A Messiah who did not usher in the Messianic age

[Elijah John]

And a "God" who was wrong about the time frame of his "2nd time around".

For debate: In light of the above two statements, how could:

-Jesus be the Messiah?

-Jesus honestly be considered "God"?

-What kind of "God" is wrong about his own prediction of his own 2nd visit to earth? (supposedly in the lifetime of his apostles)

[Elijah John]

Where did Paul and the author of Hebrews correct their own mistaken expectations?.

I mentioned the hasty expectations of "some of the first century disciples". Can you offer proof that Paul and the author of Hebrews had "mistaken expectations"?

I will consider addressing the issues raised by Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10.23 if and when I see that the scriptures *I* have presented have been explained in an intellectually honest and scripturally sound way.

I doesn't really matter to me if you address these or not. The admission of contradictions in the Bible is not a problem for me, as I am not a Fundamentalist.

You have only demonstrated so far that the Bible has contradictory verses.

And I have never judged you're standing with God, only God knows that. And I'm sorry if somehow I gave you that particular impression.

But I don't apologize for judging your tactics as being narrow and rigid, that of a Bible literalist (advocate of inerrancy)

Can you say the same for me? Don't you also judge my approach to the Bible as wrong, by the standards of your "all or nothing" approach? And my approach an "interpretation"? But Fundamentalists always seem to deny that yours is an interpretation as well.

I'll admit it, I could be wrong, can you make the same admission? Or that your organization could be wrong? Can you admit the Bible could be wrong in certain places?

Allow me be less personal by changing "you" to read "the Fundamentalist": The Fundamentalist starting position always seems to be: "the Bible can't be wrong, in any detail..."

So when it is clearly demonstrated that the Bible is wrong in some places, the Fundamentalist falls back on.."well, since the Bible can't be wrong that passage must mean something else".

Or another Fundamentalist tactic is to offer contradictory verses, affirm those contradictory verses, yet deny any contradiction exists!

What is that called? "Confirmation bias"? Or is it "circular reasoning"?

Here once again, are some verses you requested demonstrating that Paul and other NT writers expected Jesus return in their own lifetimes, as you seemed to have forgotten them:

Other than Jesus (or Matthew, Mark and Luke's) own failed predictions,(Matt. 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:33-34; Luke 21:22, 28, 31).

Quote:
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son
(Heb. 1:1-2, NASB)

Quote:
he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb. 9:26b, ESV)

Quote:
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
(1 Pet. 1:20)

Quote:
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come
(1 Cor. 10:11)

Quote:
10„Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world,to test those who dwell on the earth.11‘I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
(Rev. 3:10-11)

Quote:
24and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,25not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
(Heb. 10:24-25)

Quote:
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared;from this we know that it is the last hour.
(1 John 2:18)

Quote:
11…it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.12The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
(Rom. 13:11-12)

Quote:
29But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;30and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;31and those who use the world, ..
(1 Cor.7.29-31)

So we are left with a "Jesus" (if he ever actually made those predictions), a "Messiah" who did not usher in the Messianic age the first time around, and a "God"(Jesus some say) who was wrong about the general timing of his "2nd time around".

And several NT writers who were also mistaken about the general timing of Jesus 2nd visit to earth.

[JehovahsWitness]

I will consider addressing the issues raised by Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10.23 if and when I see that the scriptures *I* have presented have been explained in an intellectually honest and scripturally sound way.

.

Your inability or unwillingness to even address the scriptures I have presented or the questions therein - albeit with your own understanding of what he was trying to communicate - has been duly noted as has your a narrow and rigid avoidance tactics. I make no apology for pointing this out.

However it is good that you admit that your interpretation that Jesus was teaching that his return would be in the lifetime of his first century disciples could be wrong; would it not be best to present your possibly faulty ideas as being "your opinion" and not express them as if they are indisputable truths?

So we are left with [...] a "God"(Jesus some say) who was wrong about the general timing of his "2nd time around".And several NT writers who were also mistaken about the general timing of Jesus 2nd visit to earth.

I'll admit it, I could be wrong...].

Yes, on that we can agree, you could indeed be wrong. In view of the scriptures that you are either incapable or unwilling to address I see no reason (and you have presented me with no reason) to accept your opinion about what has been "demonstrated" as being anything but {quote} "wrong". Circular reasoning (the bible contradicts itself therefore the only explanation for this verse it that it is a contradtion") and confirmation bias (anything that is contrary to my view must be wrong or an interpolaton) is no substitute for logical analysis which evidently you are unwilling or incapable of doing. So, nothing has been clearly demonstrated with regard to the bible except your own inability to accurately interpret it's verses.

Try and have an excellent evening anyway.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Here once again, are some verses you requested demonstrating that Paul and other NT writers expected Jesus return in their own lifetimes, as you seemed to have forgotten them:

Other than Jesus (or Matthew, Mark and Luke's) own failed predictions,(Matt. 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:33-34; Luke 21:22, 28, 31).

Quote:
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son
(Heb. 1:1-2, NASB)

Quote:
he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb. 9:26b, ESV)

Quote:
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
(1 Pet. 1:20)

Quote:
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come
(1 Cor. 10:11)

Quote:
10„Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world,to test those who dwell on the earth.11‘I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
(Rev. 3:10-11)

Quote:
24and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,25not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
(Heb. 10:24-25)

Quote:
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared;from this we know that it is the last hour.
(1 John 2:18)

Quote:
11…it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.12The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
(Rom. 13:11-12)

Quote:
29But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;30and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;31and those who use the world, ..
(1 Cor.7.29-31)

.

While I of course admire your ability to use the bold key, it seems as if you are under the impresson that every time you see the words "last" and "days" together it is a reference to the "parousia" , can you justify this scripturally?

Are you aware that the first century Christians expected the end of the Jewish system of things (and the destruction of the temple)? That John and others warned of the end of the Apostalistic period and the advent of a time of internal corruption... What is your rationale that every reference above is speaking about the end of the world system and Christ's return? Especially as the words return/coming (greek "erkhomai") with the exception of Revelation, is not mentioned once in any of them?

If you feel able to present some kind of logical reasoning (above and beyond... "strange" "a contradiction"!) feel free to do so. Otherwise it's much like someone trying to prove their car has been stolen by listing dozens of references with the word "car" in them; simplitic to say the least.


JW

[Elijah John]

I will consider addressing the issues raised by Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10.23 if and when I see that the scriptures *I* have presented have been explained in an intellectually honest and scripturally sound way.

.

Your inability or unwillingness to even address the scriptures I have presented or the questions therein - albeit with your own understanding of what he was trying to communicate - has been duly noted as has your a narrow and rigid avoidance tactics. I make no apology for pointing this out.

However it is good that you admit that your interpretation that Jesus was teaching that his return would be in the lifetime of his first century disciples could be wrong; would it not be best to present your possibly faulty ideas as being "your opinion" and not express them as if they are indisputable truths?

So we are left with [...] a "God"(Jesus some say) who was wrong about the general timing of his "2nd time around".And several NT writers who were also mistaken about the general timing of Jesus 2nd visit to earth.

I'll admit it, I could be wrong...].

Yes, on that we can agree, you could indeed be wrong. In view of the scriptures that you are either incapable or unwilling to address I see no reason (and you have presented me with no reason) to accept your opinion about what has been "demonstrated" as being anything but {quote} "wrong". Circular reasoning (the bible contradicts itself therefore the only explanation for this verse it that it is a contradtion") and confirmation bias (anything that is contrary to my view must be wrong or an interpolaton) is no substitute for logical analysis which evidently you are unwilling or incapable of doing. So, nothing has been clearly demonstrated with regard to the bible except your own inability to accurately interpret it's verses.

Try and have an excellent evening anyway.

JW

As you have noted, I have admited that I could be wrong. But you have not convinced me that I am wrong on these matters. That is not the same as making concessions to your arguments, which I find thoroughly unconvincing and little more an insulting doges. Your unwillingness, or inablility to do the same (to admit that you could possibly be wrong) has been duly noted.

But that is characteristic of Fundamentalism as a whole: "Me and Jesus cannot possibly be wrong"

[Elijah John]

Yes, on that we can agree, you could indeed be wrong.

JW

But you couldn't possibly be wrong? Your unwillingness to admit that possiblity for yourself has been duly noted. To admit my own possiblily of being wrong is not to concede the validity of your agruments, which I still find thoroughly unconvincing,.

Yes, those verses refer to the parousia, and in conjunction with Christ mistaken predictions, we have a clear theme that NT writers expected the 2nd coming of Christ in their own lifetimes.

By suggesting those verses refer to the "end of the Jewish system of things" you have introduced an irrelevant element with no support. Especially since many of those verses were written AFTER 70 AD, the year of the destruction of the Temple.

Or have you introduced a completely speculative, unprovable theological element? That Christ has replaced the "Jewish system of things"?

The NT authors were not referring to something that already happened, but rather something (2nd coming of Christ) that they were still anticipating, in their own lifetimes.

But I guess the likely and the obvious cannot be likely and obvious when it means that the Bible might actually be wrong in a few places, right?

Your premise is your conclusion, you seem to consider your premise "evidence". THAT is circular reasoning and that is confirmation bias.

Again, I admit there are contradictions in the Bible, I admit some of the verses you provided contradict my premise, but I admit the contradiction. But my faith in God does not depend on a perfect Bible without contradiction, does yours?
You deny that there are any contradicitons by variations of the argument "if anyone disagrees with me or my organization, that is their flawed interpretation".

Your arguments amount to little more than "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it".

Bumper-sticker aplogetics with some jargon laced dodges, personal insults, and rhetorical/theological/linguistic gymnastics.

Anything to avoid the plain meaning of the passages in question, and their disturbing implications.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]


Moderator Warning


JW, you have been a member of this forum long enough to know better than calling another poster incapable. You might have spoke your mind, but it cost you a warning.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, those verses refer to the parousia.

Since the word parousia is not in any of the verses, how pray tell can you prove this?

By suggesting those verses refer to the "end of the Jewish system of things" you have introduced an irrelevant element with no support.

No I have not. You are the one that introduced the verses to support a topic not mentioned specifically in any of the vereses (with the exception of revelation) and claimed the square peg of "last days" fits into the round hole of "the return of Christ" without any support except one presumes wishful thinking and the simplitic suggesting that if "last" is mentioned it must by necessity be the last of the entire world system.

many of those verses were written AFTER 70 AD, the year of the destruction of the Temple.

Firstly there is no way to catagorically date the book of Hebrews specifically after the destruction of the temple, at best there are approximations (feel free to attempt to if you claim that you can). Further, the support for the subject is right there in the context of the verses. Paul for example in the book of Hebrews is discussing the superiority of the Christian system in comparison to the Jewish temple based system, with the Jewish Christians. Are you seriously suggesting that Paul is doing so AFTER the temple has been destroyed? This would be like two women comparing the health of their husbands after on of them has died of cancer.

So as I pointed out, you provided a list of scriptures that mentioned "last days" can you provide evidence that they are refering to the last days of the world and the 2nd coming of Christ (since they contain no reference to the "second coming"*) rather than the last days of the Jewish system or some other period that was approaching its climax (such as the Apostalistic period)? Or are we to presume your premise (the reference to "the last days" MUST be refering to the Second Coming) is your conclusion (thus "last days" is refering to "the second coming")? Would this not amount to "circular reasoning"?

Simplistic aplogetics with some avoidance technique, and weak illogical irrational theological conclusions.

Anything to avoid a scriptural based analysis and its inconvenient implications.

JW


* with the exception of the Revelation



GLOSSARY OF TERMS [END TIMES]

[onewithhim]

-What kind of "God" is wrong about his own prediction of his own 2nd visit to earth? (supposedly in the lifetime of his apostles)

This question is based on a premise that your interpretation of certain scriptures must be right, however imho you are absolutely wrong in your assumption.

Jesus was very explicit that he himself did not know when the world system would end because such information was privy to his father alone but he (Jesus) gave plenty of indication that the world changes he (Jesus) would implement would be well in the future and that his disciples were not to expect it immediately.


JW

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, more than a few threads on this site have demonstrated that Jesus expected his "arrival with the Father's angels" do judge the living and the dead, to occur in the lifetime of his apostles

This is in harmony with the expressed expectations of Paul, the author of Hebrews, and other NT writers.

The implications of these failed predictions and expectations may be too distruptive to one's belief system, but that does not change the plain meaning of those passages.

Those disturbing passages cannot be made to mean anything else without resorting to linguistic, literary or rhetorical gymnastics. Or appeal to such speculative concepts such as "dispensations" instead of plainly understood "generations".

It is one thing to cling to shattered theology and Biblical infallibility, but hadn't one ought refrain from criticizing others who to try to salvage what they can from the Bible, in spite of it's errors?

Dang, there I go again....explaining something and being dismissed out-of-hand. I had gone through this before, showing that the Scriptures indicate that there would be a long time before Jesus would return in Kingdom power.

"The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord [the Messiah]: Sit at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. The rod of thy strength doth Jehovah send from Zion, Rule in the midst of thine enemies." (Psalm 110:1,2, Young's Literal Translation) This scripture indicates that there would be a period of time between Jesus' first coming as Jehovah's Son, and then Jesus' coming in Kingdom power. That is clearly indicated, to me.

The Apostles asked Jesus, just before he ascended back to heaven, "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" Jesus said, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority." (Acts 1:6,7, NASB) Does that sound like Jesus was indicating to them that he would return immediately? As Jehovah's Witness said above: Jesus did not know when he would be coming back....only the Father knew, and He hadn't told Jesus. (Mark 13:32)

Also:

"And after a long time cometh the Lord of those servants, and taketh reckoning with them." (Matthew 25:19, Young's) This was a parable about Jesus leaving his servants with certain assignments, and then returning to deal with the outcome. He said that the lord of those servants, or, himself being the Lord, would come back after a long time. I don't see how the Scriptures tell us something different. Jesus' disciples didn't think that he would return in their lifetime, especially after what he said at Acts 1:7. And I don't believe that Paul thought that either. He gave prophecies of what would happen in the end times, and his prophecies haven't happened yet....particularly the "saying 'Peace and security'" (I Thessalonians 5:3) According to Paul, this would come just before "Jehovah's day." (verse 2) We're still waiting for the nations to declare "Peace and security." In addition to that, Paul spoke of ALL of the anointed brothers of Christ being taken to heaven at the time of Jesus' coming back again. This hasn't happened yet. (I Thess. 4:15)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son
(Heb. 1:1-2, NASB)

he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb. 9:26b, ESV)

QUESTION: Is the writer of Hebrews refering to the second coming of Christ when he speaks of "these last days" at Heb 1: 1-2?

No, the writer sets the context as being in relation to the past ages where God sent holy patriarches and Prophets to announce the coming of "his son". So whateever he was refering to it was in relation to that one's appearance "into the inhabited earth" (verse 6) where he was heralded as Gods son. In verse 5 the writer makes reference to the words reported to have been pronounced by God on the occassion of his (Jesus') baptism.

The first two chapters of Hebrews deal with the superioroty of Jesus in relation to the angels and his appearance on the earth as "Abraham's seed" (Heb 2: 16), the Messiah. Since Hebrews goes on to discuss the superioroty of the religious system instigated by that one over the temple based religious system, it seems logical that rather than his introductory reference being to the 2nd coming of Jesus in spirit form but to the end of the very system under discussion (the temple based Jewish system) initated by Jesus FIRST appearance as the promised Messiah as announced by the prophets of old.

QUESTION Does Hebrew 9:26b reference to "the end of the ages" refer to the second coming of Christ in Kingdom Power?

No, even the most perfunctory reading of the verse makes it clear the writer is refering not to Christ's second coming but to his FIRST appearance. He specifically connects this period to when there is a putting away of " sin by the sacrifice" evidently a reference to Jesus sacrifical death. Jesus sacrificial death is not a feature of his "second coming" when he will administer judgement as God's duly appointed king, rather a feature of Jesus FIRST coming on earth (compare Mat 26:28). The value of that sacrifice, according the to writer of Hebrews, was offered to God after Jesus' return to heaven in the first century (Heb 9:24) and marked the beginning of the end of the period where animal sacrifices would be needed (see Heb 10:1-18).

In view of the context of the discussion in the book of Hebrews it is most logical to conclude the writer is refering in Heb 9:26b not to the Second coming of Christ but the end of the temple based system of animal sacrifice as a result of the vastly superior sacfrifice of Jesus during his first coming as a human.

24and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,25not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
(Heb. 10:24-25)

QUESTION: Is Hebrews 10:25 reference to "the day drawing near" a reference to the 2nd coming of Christ?

Below are some bible commentaries on Hebrews 10:25:

Meyer's NT Commentary

The day [ ...] the readers themselves already saw drawing nigh in the agitations and commotions which preceded the Jewish war, such as had already begun to appear.

Vincent's Word Studies

He could say "ye see," because they were familiar with Christ's prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple; and they would see this crisis approaching in the disturbances which heralded the Jewish war.

IVP New Testament Commentary Series - by Ray C. Stedman

"all the more as you see the Day approaching. The destruction of the temple and of the city of Jerusalem was just around the comer. The empire seethed with unrest and premonitions of disaster. [...] The Lord himself had instructed his disciples: "When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (Lk 21:28)"
http://www.raystedman.org/hebrews2/heb2comm2.html

JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by JehovahsWitness]

Outside of Fundamentalist circles (including JW's) "last days" is understood as the period just before Christ's return to earth.

It is unfruitful to attempt to debate someone who will not even admit to the possibility they may be wrong. Or the possibility that the Bible is flawed in any way, and can never be wrong.

That is the affirmitve claim, that a book is perfect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You say the Bible is perfect? Pleas prove your assertion. I admit it is authoritative for those of us who embrace the Judeo-Christian tradition, but you go beyond that, you claim the Bible is perfect. So please prove it

And, you also seem to claim that your own interpretation, (Or that of your organization) is the only valid and perfect interpretation.

Or you deny that your'