The Lord's delayed return

[walterpthefirst]

Fish, 

 

Please don't forget that you have unfinished business in your original thread.

 

I asked you a question and you have yet to provide an answer to it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Oh and btw, Fish...

 

If you introduce science into a thread, as you did here when you mentioned the NOVA program about the Big Bang, then it really helps if you get your facts right.

 

Four times so far in this thread you have stated that the universe is 14.5 billion years old.

 

And four times you have been wrong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

 

The Lambda - CDM model is the accepted scientific description of the evolution of the universe.

 

According to the L-CDM the age of the universe is 13.799 billion years.

 

Not 14.5 billion years.

 

If you are going to cite the science, then get it right.

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

According to the L-CDM the age of the universe is 13.799 billion years.

 

Not 14.5 billion years.

jesus told fish it was 14.5 billion years; but, really what are the odds that the number jesus told him would be so close to the actual number?  That's gotta mean something in the mind of a believer.

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, Fish153 said:

The point I was making is TIME itself. What is 2000 years to GOD? Who KNOWS how the Universe came into existence? A big bang or some other way, it doesn't matter.

 

 

If a day to God is 1000 (edited) years then his communication skills are poor. Or, more likely, religious nuts in the 21st century are trying to square the insane writing of the bible with reality. 

[Fish153]

midnite---

I mean this very seriously. I have ALWAYS(from the first time I read it) read "Behold I come quickly"(I am returning very soon!) as spoken by God according to HIS perception of time.

 

I have ALWAYS thought people were foolish to think "I am returning soon" is to be understood of TIME in human terms,

according to our definition of "soon". 

 

I have always rejected doctrine that teaches almost all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A D  based on the insistence that "soon" means "soon" in OUR perception of time.

 

It has always been fully understood by myself and many others that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day". Note the word "as". It is not saying that a thousand years are always a day to the Lord-- they are "as" a day. Meaning TIME means nothing to God. 20,000 years can be a "quick" amount of time for God.

 

We are extremely foolish to confine God to OUR PERCEPTION, or UNDERSTANDING of TIME. In ASTRONOMICAL terms Andromeda is CLOSE to the MILKY WAY. CLOSE? Yes-- close in astronomical terms. It is the closest Galaxy to us.

 

In Normal Human understanding of distance, Andromeda is VERY FAR AWAY. But in Astronomical terms Andromeda is CLOSE. In fact 100 light years is considered to be extremely close-- even though a light year measures how far light travels in one year (a very great distance).

 

When Jesus says He is returning SOON we need to view time through His eyes, and realize he has been gone only a SHORT amount of time in God's perception. He has been in Heaven for 2 days (appx 2000 years per 2 Peter). Isn't it quite appropriate He return on the 3rd day?  He rose from the dead on the third day as a man-- perhaps He will return early in the morning of the third day (a little over 2000 years). That would be something. Need to wait and see.

 

**Please don't splinter off into some discussion about whether the Bible teaches three actual days in the grave etc, or inconsistencies in Ressurection stories--- that is not the theme of this post. Iam talking about PERCEPTION OF TIME.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

midnite---

I mean this very seriously. I have ALWAYS(from the first time I read it) read "Behold I come quickly"(I am returning very soon!) as spoken by God according to HIS perception of time.

 

I have ALWAYS thought people were foolish to think "I am returning soon" is to be understood of TIME in human terms,

according to our definition of "soon". 

 

The idea is that they believed that the world would be ending soon. Some standing there (contemporaries) would 'not taste death till the son of man comes with a host of angels.'

 

A demonstrably false belief. Obviously it never happened. The idea of the second coming way down the road was nothing more than kicking the can after the initial claims never panned out. 

 

Then it was, 'a day is like a thousand years to god!' and the related apologetics that follow from the Peter response to flaccid prophetic results in the earlier writings. 

 

But the Egyptian religion of resurrection ran for around 2,000 years before running itself out. Around that general time following the decline of the next-door neighbor religion of resurrection, christianity, another version of a religion of resurrection, emerged afterward.

 

It's now run for around 2,000 years itself and as of the current century started losing a lot of steam. After long since having peaked in terms of power and control. And it's in a steady decline as well. Possibly to be replaced with something else in the wake of its own collapse. 

 

 

[Astreja]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

In ASTRONOMICAL terms Andromeda is CLOSE to the MILKY WAY. CLOSE? Yes-- close in astronomical terms. It is the closest Galaxy to us.

 

Not quite.  The Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy is the closest.   The Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are also comparatively close in galactic terms.  The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest large spiral galaxy.

[Fish153]

Astreja--

Thank you. Yes Andromeda is the closest spiral galaxy to us. There are smaller galaxies closer. But you get the idea-- even though CLOSE in astronomical terms, they are actually very far away. So too 2000 years  when considered versus the age of the Universe is a very short amount of time.

To US it appears to be a very LONG time, but in actuality it is a very short time when considering the age of the Universe.

 

This was what I was "trying" to convey.

[Fish153]

Joshpantera--

 

That verse is greatly misinterpreted. "Some standing here will not taste of death until they SEE the Son of Man coming with great power" (Matt 16--end of chapter)

 

Now, what happens at the beginning of MATTHEW 17? Jesus takes Peter, James and John and goes up high into a mountain. He is "transfigured" before them and shines like the Sun.

 

Years later Peter states in 2 Peter: "we did not share with you cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the POWER AND COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY". He then shares his experience on the HOLY MOUNT.

 

Jesus said "SOME of you standing here (NOT ALL OF YOU) will not taste of death until you HAVE SEEN the Son of Man coming in great power and glory".

 

Peter, James and John did SEE Jesus coming in great power and glory at the Transfiguration. He shined like the SUN.

 

That verse about "some standing here..." has been greatly misinterpreted and used to discredit Jesus. When in fact the very thing he predicts HAPPENS at the start of the very next chapter.

 

It is greatly dishonest, and very faulty teaching. It's a shame some people accept it.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Fish153 said:

midnite---

I mean this very seriously. I have ALWAYS(from the first time I read it) read "Behold I come quickly"(I am returning very soon!) as spoken by God according to HIS perception of time.

 

I have ALWAYS thought people were foolish to think "I am returning soon" is to be understood of TIME in human terms,

according to our definition of "soon". 

 

I have always rejected doctrine that teaches almost all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A D  based on the insistence that "soon" means "soon" in OUR perception of time.

 

It has always been fully understood by myself and many others that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day". Note the word "as". It is not saying that a thousand years are always a day to the Lord-- they are "as" a day. Meaning TIME means nothing to God. 20,000 years can be a "quick" amount of time for God.

 

We are extremely foolish to confine God to OUR PERCEPTION, or UNDERSTANDING of TIME. In ASTRONOMICAL terms Andromeda is CLOSE to the MILKY WAY. CLOSE? Yes-- close in astronomical terms. It is the closest Galaxy to us.

 

In Normal Human understanding of distance, Andromeda is VERY FAR AWAY. But in Astronomical terms Andromeda is CLOSE. In fact 100 light years is considered to be extremely close-- even though a light year measures how far light travels in one year (a very great distance).

 

When Jesus says He is returning SOON we need to view time through His eyes, and realize he has been gone only a SHORT amount of time in God's perception. He has been in Heaven for 2 days (appx 2000 years per 2 Peter). Isn't it quite appropriate He return on the 3rd day?  He rose from the dead on the third day as a man-- perhaps He will return early in the morning of the third day (a little over 2000 years). That would be something. Need to wait and see.

 

**Please don't splinter off into some discussion about whether the Bible teaches three actual days in the grave etc, or inconsistencies in Ressurection stories--- that is not the theme of this post. Iam talking about PERCEPTION OF TIME.

 

 

 

 

If you are talking about God's perception of time Fish, then you can only describe it using your human understanding.

 

That's because, as you've already admitted, what you believe is all inside your head.

 

How God actually perceives time is unknown to you.

 

And if you were to cite scripture, then that would be your limited human understanding of his perception too.

 

This is what you get when you agree that everything happens inside your head.

 

You limit what you can claim to know and understand to your faulty and limited human understanding.

 

 

And if you claim to have the holy spirit guiding you into all truth?

 

Well, that's all inside your head too.

 

 

Unless you can present objective evidence that says otherwise.

 

Good luck with finding some!

 

 

 

[TABA]

21 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Peter says that God is not really delaying His return in the way some think, but that he is being extremely gracious, not wanting anyone to perish, but to come to repentance.

Fish153, 2 Peter - probably not actually written by the apostle Peter - seems to be an attempt to deal with the evident delay of the parouisia - the Second Coming, which earlier NT writings had assumed was imminent.  The hedging in that regard is clear.  They’re adapting to the unexpected delay in the lord’s return.  
 

22 hours ago, Fish153 said:

On the contrary, the 2000 years have allowed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS to be saved. I would not exist, and neither would you, if Jesus had not waited.

Even more millions have been born and died without being ‘saved’.   This is not consistent with ‘not wanting anyone to perish’.  This god is either not in control, or he’s evil, one or the other.  Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn’t exist.  

[alreadyGone]

15 hours ago, Fish153 said:

midnite---

I mean this very seriously. I have ALWAYS(from the first time I read it) read "Behold I come quickly"(I am returning very soon!) as spoken by God according to HIS perception of time.

 

...

 

Obvious apologetic nonsense.

If God is all-knowing, and he intended the Bible to convey knowledge and understanding of his truth to mankind, then it would make no sense whatever for him to speak in terms other than what is understood by man.

 

To assert otherwise is just silly.

[midniterider]

If I got till day 3, aka another thousand years to bend my knee then I will just relax a while. There's no hurry. 

[midniterider]

11 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Joshpantera--

 

That verse is greatly misinterpreted. "Some standing here will not taste of death until they SEE the Son of Man coming with great power" (Matt 16--end of chapter)

 

Now, what happens at the beginning of MATTHEW 17? Jesus takes Peter, James and John and goes up high into a mountain. He is "transfigured" before them and shines like the Sun.

 

Years later Peter states in 2 Peter: "we did not share with you cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the POWER AND COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY". He then shares his experience on the HOLY MOUNT.

 

Jesus said "SOME of you standing here (NOT ALL OF YOU) will not taste of death until you HAVE SEEN the Son of Man coming in great power and glory".

 

Peter, James and John did SEE Jesus coming in great power and glory at the Transfiguration. He shined like the SUN.

 

That verse about "some standing here..." has been greatly misinterpreted and used to discredit Jesus. When in fact the very thing he predicts HAPPENS at the start of the very next chapter.

 

It is greatly dishonest, and very faulty teaching. It's a shame some people accept it.

 

Why is your interpretation the right one? Why are other peoples' interpretation the wrong one?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.  ~Albert Einstein 

[midniterider]

15 hours ago, Fish153 said:

midnite---

I mean this very seriously. I have ALWAYS(from the first time I read it) read "Behold I come quickly"(I am returning very soon!) as spoken by God according to HIS perception of time.

 

I have ALWAYS thought people were foolish to think "I am returning soon" is to be understood of TIME in human terms,

according to our definition of "soon". 

 

I have always rejected doctrine that teaches almost all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A D  based on the insistence that "soon" means "soon" in OUR perception of time.

 

It has always been fully understood by myself and many others that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day". Note the word "as". It is not saying that a thousand years are always a day to the Lord-- they are "as" a day. Meaning TIME means nothing to God. 20,000 years can be a "quick" amount of time for God.

 

We are extremely foolish to confine God to OUR PERCEPTION, or UNDERSTANDING of TIME. In ASTRONOMICAL terms Andromeda is CLOSE to the MILKY WAY. CLOSE? Yes-- close in astronomical terms. It is the closest Galaxy to us.

 

In Normal Human understanding of distance, Andromeda is VERY FAR AWAY. But in Astronomical terms Andromeda is CLOSE. In fact 100 light years is considered to be extremely close-- even though a light year measures how far light travels in one year (a very great distance).

 

When Jesus says He is returning SOON we need to view time through His eyes, and realize he has been gone only a SHORT amount of time in God's perception. He has been in Heaven for 2 days (appx 2000 years per 2 Peter). Isn't it quite appropriate He return on the 3rd day?  He rose from the dead on the third day as a man-- perhaps He will return early in the morning of the third day (a little over 2000 years). That would be something. Need to wait and see.

 

**Please don't splinter off into some discussion about whether the Bible teaches three actual days in the grave etc, or inconsistencies in Ressurection stories--- that is not the theme of this post. Iam talking about PERCEPTION OF TIME.

 

 

 

 

You can make up whatever nonsense you like. Just because you whip up some bullshit (like God measures time differently) doesn't mean I am going to believe it. 

 

Nobody knows the day or hour...

[Fish153]

Walter--

I've answered all your questions to the best of my ability. What do you mean "unfinished business"?  Have you started wrapping those candies in cellophane yet? They make wonderful Christmas gifts.

[Fish153]

midnite--

I don't expect you to believe it. But even WE as humans have different ways to measure or describe time  Geological time, astronomical time, etc. "SOON" in Geological time could be a thousand years.

 

I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't define "soon" based on our daily understanding of it. Geez-- "soon" even means a far different thing to a child than it does to an adult. We can't force God to submit to OUR definitions.

[midniterider]

If God's idea of time is different than us maybe other scripture like John 3:16 means other than what it says. 

 

Maybe the Lake of Fire is really just a tropical place like Hawaii. That's my interpretation. 

[Fish153]

Redneck--

Thanks for that. Albert Einstein was a great guy.  Hey, I know you don't believe and all that, but MERRY CHRISTMAS to you!! I hope Santa brought you something really good this year!!

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Joshpantera--

 

That verse is greatly misinterpreted. "Some standing here will not taste of death until they SEE the Son of Man coming with great power" (Matt 16--end of chapter)

 

Now, what happens at the beginning of MATTHEW 17? Jesus takes Peter, James and John and goes up high into a mountain. He is "transfigured" before them and shines like the Sun.

 

Years later Peter states in 2 Peter: "we did not share with you cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the POWER AND COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY". He then shares his experience on the HOLY MOUNT.

 

Jesus said "SOME of you standing here (NOT ALL OF YOU) will not taste of death until you HAVE SEEN the Son of Man coming in great power and glory".

 

There's some 40,000 denominations of christianity specifically because that many people disagree on biblical interpretation. Let's be real about this and set the preaching stuff aside. Try and think objectively.

 

I was SDA. You're of the devil with your interpretations if you're not interpreting their way. You in turn think that others are wrong and possibly satan if they're not interpreting your way. It's entirely possible that all of you, ever last one of you, are equally wrong. And none are right. All miss a considerable amount of content and context with all of your so-called "correct interpretation." 

 

 

 ²⁷ For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. ²⁸ Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

 

This is a description of the second coming, with angels, with his "Kingdom" and the final judgment scenario - which is described in greater detail later in Revelation.

 

This has nothing to do with the transfiguration. In fact, your argument is nothing more than a not so well thought out form of apologetic's which has become somewhat popular. But it's demonstrably false. 

 

 

⁹ Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”

 

This is very easily debunked, in fact. Just reading the context of the writings debunks the claim. The transfiguration has nothing to do with the claim at the end of the 16th chapter. The transfiguration outlines a separate issue. The law (moses) and the prophets (Elijah) yielding to jesus as greater than them both. This is literary. The writer is trying to assert that his jesus myth surpasses the traditional belief of judaism hinging around the law and the prophets, by fulfilling them or whatever. Point is, the beginning of chapter 17 demonstrably does not fulfill the projection about the 2nd coming, angels, and kingdom of heaven coming down to earth where all will be judged accordingly. 

 

An apologist came through here recently trying to argue the same position you're attempting to argue in the above. And I engaged the argument. He was unable to get himself out of my counter apologetics. 

 

What about you? 

 

Santa brought you this to try and think about for a while....

 

 

[alreadyGone]

@Fish153,

@Fish153,

@Fish153,

 

(because I strongly suspect you are ignoring my posts)..

 

I am curious.... do you perhaps believe that it's only here on ex-christian.net that we (most, if not all of us) encounter and have encountered people with the same apologetic stance(s) as your own?

 

Do you believe that the apologetic positions you have taken in this discussion and the discussion you began are uniquely your own?

 

In almost every aspect of the persona you have shared here, you remind me very strongly of someone I knew for years.

 

[Fish153]

Joshpantera--

 

I really don't care what denomination you came from. I laid it out for you: at the end of Matthew 16 Jesus says "SOME standing here will not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in power and glory" The chapter then ends.

 

Chapter 17 begins and Jesus takes Peter, John and James up into a mountain and is transfigured before them. He shines like the Sun.

 

In 2 Peter, Peter explains that he SAW THE SON OF MAN COMING IN GREAT POWER AND GLORY when he was on the Holy Mount. He TELLS US this. 3 people ("some of you...") saw this Transfiguration.

 

It is therefore quite OBVIOUS  that Jesus was referring to His future Transfiguration (6 days later) rather than his literal return at the end of time.

 

PRETERISTS love to use that verse to say that Jesus HAD TO return before the people "standing there" died, but that is simply NOT THE CASE. Any honest student of the Bible KNOWS that is an incorrect assumption, and that is why PRETERISTS comprise a VERY SMALL group of people amongst believers.  They ignore the word "some". They ignore the Transfiguration in the very next chapter. And they ignore the testimony of Peter, which clearly teaches us HE SAW JESUS COMING IN POWER AND GLORY  when he was on the Mount.

 

They are CLEARLY WRONG, and I am not afraid to say it when it comes to those verses. They are "manipulating" Scripture to make it fit their stance, rather than recognizing that Scripture clearly shows us what Jesus meant. Anyone who investigates this HONESTLY will see that.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

I've answered all your questions to the best of my ability. What do you mean "unfinished business"?  Have you started wrapping those candies in cellophane yet? They make wonderful Christmas gifts.

 

Please keep up, Fish.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/85864-israel-proves-the-existence-of-god/page/19/#comments

 

Posted 12 hours ago

  13 hours ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

It depends. Do you walk around in a uniform dressed like Napoleon and fake a French accent?? Then I would say what's in your head is false.

 

That's fair enough.

 

But since you've admitted that your beliefs are all within your head, what chance do you have of persuading others about your beliefs with what's in there?

 

Surely you would have to use something from outside of your head to do that?

 

Like objective evidence.

 

Have you got any?

 

Hint:  Try reading this to understand what objective evidence is.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 12/25/2021 at 2:41 PM, Fish153 said:

Joshpantera--

 

I really don't care what denomination you came from. I laid it out for you: at the end of Matthew 16 Jesus says "SOME standing here will not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in power and glory" The chapter then ends.

 

Chapter 17 begins and Jesus takes Peter, John and James up into a mountain and is transfigured before them. He shines like the Sun.

 

In 2 Peter, Peter explains that he SAW THE SON OF MAN COMING IN GREAT POWER AND GLORY when he was on the Holy Mount. He TELLS US this. 3 people ("some of you...") saw this Transfiguration.

 

You're still leaving out the context. It doesn't say just power and glory. It qualifies it and I quoted the entire qualification. You're completely wrong, demonstrably wrong. 

 

On 12/25/2021 at 1:39 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

 ²⁷ For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. ²⁸ Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

 

Coming in the glory of the Father, with his angles, and He will reward each according to his works. Some standing here will not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. What kingdom? It's qualified. The kingdom of heaven or basically the New Jerusalem scenario later described in Revelation. Final judgement, new Jerusalem. 

 

This literally has zero to do with the transfiguration in chapter 17. Nothing about god the Father, a host of heavenly angels, nor a final judgment that rewards each according to their works. Zero. Nada. It absolutely does not fulfill the end of chapter 16 at all. 

 

Look at the writing. "His," angels. "His" glory. "His" kingdom. "He" rewards each according to their works. This is about god the Father all the way through. Where is god the Father's kingdom, angels, and final judgement for that matter in the beginning of chapter 17????

 

Show me. 

 

It's just jesus and a few disciples in a 'literary' event that addresses something else entirely. And it's about 'before' the death and resurrection in context. Not about after the resurrection, after the ascension, and on to the second coming which is later in order. And at which point god the "Father," or "He" and "His" enter the story line. 

 

Transfiguration > Cruci-fiction > Resurrection > Ascension > 2nd coming (Glory of the Father, host of angels, final judgement and rewards, New Jerusalem. 

 

The transfiguration does not fulfill the description given at the end of chapter 16. 

 

The apologetics that go into this claim are horribly, and transparently incorrect even by standard of the bible itself, let alone secular standards of inquiry. 

 

So the argument of trying to bring in 2 Peter holds no value. First of all, it's a known forgery. 

 

And it's not claiming that the transfiguration was the 'fulfillment' of chapter 16. It's just making note that Peter was witness to the transfiguration, and goes on to state that the 2nd coming is out ahead. Later claiming that a day is like a thousand years to god. Putting the 'fulfillment' of chapter 16 out to the future. Assumably pushing it out to thousands of years. 

 

 

¹⁶ For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”^[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.