Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Lord's delayed return


DarkBishop

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator
On 12/24/2021 at 12:08 AM, Fish153 said:

This is a very foolish post (I am speaking of DarkBishop's leading post). I say this because we all know the Universe is about 14.5 billion years old. We all know dinosaurs are millions of years old.

 

God CREATED time. I was watching NOVA and they describe the BIG BANG. I believe what the scientists teach. The Universe exploded from a pea sized (or even smaller) area of infinite mass, and expanded, and is still expanding into billions and billions of miles of space. Time began at that moment, and so did Space.

 

Think of that-- Atheist scientists are willing to believe that the Universe expanded from an area as big as a grain of sand or so (again, I accept it as truth) yet cannot believe there is a Being who put it into action. They are willing to believe an utterly fantastic hypothesis, but cannot believe in God. But as I said I believe that hypothesis to be true.

 

The foolishness in this lead post is that 2000 years is like two days to God. Peter even says "a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day". 14.5 billion years ago God began to create the Universe, and we are WHINING because He hasn't returned for 2000 years? Give me a break.

 

2000 years is like a snap of the finger to God. To US it is a Long time, but to God it is NOTHING. Jesus will return. Just as surely as He came the First time He will come the Second time. The birth of Israel is the beginning of this return.

 

The first appearing of Jesus covered a span of 33 years. His second coming could span many years also-- maybe even 99 years (3 times the length of his first appearance) Who knows? Know one knows the day or hour.

 

Peter said there would be scoffers in the last days. The last days have spanned 2000 years, so there have ALWAYS been mockers. But mmockery. Mockers exist now as 2000 years have passed. But to Jesus only two days have passed-- he's barely been in Heaven for 2 days--and He is going to come back now.

 

The post is foolish because it is viewing time through OUR eyes, not God's eyes. "Behold, I am coming soon" says Jesus. 2000 years is SOON to a God who has seen our Universe grow for 14 billion years.

2000 years is NOTHING to Him.

 

2 Peter is a known forgery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Fish153 said:

I should have known you would center on the hypothesis rather than the main point I am making. If you don't believe the "big bang" hypothesis fine. If you think the Universe came into existence through a different "process" fine. No problem.

 

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.

 

The point is-- if God exists-- and I definitely believe he does--2000 years is a "drop in the bucket".

 

Please don't continue with posts disputing the "hypothesis" about The BIG BANG because that was not the point of my post at all.

 

My point was that you are making much ado about it having been 2000 years and Christ has not returned. As I stated, 2000 years is like "2 days" to Him, or like the snap of a finger. From God's perspective 2000 years is "quick"--so when Jesus says "Behold I am coming soon" he could mean 2000 years or 5000 years. That is "quick" from God's perspective.  Jesus is returning very soon.

 

Geez-- it is SO hard to make a point on this board. Instead of centering on the topic of TIME you center one "part" of the post and want to start arguments about the big bang "hypothesis" and what a "hypothesis" is. That is not the POINT of my post at all. My post concerns TIME from God's perspective versus ours. Please stay on topic.

Unfortunately I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to responding right now. Been a super busy weekend. But the point of the OP isn't God's time line. The point is our timeline. According to Christian theology Jesus has been prophesied since the days of Moses. Most Christians attribute Genesis, exodus, deuteronomy, leviticus, and numbers to Moses. That is a false attribution. But thats beside the point. 

 

So from the days of the Moses narrative to Jesus' birth was roughly between 1500 - 1250 human years. Since Jesus' death and supposed resurrection it has been almost 2000 years. 

 

In the red letters Jesus told them:

Matt 16:28

 

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

 

to bring it more into context let me back up and post a few more verses. 

 

"

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For 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.

28Verily 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."

 

This is obviously talking about his second coming. And I personally consider this possibly his first failed promise. Other than the many people who probably tried to be healed, that never were healed, which weren't written into the story. 

 

He made a promise back then that there were people within the sound of his voice. Presumably all the apostles, maybe a few more. That wouldn't die until he came back. 

 

obviously all those people are now dead, if this story even happened. And even to this day Jesus hasn't returned. 

 

If you will look into some more scholarly studies on the subject or even read the epistles you'll see that this was one of the first points of contention within the church that had to be addressed toward the end of the apostles lives. The apostle Paul in his earlier epistles reflects the ideology that christ would be coming back soon. In his later epistles he begins to change his stance. The early believers truly believed that they would see Jesus come within their lifetimes. 

 

That can has been kicked down the road for almost 2000 years now. Every preacher I've ever sat under and myself when I was a preacher, thought that Jesus could come any time. 

 

In Revelations even when it described the coming of the Son of man and the antichrist, the author was talking about Nero. The number 666 spelled his name. Nero greatly persecuted the Christians and they believed Jesus was going to come back in their lifetime and judge Nero for his many sins against God's people. 

 

Nero was the beast that was written about in Revelations. 

 

"If the Latin (rather than the Greek) spelling "Nero Caesar" is transliterated into Hebrew (nrw qsr), the final "n" in Neron being omitted (and its corresponding value of 50), the name computes as 616, which is the number indicated in the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament (the fragment illustrated below). If "Neron Caesar" is correct, it may be that the Latin was transcribed incorrectly, perhaps because the copyist realized that this transliteration did not equate to 666 and so omitted the letter, which changed the sum to 616. Still, each digit of 666 is one less than seven, the perfect number (just as there were seven planets, seven heavens, and seven days in the week), and such mathematical play may have tended to establish 666, rather than 616.

Regardless of the number, Nero is the only name that can account for both 666 and 616, which is the most compelling argument that he, and not some other person, such as Caligula or Domitian, was intended. Too, for the number to have any significance for a reader of the first century AD, it would have to refer to a contemporary historical figure "for it is the number of a man." That other personages can be considered is a quirk of letter numeration. While it is a simple matter to determine the value of a word or phrase by adding the numerical equivalent of its letters, it is impossible to reverse the process with any certainty. The number alone is not sufficient to determine the corresponding word; rather, there needs to be additional information."

 

Here is the URL if you would like to read the whole thing. 

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

 

As for your take on God's time line. That is the exact apologetic I used to justify the age of the Earth. Which I'm sure is what you use for the same as well. Later I'll post on your other thread why that isn't possible in that circumstance. But I have no time now I'm about to hit the road again. 

 

As far as this post. Jesus made a promise. Those people all died without seeing Jesus return. And Christians have been making excuses for his delayed return ever since. 

 

Including you fish. And me aswell before my deconversion. 

 

Ya see its not just one thing that made me deconvert. It was a conglomeration of various biblical issues that all lead me to the conclusion that I have come to. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
9 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Unfortunately I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to responding right now. Been a super busy weekend. But the point of the OP isn't God's time line. The point is our timeline. According to Christian theology Jesus has been prophesied since the days of Moses. Most Christians attribute Genesis, exodus, deuteronomy, judges, and numbers to Moses. That is a false attribution. But thats beside the point. 

 

So from the days of the Moses narrative to Jesus' birth was roughly between 1500 - 1250 human years. Since Jesus' death and supposed resurrection it has been almost 2000 years. 

 

In the red letters Jesus told them:

Matt 16:28

 

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

 

to bring it more into context let me back up and post a few more verses. 

 

"

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For 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.

28Verily 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."

 

This is obviously talking about his second coming. And I personally consider this possibly his first failed promise. Other than the many people who probably tried to be healed, that never were healed, which weren't written into the story. 

 

He made a promise back then that there were people within the sound of his voice. Presumably all the apostles, maybe a few more. That wouldn't die until he came back. 

 

obviously all those people are now dead, if this story even happened. And even to this day Jesus hasn't returned. 

 

If you will look into some more scholarly studies on the subject you'll I even read the epistles you'll see that this was one of the first points of contention within the church that had to be addressed toward the end of the apostles lives. The apostle Paul in his earlier epistles reflects the ideology that christ would be coming back soon. In his later epistles he begins to change his stance. The early believers truly believed that they would see Jesus come within their lifetimes. 

 

That can has been kicked down the road for almost 2000 years now. Every preacher I've ever sat under and myself when I was a preacher thought that Jesus could come any time. 

 

In Revelations even when it described the coming of the Son of man and the antichrist, the author was talking about Nero. The number 666 spelled his name. Nero greatly persecuted the Christians and they believed Jesus was going to come back in their lifetime and judge Nero for his many sins against God's people. 

 

Nero was the beast that was written about in Revelations. 

 

"If the Latin (rather than the Greek) spelling "Nero Caesar" is transliterated into Hebrew (nrw qsr), the final "n" in Neron being omitted (and its corresponding value of 50), the name computes as 616, which is the number indicated in the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament (the fragment illustrated below). If "Neron Caesar" is correct, it may be that the Latin was transcribed incorrectly, perhaps because the copyist realized that this transliteration did not equate to 666 and so omitted the letter, which changed the sum to 616. Still, each digit of 666 is one less than seven, the perfect number (just as there were seven planets, seven heavens, and seven days in the week), and such mathematical play may have tended to establish 666, rather than 616.

Regardless of the number, Nero is the only name that can account for both 666 and 616, which is the most compelling argument that he, and not some other person, such as Caligula or Domitian, was intended. Too, for the number to have any significance for a reader of the first century AD, it would have to refer to a contemporary historical figure "for it is the number of a man." That other personages can be considered is a quirk of letter numeration. While it is a simple matter to determine the value of a word or phrase by adding the numerical equivalent of its letters, it is impossible to reverse the process with any certainty. The number alone is not sufficient to determine the corresponding word; rather, there needs to be additional information."

 

Here I the URL if you would like to read the whole thing. 

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

 

As for as your take on God's time line. That us the exact apologetic I used to justify the age of the Earth. Which I'm sure is what you use for the same as well. Later I'll post on your other thread why that isn't possible in that circumstance. But u have no time now I'm about to hit the road again. 

 

As far as this post. Jesus made a promise. Those people all died without seeing Jesus return. And Christians have been making excuses for his delayed return ever since. 

 

Including you fish. And me aswell before my deconversion. 

 

Ya see its not just one thing that made me deconvert. It was a conglomeration of various biblical issues that all lead me to the conclusion that I have come to. 

 

Delay of the Parousia was a reason for me leaving Christianity as well. There is a common theme in the NT about it being the last hour, already many anti-christs have come, etc. For a bunch of people who supposedly had the Holy Spirit talking to them, they got that dead wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@Fish153

 

Spectacular attempt at trying to apologize the OP away, but all for naught! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

already many anti-christs have come,

Several have come during my lifetime as well.  I can even remember when the Proctor and Gamble symbol was the mark of the beast.

 

 

519b8d836bb3f76f63000005.jpeg

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Hierophant--

"2 Peter is a known forgery". Give me a break dude. Says who? Is this an accepted FACT? NO--- OF COURSE NOT.

 

Why is it that deconverts can make (are allowed to) statements like this without anyone questioning them?

 

Many SCHOLARS would immediately refute that statement. Why must I be taken to task to BACK every statement I make with facts, but you guys can state things according to your own whims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hierophant---

You left the faith because Jesus hasn't come back yet? He hasn't returned according to YOUR ACCEPTED PARAMETERS? God must meet your "time frame" or it's all bunk? Geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkBishop--

You again begin your post with a verse that is speaking of THE TRANSFIGURATION. This point is argued by NUMEROUS Teachers of the Scriptures. The "some standing here..." are Peter, James and John. Peter PROVES this to us. He says he was an EYEWITNESS to the "POWER AND COMING" of Jesus when he saw Him transfigured on the Holy Mount.

 

Stating 2 Peter is a "forgery" (per Hierophant) is a nice attempt to get "rid" of this "proof" from Peter, but it doesn't work.

 

You start your whole post with a premise which is unfounded, and largely dismissed by most Theologians. Only "preterists" among Christians accept it.  So I find your whole post to be based on supposition from those attempting to discredit the fact that Jesus NEVER said he would be back within a generation. HE NEVER SAID THAT.

 

In fact He stated that the Gospel must be preached to all Nations FIRST, then the end would come. Your post as I said before is very foolish, and not well thought out at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
21 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

 

"2 Peter is a known forgery". Give me a break dude. Says who? Is this an accepted FACT? NO--- OF COURSE NOT.

 

Why is it that deconverts can make (are allowed to) statements like this without anyone questioning them?


According to Wikipedia…


Most critical biblical scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by someone other than Peter, using Peter as a pseudonym), but doubts about the epistle's attribution to Peter had already been expressed by Church Fathers as early as the 2nd century.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darkbishop-

Please read Nehemiah. There is something quite interesting there. You will see that it says in the KJV version (other version may modernize the English a bit:

 

"These are the numbers of the names...of  those returning from exile.."  and you will notice that Adonikam has the number 666.  Revelation says "it is the number of a man, and his number is 666". The number of the name of Adonikam is 666. I am not saying that Adonikam has anything to do with the Antichrist, but the fact the "number of his name" is 666 is very interesting. The staute built by Nebuchadnezzar is 66 X 6 cubits also.  So that number is not new-- 666 is in the Old Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TABA--

 

Please note: "Most CRITICAL Bible Scholars". I can find MANY ACTUAL BIBLE SCHOLARS who will take an opposite side of that argument in a second. "Scholars say.." is as worthless as "teachers say.." Anyone can find a scholar or teacher to back their arguments. It's worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
32 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

LOL Hierophant--

"2 Peter is a known forgery". Give me a break dude. Says who? Is this an accepted FACT? NO--- OF COURSE NOT.

 

Why is it that deconverts can make (are allowed to) statements like this without anyone questioning them?

 

Many SCHOLARS would immediately refute that statement. Why must I be taken to task to BACK every statement I make with facts, but you guys can state things according to your own whims?

 

9 minutes ago, TABA said:


According to Wikipedia…


Most critical biblical scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by someone other than Peter, using Peter as a pseudonym), but doubts about the epistle's attribution to Peter had already been expressed by Church Fathers as early as the 2nd century.

 

 

 

r4e236qp9r131.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
34 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Many SCHOLARS would immediately refute that statement

 

2 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Anyone can find a scholar or teacher to back their arguments. It's worthless.

Damn, son, give us a chance you refute your claims for a change.  😆

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL---

1. Our premise is that Jesus said "some standing here will not taste of death until they SEE the Son of Man coming in power and glory." So therefore our premise is that he meant he was returning in THEIR lifetime.

2. Our first move-- ignore the word "some" and the word "see". Our premise is that he predicted an immediate return. The word "some" does not play into our narrative. And the word "see" allows for a vision, or some other MEANS of showing His return to someone.

3.  2ND Peter destroys our premise, as Peter clearly shows that he SAW Jesus coming in Power and Glory, and was an EYEWITNESS TO IT when he was on the Holy Mount. He was one of THE THREE ("some standing here..") who SAW Jesus shine LIKE THE SUN IN POWER AND GLORY on that Mount. This a great problem. What do we do?

4. 2nd Peter is a forgery.

 

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

LOL Hierophant--

"2 Peter is a known forgery". Give me a break dude. Says who? Is this an accepted FACT? NO--- OF COURSE NOT.

 

Why is it that deconverts can make (are allowed to) statements like this without anyone questioning them?

 

Many SCHOLARS would immediately refute that statement. Why must I be taken to task to BACK every statement I make with facts, but you guys can state things according to your own whims?

 

It's not on a whim, it's what the evidence bears out. Critical scholars, i.e., those who are not tied to some Christian institution where they have to sign a faith statement to keep their jobs, do a better job of following the evidence wherever it may lead. There are multiple reasons for believing 2 Peter was not authored by Peter, for one, 2 Peter is much different in the Greek than 1 Peter. There are doubts Peter wrote 1 Peter, but whoever wrote 1 Peter, sure did not write 2 Peter.

 

You just take the Bible canon as fact because, "the church told me so." It appears you are unwilling to hear the arguments against it because you are already married to an outcome; and you will do anything and everything to make the evidence fit your preferred beliefs.

 

I challenge you to read Dr. Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

as worthless as "teachers say.."

 

Wasn't Jesus called "Teacher"?

 

Back to the point.  Until you establish the Bible as an authority, "correct" interpretations of an unverified writing is not useful.  It is as useful as having the correct interpretation of Moby Dick.

 

We have requested numerous times from you something we can use to verify the reliability of your particular bible, but so far you have provided only events that matter in the believer's mind and cite scripture.

 

Even the muslims can cite their scripture (or any believer of any religious tradition) and that does not prove the truth of it.

 

You have said the Quran and other religious works are not reliable, yet you have so far failed to establish your own preferred book as reliable.  Simply stating something does not make it so.  If it's not a material point, then who cares the truth value of the claim?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

Hierophant---

You left the faith because Jesus hasn't come back yet? He hasn't returned according to YOUR ACCEPTED PARAMETERS? God must meet your "time frame" or it's all bunk? Geez.

 

It was not the only reason, but it casts the Bible in suspicion. What do you make of this passage from 1 John: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

 

Do you really think the author has 2,000+ years in mind...come off it. Again, you are just engaging in apologetics to keep your faith intact.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

DarkBishop--

You again begin your post with a verse that is speaking of THE TRANSFIGURATION. This point is argued by NUMEROUS Teachers of the Scriptures. The "some standing here..." are Peter, James and John. Peter PROVES this to us. He says he was an EYEWITNESS to the "POWER AND COMING" of Jesus when he saw Him transfigured on the Holy Mount.

 

Stating 2 Peter is a "forgery" (per Hierophant) is a nice attempt to get "rid" of this "proof" from Peter, but it doesn't work.

 

You start your whole post with a premise which is unfounded, and largely dismissed by most Theologians. Only "preterists" among Christians accept it.  So I find your whole post to be based on supposition from those attempting to discredit the fact that Jesus NEVER said he would be back within a generation. HE NEVER SAID THAT.

 

In fact He stated that the Gospel must be preached to all Nations FIRST, then the end would come. Your post as I said before is very foolish, and not well thought out at all.

 

No way, theologians arguing why their pet belief is true. Unheard of! I am shocked. I had no idea any of them said this....I guess I really do not know much about the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

TABA--

 

Please note: "Most CRITICAL Bible Scholars". I can find MANY ACTUAL BIBLE SCHOLARS who will take an opposite side of that argument in a second. "Scholars say.." is as worthless as "teachers say.." Anyone can find a scholar or teacher to back their arguments. It's worthless.

 

Do you know what an actual scholar is? And do you know why "scholars" inside the faith have to toe a line? Consider Micheal Licona -- he merely suggested Matthew 27: 52-53 was probably not historical, but apocalyptic language. The Evangelical community pounced on him like a pack of wolves. He lost his job over it.

 

This goes to show you, that evangelical scholars are only allowed to come to conclusions their faith allows them to. There is no room for anything else, or their livelihood is at stake. Do you really think that does not play a part into their so-called scholarship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

Hierophant---

You left the faith because Jesus hasn't come back yet? He hasn't returned according to YOUR ACCEPTED PARAMETERS? God must meet your "time frame" or it's all bunk? Geez.

 

Go back and read your Bible and tell me if the NT author's almost unanimously agree that Jesus is returning soon. And soon as in their lifetime. In addition, it was well believed by the Jewish community God was coming back during the 1st century to overthrow the forces of evil.

 

You only seem to be reading one book -- I suggest you expand your library and actually learn something about the Bible.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fish153's posts in this thread today are interesting.

 

Particularly in the context of the dispute between us on page two of this other thread.

 

 

Fish seems to have no problem understanding what was written in 2 Peter, two thousand years ago.

 

But when it comes to understanding what I wrote and what I didn't write yesterday, his understanding of the written word fails him.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fish153 said:

DarkBishop--

You again begin your post with a verse that is speaking of THE TRANSFIGURATION. This point is argued by NUMEROUS Teachers of the Scriptures. The "some standing here..." are Peter, James and John. Peter PROVES this to us. He says he was an EYEWITNESS to the "POWER AND COMING" of Jesus when he saw Him transfigured on the Holy Mount.

 

Stating 2 Peter is a "forgery" (per Hierophant) is a nice attempt to get "rid" of this "proof" from Peter, but it doesn't work.

 

You start your whole post with a premise which is unfounded, and largely dismissed by most Theologians. Only "preterists" among Christians accept it.  So I find your whole post to be based on supposition from those attempting to discredit the fact that Jesus NEVER said he would be back within a generation. HE NEVER SAID THAT.

 

In fact He stated that the Gospel must be preached to all Nations FIRST, then the end would come. Your post as I said before is very foolish, and not well thought out at all.

No fish,

 

He was not talking about the transfiguration. That's why I backed up to put it in context with the other verses accordingly. And the transfiguration was not Jesus coming in his kingdom. The transfiguration does not reflect what is said in Matt 16. 

 

Christian apologists have come up with the idea that it was speaking of the transfiguration, because to believe the truth would mean that Jesus lied and that his promise wasn't fulfilled. 

 

Thankfully as time marches on and the second coming of Jesus is kicked down the road farther and farther, people are thinking about it rationally and realizing it just isn't true. 

 

Tell me fish. Did you know that Christian apologetics is a huge thing right now. There are people dedicated to making the biblical account fit with all the discoveries that have been made that indicate the biblical account is wrong. They just keep reinterpretating and reinterpretting what was written over and over and over. More and more we can't take what the Bible says at face value. Because it no longer fits with the historical facts. 

 

That is the only reason that they are now saying he was talking about the transfiguration. Trying to say that Jesus was speaking of the transfiguration is what is FOOLISH. 

 

It literally said in the scriptures I posted that he spoke of how he must go and suffer many things in Jerusalem at the hands of the pharisees. 

 

(Which was after the transfiguration) 

 

Then he states that there be some here that shall not taste of death till the Son of man returns. 

 

Sure you could say well..... thats talking about when he was resurrected. But that doesn't work either. Because he also said, "that he would reward every man. According to his works. And we all know that when he rewards everyone according to their works that that is the end time. When he gathers the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 

 

Matt: 25

 

"31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"

 

Now look at Matt 16:28

28Verily 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 is no doubt that Jesus in chapter 16 is talking about his second coming just as Jesus in chapter 25 was talking about his second coming. 

 

In no way do either of those scriptures describe the transfiguration. 

 

I'm sorry fish. What you are trying to say just doesn't fit. Believe me. I've ran all of this through my own mind a million times. There are many scriptures like this that I literally cried over, praying that God would show me the true meanings. Give me the true interpretations so I could show his children. 

 

Sometimes I would feel like God gave me the revelation I needed. Like when you mentioned God's timeline. Well that worked until I really looked at the wording. It's obvious that he is literally talking to these people and telling them he would come back before all of them died. 

 

It's because of this that there are some Christian sects that believe that John the beloved is still out there somewhere and very much alive. After 2000 years. 

 

The flat earth creation depicted in the Bible is the reason that a lot of Christians (some that I personally know) are getting caught up in flat earth theory. And they truly believe it. Because that makes sense with what the Bible says. 

 

But neither of those things are true. And to believe it is foolishness.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

3.  2ND Peter destroys our premise, as Peter clearly shows that he SAW Jesus coming in Power and Glory, and was an EYEWITNESS TO IT when he was on the Holy Mount. He was one of THE THREE ("some standing here..") who SAW Jesus shine LIKE THE SUN IN POWER AND GLORY on that Mount. This a great problem. What do we do?

 

As I just stated. But I'll highlight it non the less. 

 

Even if 2pet isn't a forgery. It is. But even if it wasn't. This still doesn't fit. He said he was coming, in his kingdom,  and would reward every man according to his works. 

 

There were no rewards handed out to every man according to his works at transfiguration. That comes at the end time. The second coming. 

 

So what does it say in second Peter?

 

"16 For 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.

17 For 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.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."

 

All the epistles address different concerns within the early church at the time. So from the wording of this scripture it appears that some members felt like they were having smoke blown up their asses. So Peter(or the author) starts out refuting that. Saying we aren't following cunning devised fables. Obviously people within the church were already getting skeptical. So he said he was an eye witness of the transfiguration and heard God say that this is my son in whom I'm well pleased. 

 

I'm sorry. I don't see how this scripture correlates with what Jesus said in Matt ch. 16. It just doesn't fit. And is a kinda shitty apologetic attempt at sorting out the issue. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding 2 Peter. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Forgery-Counterforgery-Literary-Christian-Polemics-ebook/dp/B00AX529JM/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=6LA59XB5GN99&keywords=forgery+and+counterforgery&qid=1640572314&sprefix=forgery+%2Caps%2C320&sr=8-3

 

This is a scholarly thesis by Prof. Bart D. Ehrmann. In which he goes I to agonizing detail, analyzing new testament scripture and determines what was forged and gives possible reasons why they were forged and who may have forged them. This would be good for you to read. 

 

There were many issues that all the epistles whether forged or not addressed to support various Interpretations or just to keep people from leaving. Doubts were already beginning to run rampant through the membership. It's really amazing that they made it. I dont believe they would have if it weren't for Constantine and the advent of the Holy Roman Catholic church. And their convert or die mission to stamp out anything not Christian. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

TABA--

 

Please note: "Most CRITICAL Bible Scholars". I can find MANY ACTUAL BIBLE SCHOLARS who will take an opposite side of that argument in a second. "Scholars say.." is as worthless as "teachers say.." Anyone can find a scholar or teacher to back their arguments. It's worthless.

 Then look into both sides and read both sides of the argument. Maybe you have done that. I don't know. Many others here and myself can point you to some very good secular studies by biblical scholars. 

 

Also there are some good debates between secular and Christian Scholars you might find interesting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.