Paul used a definite article before the expression "falling away".

Still doesn't answer my point. If he thought it was future generations, he would not have used the word remain. At best he must of expected a specific mass act of apostasy first before the end of the world. And its worse its Paul speculating to probably what he wondering himself. Why ain't this thing happen already. And he must have expected that to come soon. Wordplay doesn't ignore what the text says. You can't really remain even in spirit, if your dead. Just because he thought a apostasy would come, doesn't mean he didn't think that people would remain from there current generation to see it. Otherwise he wouldn't have used the phrasing he did in 1 thessalonians. If your understanding of Paul's intend is valid, Paul is giving a horid explanation that makes no sense and contradicts what he said previously.

[Thumbelina]

I was looking at a lecture on April 20th and I learned about the following:

 

Based on the following passage: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the people in the church in Thessaloniki thought that Jesus would have come during their lifetime. When Paul realized that they misunderstood his epistle, he sent them another epistle ( 2 Thessalonians) to clarify what he was saying. In 1 Thessalonians Paul was saying IF we are alive then we will be translated, he was NOT predicting that that generation was going to be alive.

 

The theologian started explaining what Paul was saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 . He explained that in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul let the people know that the second coming will not come unless there was a SPECIFIC falling away (apostasy) first. He pointed out that the falling away was specific because Paul used a definite article before the expression "falling away".

Still doesn't answer my point. If he thought it was future generations, he would not have used the word remain. At best he must of expected a specific mass act of apostasy first before the end of the world. And its worse its Paul speculating to probably what he wondering himself. Why ain't this thing happen already. And he must have expected that to come soon. Wordplay doesn't ignore what the text says. You can't really remain even in spirit, if your dead. Just because he thought a apostasy would come, doesn't mean he didn't think that people would remain from there current generation to see it. Otherwise he wouldn't have used the phrasing he did in 1 thessalonians. If your understanding of Paul's intend is valid, Paul is giving a horid explanation that makes no sense and contradicts what he said previously.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if Paul realized that Jesus' second coming would have been so far in the future; I don't think he did because he said if they were alive. What he did know was there were to be specific signs that will show when it was near. Valk, most of the world is confused about what happens to people when they die. The bible says that death is a sleep. At the transfiguration God was giving a preview of what will happen at the end of the world. Moses died and Jesus resurrected him (he was to be an example for the rest of us) and Elijah was translated without physically dying . Those two people were shown in the transfiguration to show that at the end of the world the righteous dead will be resurrected and those who are alive/remainwill be translated. I explained in the original post why Jesus' coming will be soon; the next conscious thing that Paul and the other apostles will see is Jesus coming to take them to heaven. If you are in a deep sleep are you aware of hours passing by? Well that is how it will be for the dead, for them it will be soon.

[mwc]

What's the difference between *A*[n] apostasy and *THE* apostasy?

 

If I were a member of this early church how many of these should I expect? Just one? More than one? Hundreds over centuries?

 

mwc

[Guest Valk0010]

I was looking at a lecture on April 20th and I learned about the following:

 

Based on the following passage: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the people in the church in Thessaloniki thought that Jesus would have come during their lifetime. When Paul realized that they misunderstood his epistle, he sent them another epistle ( 2 Thessalonians) to clarify what he was saying. In 1 Thessalonians Paul was saying IF we are alive then we will be translated, he was NOT predicting that that generation was going to be alive.

 

The theologian started explaining what Paul was saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 . He explained that in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul let the people know that the second coming will not come unless there was a SPECIFIC falling away (apostasy) first. He pointed out that the falling away was specific because Paul used a definite article before the expression "falling away".

Still doesn't answer my point. If he thought it was future generations, he would not have used the word remain. At best he must of expected a specific mass act of apostasy first before the end of the world. And its worse its Paul speculating to probably what he wondering himself. Why ain't this thing happen already. And he must have expected that to come soon. Wordplay doesn't ignore what the text says. You can't really remain even in spirit, if your dead. Just because he thought a apostasy would come, doesn't mean he didn't think that people would remain from there current generation to see it. Otherwise he wouldn't have used the phrasing he did in 1 thessalonians. If your understanding of Paul's intend is valid, Paul is giving a horid explanation that makes no sense and contradicts what he said previously.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if Paul realized that Jesus' second coming would have been so far in the future; I don't think he did because he said if they were alive. What he did know was there were to be specific signs that will show when it was near. Valk, most of the world is confused about what happens to people when they die. The bible says that death is a sleep. At the transfiguration God was giving a preview of what will happen at the end of the world. Moses died and Jesus resurrected him (he was to be an example for the rest of us) and Elijah was translated without physically dying . Those two people were shown in the transfiguration to show that at the end of the world the righteous dead will be resurrected and those who are alive/remainwill be translated. I explained in the original post why Jesus' coming will be soon; the next conscious thing that Paul and the other apostles will see is Jesus coming to take them to heaven. If you are in a deep sleep are you aware of hours passing by? Well that is how it will be for the dead, for them it will be soon.

I give up, because not because your right. Your beyond reasoning with with, your mental gymnastics are extraordinary. But one last thing. I know how Christians view death, new before I even said that and you tried to correct me on. But when your in that sleep your not remaining, I don't believe either.

 

As Centauri correctly pointed out

 

You're trying to redefine the statement of Jesus to mean this:

 

"Some of you will not die until you see me Transfigured six days from now."

Regardless of how Elijah or Moses appeared. Your still doing that. The phrase that Jesus used makes no sense if refered to the transfiguration.

[Guest Valk0010]

What's the difference between *A*[n] apostasy and *THE* apostasy?

 

If I were a member of this early church how many of these should I expect? Just one? More than one? Hundreds over centuries?

 

mwc

And wasn't there alot of apostasy because of persecuation by the Romans?

[mwc]

And wasn't there alot of apostasy because of persecuation by the Romans?

We'd need to define "persecution" and a time frame. If we're talking about the time before the fall of the Temple, say before 70 CE, then I would say there is zero evidence that anything happened. If we assume all the letters are authentic so Paul wrote them as advertised there would be no Roman persecution of any xians during this time period. Any apostasy could not be attributed to the Romans.

 

But feel free to imagine a great Roman persecution during this time period. Who were they persecuting? We're told that xians were just a handful of people at most. So tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Thousands of people? Unlikely. Not this early in the movement. But go ahead and grant it. How many thousands? Four digits? The low fives? The more you have the more likely they are to be "discovered" historically and nothing exists in the first century at all. We have a fairly large, but invisible, population that is being actively, but silently, persecuted by the Romans. This is contradictory, and unmentioned by anyone (read Paul because, as said above, we accepted his time frame and authenticity), but we'll go ahead and accept it.

 

Strangely enough Paul is concerned more with other types of teaching, in-fighting, Judaizers, etc, as opposed to outside persecutors like Romans. These are the things that are tearing his little groups apart. If it were the Romans it would almost seem wise to offer a warning to avoid Romans just as he does these other things. We're to believe he's in jail, presumably from the Romans, but he never cites himself as example as Roman persecution. I think the Acts is the only biblical source for anything like this.

 

mwc

[Guest Valk0010]

And wasn't there alot of apostasy because of persecuation by the Romans?

We'd need to define "persecution" and a time frame. If we're talking about the time before the fall of the Temple, say before 70 CE, then I would say there is zero evidence that anything happened. If we assume all the letters are authentic so Paul wrote them as advertised there would be no Roman persecution of any xians during this time period. Any apostasy could not be attributed to the Romans.

 

But feel free to imagine a great Roman persecution during this time period. Who were they persecuting? We're told that xians were just a handful of people at most. So tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Thousands of people? Unlikely. Not this early in the movement. But go ahead and grant it. How many thousands? Four digits? The low fives? The more you have the more likely they are to be "discovered" historically and nothing exists in the first century at all. We have a fairly large, but invisible, population that is being actively, but silently, persecuted by the Romans. This is contradictory, and unmentioned by anyone (read Paul because, as said above, we accepted his time frame and authenticity), but we'll go ahead and accept it.

 

Strangely enough Paul is concerned more with other types of teaching, in-fighting, Judaizers, etc, as opposed to outside persecutors like Romans. These are the things that are tearing his little groups apart. If it were the Romans it would almost seem wise to offer a warning to avoid Romans just as he does these other things. We're to believe he's in jail, presumably from the Romans, but he never cites himself as example as Roman persecution. I think the Acts is the only biblical source for anything like this.

 

mwc

I have a feeling you misunderstood the intent of my question. I asked that because I wanted to doublecheck not to be snarky or anything else. I also didn't even mean to be arguementative.

[Overcame Faith]

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

 

 

Let's view your hypothetical in another way. You say bible god wants people to come to him if they love him and that what appear to be discrepancies are some sort of test of faithfulness. What are the consequences of "falling" for these "seeming discrepancies" and thus failing this god's test? I don't know your theology, but for many Christians the consequence is an eternity of torment in hell. So bible god would rather see more people go to hell than to provide the type of bible that was clear so the average person could read it and not be confronted with these "seeming discrepancies." To me, that is not a loving god. I would not tell my child something ambiguous when it comes to life and death issues. I would tell my child to stay out of the road and I would say it clearly and emphatically because I love her so much that I do not want to see her harmed. According to your view, however, bible god would rather not say things in a straightforward fashion to ensure that people's faith is up to the level he wants before they are taught the dangers of oncoming traffic. That's a selfish love.

 

 

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.

 

It's not the inconsistencies or outright contradictions in the Bible that I find so convincing when it comes to the ultimate issue of whether the christian religion is based on some sort of divine truth. Particularly with the gospels, it's looking into why there are these inconsistencies and contradictions that tell the full story of how the gospels were written. The inconsistencies and contradictions are merely the outward sign of a problem but the real problem comes through when when one digs deeper and understands that they demonstrate that a fictional/mythological story is developed in subsequent versions, which is what the four gospels are: four versions which are further developed with each successive writing. Its the way authors of fiction write. They begin with a first draft. Then they write another draft in which they make changes, further develop characters, scenes, and dialogue. They continue this process until they have a final version which often looks quite different from the first draft, though often keeping the main story line intact. And that is what the four gospels are.

[centauri]

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.

 

Thumbelina:

Not suprficial at all, Centauri. I wish you would stop isolating verses.

Your apologetic is extremely superficial Thumbelina.

I wish you would stop ignoring context while pretending that a failure isn't a failure.

 

You're trying to redefine the statement of Jesus to mean this:

 

"Some of you will not die until you see me Transfigured six days from now."

 

That's a pretty silly prediction and is not at all what he said in Matt 16:27-28.

 

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.

The elements presented in Matt 16:27-28 are the same elements described in Revelation and Matt 24:27-31 of Jesus coming in his kingdom.

There was no coming in a kingdom at the Transfiguration.

 

Peter said that they saw/witnessed the coming of Jesus:

 

2 Peter 1:16-18

 

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

 

You have to study the texts thematically and contextually and you need to compare scripture with scripture to understand it, Centauri.

Then why don't you try doing it?

You have to actually read the stipulations of the promise made in Matt 16:27-28 Thumbelina, rather than trying to cobble together excuses in an attempt to circumvent its elements.

 

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.

 

There was no coming of Jesus IN HIS KINGDOM at the Transfiguration.

There were no angels and no rewards.

Technically, 2 Peter 1:16 is not correct because Jesus didn't come from anywhere at the Transfiguration, he was already there.

 

The coming in his kingdom means he comes from outside earth, with fanfare and angels.

 

Matt 24:27.30-31

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

Rev 19:11,14,16

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

 

According to Matt 24:30, Jesus coming in his kingdom is an event that the whole world was supposed to see.

This was reiterated when Jesus claimed the high priest would see him coming in his kingdom.

 

Matt 26:63-64

But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

 

The Transfiguration had already happened when Jesus made this (failed) promise.

 

Furthermore, at the Transfiguration, Peter was in a state of fear(Matt 17:6) and confusion.

Luke 9:32-33 claims Peter didn't know what he was saying at the Transfiguration, and indicates that he had been "heavy with sleep" prior to seeing the vision(Matt 17:9) of Moses and Elijah.

There was no coming of Jesus in his kingdom at this event, nor does 2 Peter confirm it.

 

Compounding your problem is that Jesus claimed in Matt 17:12 that Elijah had already come, which was not true.

Elijah never showed up to usher in the messianic era, never anointed Jesus as king, and never reconciled families.

That's another failure on the part of Jesus, claiming the arrival of Elijah had already happened.

John the Baptist was not Elijah.

 

You can't be a little Jimminy cricket jumping all over the bible for if you do the scripture would appear to not complement each other.

Fortunately, I don't take orders from you, nor do you give me any compelling reason to do so.

Your superficial rationalizations and excuses are legion when it comes to the Bible.

[mwc]

I have a feeling you misunderstood the intent of my question. I asked that because I wanted to doublecheck not to be snarky or anything else. I also didn't even mean to be arguementative.

You may have misunderstood my intent. I wanted to be thorough so a shorter, and simpler, response couldn't be easily abused by anyone in the thread that might care to do such a thing.

 

mwc

[bornagainathiest]

I was looking at a lecture on April 20th and I learned about the following:

 

Based on the following passage: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the people in the church in Thessaloniki thought that Jesus would have come during their lifetime. When Paul realized that they misunderstood his epistle, he sent them another epistle ( 2 Thessalonians) to clarify what he was saying. In 1 Thessalonians Paul was saying IF we are alive then we will be translated, he was NOT predicting that that generation was going to be alive.

 

The theologian started explaining what Paul was saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 . He explained that in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul let the people know that the second coming will not come unless there was a SPECIFIC falling away (apostasy) first. He pointed out that the falling away was specific because Paul used a definite article before the expression "falling away".

 

Who is this theologian please, Thumbelina?

 

Could you please provide a link, so that we can see and hear what he says for ourselves?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thumbelina]

What's the difference between *A*[n] apostasy and *THE* apostasy?

 

If I were a member of this early church how many of these should I expect? Just one? More than one? Hundreds over centuries?

 

mwc

 

 

There were many apostacies creeping into Christianity even during Paul's time but one particular apostasy had major clout that was far reaching.

[Guest Valk0010]

What's the difference between *A*[n] apostasy and *THE* apostasy?

 

If I were a member of this early church how many of these should I expect? Just one? More than one? Hundreds over centuries?

 

mwc

 

 

There were many apostacies creeping into Christianity even during Paul's time but one particular apostasy had major clout that was far reaching.

I will trust MWC over you, so I will wait for his response to this.

 

But what if they saw it as one big one? All them together.

[Thumbelina]

What's the difference between *A*[n] apostasy and *THE* apostasy?

 

If I were a member of this early church how many of these should I expect? Just one? More than one? Hundreds over centuries?

 

mwc

 

 

There were many apostacies creeping into Christianity even during Paul's time but one particular apostasy had major clout that was far reaching.

I will trust MWC over you, so I will wait for his response to this.

 

But what if they saw it as one big one? All them together.

 

Hello Valk

 

I was supposed to write some more on this topic but did not get to it yet so I answered mwc's simple question with a simple answer in the meantime.

[mwc]

There were many apostacies creeping into Christianity even during Paul's time but one particular apostasy had major clout that was far reaching.

So I'm supposed to wade through something like ten different commentaries looking for your answer? Just hoping I guess correctly? That's not going to happen.

 

Now how do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

You've already conceded in your answer that there are "many apostasies" at this time. But they're not important. There was "one" that "had major clout." Which one is *THE* one he is speaking about, if any, and how is it to be recognized as *THE* one? It's important for the Thessalonians to know. The man of lawlessness is coming.

 

mwc

[Thumbelina]

There were many apostacies creeping into Christianity even during Paul's time but one particular apostasy had major clout that was far reaching.

So I'm supposed to wade through something like ten different commentaries looking for your answer? Just hoping I guess correctly? That's not going to happen.

 

 

No I did not expect you to do that but if you ever get that restless feeling where you can't rest until you figure out what the texts mean, then I say, go for it!

 

 

 

Now how do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

You've already conceded in your answer that there are "many apostasies" at this time. But they're not important. There was "one" that "had major clout." Which one is *THE* one he is speaking about, if any, and how is it to be recognized as *THE* one? It's important for the Thessalonians to know. The man of lawlessness is coming.

 

mwc

 

 

 

Patience man, I was getting to where I expounded my previous answer. I did not say the other apostasies were not important, they were just not the main one that made Daniel sick to his stomach.

Bible prophecy is not written the way secular people would want predictions e.g. Asking someone what color dress Auntie May was wearing on October 10th 1952. This is how the biblical God uses bible prophecy to encourage believers and potential believers: John14:29 "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe."

So we're looking at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. It starts off with Paul indicating that people were being told that Jesus was coming in their lifetime and Paul was telling them to not be distressed. He let them know that even if they get a prophetic dream or vision (the bible says the devils can cause people to have these) or someone told them that Jesus was coming or if they sent a supposed letter from him; they are NOT to believe it for Jesus will not come UNTIL the man of sin/son of perdition/Antichrist is revealed.

 

Antichrist was already trying to manifest itself in Paul's day. (see Acts 20:29-31; John 1-3). In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 it states that Antichrist will be an apostate, the Greek word for falling away is apostasia. It also states that Antichrist will be a man of sin and a son of perdition. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), therefore the man of sin will be teaching people to transgress God's law (Daniel 7:25).

 

Q.What is meant by the son of perdition?

 

A. The same expression is used in John 17:12. Perdition means destruction or annihilation. Judas was the son of perdition. He was a subtle impostor who was undermining Christ's ministry while professing to serve Him. Therefore the Antichrist power/man of sin will be like Judas, covetous, conniving, politically ambitious, an insider and a turncoat (see John 6:70-71; John 13:2; John 13:27) .

Antichrist does not always mean against, it can also mean in place of.

 

Dave Hunt in his book Global Peace on pages 7,8 wrote: "While the Greek prefix anti generally means against or opposed to, it can also mean in place of or a substitute for. The Antichrist will embody both meanings. He will oppose Christ while pretending to be Christ. Instead of a frontal assault against Christianity, the evil one would pervert the church from within by posing as its founder. He will cunningly misrepresent Christ while pretending to be Christ. If the Antichrist will indeed pretend to be Christ then his followers must be Christian."

 

What Dave Hunt wrote about was fulfilled during the middle ages.

Antichrist was just like Judas. Judas was slick! He even had the other disciples fooled and even after Jesus told them who the traitor was they still did not get it (see Matthew 26:25; John 13:26-29). Judas had them fooled till the end.

 

 

2 Thessalonians was expounding 1 Thessalonians because the people misunderstood what Paul was teaching them (see 2 Thessalonians 2:5). Paul had to use ambiguous language because he knew about the prophetic timeline in Daniel and if he had said that Rome would be taken out of the way he would have been charged with sedition and he would have caused unnecessary persecution on Christians. He knew that after Rome there would be divided Rome. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6 Paul was telling them that Rome was restraining Antichrist from manifesting itself but it will be revealed in its own TIME. Daniel 7:23-24; Revelation 13:2 shows the sequence in which the powers were to rule. If one power is ruling then another power cannot take its place; one had to be taken out of the way.

[Thumbelina]

@ Overcame Faith, when the bible speaks in parables it is usually to protect the message and its proponents from opposing forces. However when people sincerely want to know they will diligently seek after knowledge. Nicodemus did and he was enlightened.