Jesus just a mere mortal: Failed prophecy!

[alexxcJRO]

Mark 8:38, 9:1
“ 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�

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

Matthew 16:27-28
"27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Luke 9:26-27
“26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.� “

Christ predicted his second coming would occur during the lives of the people he spoke too.

Q: Did Jesus come in his Father’s glory with his holy angels during the lifetimes of the people he spoke too?
A: No.

Q: Did the Kingdom of God/Heaven come to power during the lifetimes of the people he spoke too?
A: No.

Q: Did the Final Judgment happened and every person got rewarded according to their deeds during the lifetimes of the people he spoke too?
A: Clearly, no.

Even one of the most famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis admits Jesus knew no more about the end of the world then any other mere mortal.
"…he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."
—C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973), 98. (Post-conversion)

https://archive.org/stream/worldslastni ... p_djvu.txt

Q: How can one still maintain belief in Jesus being the perfect son of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God in face of such clear evidence of the opposite?

[alexxcJRO]

The thing that came true after about 8 days was “they see the kingdom of God�. Some of the disciples saw that as told in the Luke 9:28-32. Jesus didn’t say some of them will see the holy angels event.

Nonsensical, irrelevant ramblings cuz’ of cognitive dissonance born out of desperation to save what cannot be saved.

So Jesus changed the subject mid phrase and therefore talk about two unrelated things.
But that would make him disorganized in thoughts, incoherent and therefore schizophrenic.

"Disorganized symptoms of schizophrenia are a type of positive symptom that reflects the person's inability to think clearly and respond appropriately. Examples of disorganized symptoms include:
•Shifting quickly from one thought to the next
"
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guid ... ophrenia#4
This together with:
"Delusions: Delusions are strange beliefs that are not based in reality and that the person refuses to give up, even when presented with factual information. For example, the person suffering from delusions may believe that people can hear his or her thoughts, that he or she is God or the devil, or that people are putting thoughts into his or her head or plotting against them."
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guid ... ophrenia#3

And we can start building a case for a schizophrenic Jesus.

Q: Are you trying to make Jesus schizophrenic?

The judgment that comes because of sin, is already given, because it is already said what is wrong and that death is the wage of sin. if one rejects what Jesus said, his judgment that comes because of sin, remains and in end day it will be seen the reason why person is judged.

Nonsensical, irrelevant ramblings cuz’ of cognitive dissonance born out of desperation to save what cannot be saved.

So by your own logic the only judgment given in the last day will be in respect to whether one accepted Jesus or not.

By this logic every human that lived before the birth of Jesus either goes straight to Heaven or Lake of Fire without judgment. Therefore not all people will face judgment in the Final Judgment.

But his goes in contradiction with the Bible which says all will face judgment:

“For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.�
(Romans 14:10)

If the person would have wanted to says, God and Jesus (both of them) how would he have said that so that you would not make that mix-up?

Nonsensical, irrelevant ramblings cuz’ of cognitive dissonance born out of desperation to save what cannot be saved.

Here: Yahweh the Father and Jesus the Son.
Q: Using the definite article (“the�) twice before the two distinctive nouns: "Father", "Son"does the job rather well, don't you think?

But this is irrelevant for:
We see the followers of Christ in the Bible employing a Greek grammatical construction known as Sharp’s (first) rule to identify Jesus as both God and Savior.
According to this rule, when singular nouns that are not proper names are connected together by the conjunction kai (“and�), with the definite article (“the�) only appearing before the first noun, then both nouns refer to a single person.

We see this same construction being used four other times in 2 Peter in relation to Christ:

“for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou).�( 2 Peter 1:11)

“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou), they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.� (2 Peter 2:20)

“that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior (tou Kyriou kai Soteros),� (2 Peter 3:2)

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou). To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.� (2 Peter 3:18)

[Mithrae]

As always, it's important to look at context before leaping to conclusions about each individual author's meaning. It's more or less universally recognized both by early church tradition and by modern scholars that the gospels of Luke and John were written later than those by Mark and Matthew; and on this subject of Jesus' return, the fourth gospel is conspicuously silent. Only its 'appendix' even hints at the matter, and then only to carefully downplay the earlier expectations about "some standing here" and try to pass it off as some kind of misunderstanding (John 21:20-24).

Luke/Acts offers several hints suggesting that the author was familiar with the work of Josephus - at least Jewish War (written c.76CE) if not Jewish Antiquities (written c.94CE). So as one of the later gospel writers, is there any reason to assume that Luke thought Jesus would return within his followers' lifetimes; or could he, like the author/s of John, have considered it increasingly improbable and hence downplayed the concept?

His gospel pretty clearly suggests the latter: In their apocalypses Mark and Matthew both refer to an 'abomination of desolation' in the temple (Mk 13:40, Mt. 24:15), a reference to the prophecies of Daniel signifying the final 'seven' of the long countdown before God's final judgement (Daniel 9 and 11). However Luke conspicuously omits that explicitly-eschatological phrase, instead substituting it with "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" and - most tellingly - inserting an indefinite "times of the Gentiles" between that siege and the actual end of the age:

• Luke 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Any Christian or Jew who lived at the time would surely have assumed that the Jewish revolt and eventual destruction of the temple must somehow have been a fulfillment of prophecy; but as the years passed it would have become increasingly obvious that it was not that final 'seven' of Daniel's prediction. Luke pretty clearly indicates that perspective in the changes made to this passage.

By contrast, of all the gospels Matthew most clearly emphasises an expectation that Jesus' return was imminent: He not only keeps the 'abomination of desolation' in the apocalypse but adds an explicit comment pointing his readers towards Daniel; he changes "kingdom of God present with power" (Mark) into "Son of Man coming in his kingdom"; and he adds a brand new comment, not found in any other gospel, declaring that "you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Mt. 10:23). On this basis I think it's probable that Matthew must have written around 70-75CE, at a time when the eschatological expectations raised by the revolt were still strong. (Other thematic elements in the gospel suggest it may have been at least a couple of years after 70CE.)

So if Luke didn't particularly expect Jesus' imminent return, why did he keep the verse which you've quoted above? Quite simply, he didn't view the 'kingdom of God' the way in which you are choosing to interpret it. This is put very plainly in one of his stories:

• Luke 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.â€�

Extending his story with Acts, it seems clear that in Luke's opinion the "kingdom of God present with power" occurred on the Pentecost after Jesus' death. [Edit: The view mentioned by 1213 that Luke considered it fulfilled in the transfiguration is also potentially viable; the next verse does begin by saying "Now it came to pass about eight days after these sayings..." after all ] He still expected that one day Jesus would return and right all wrongs of course, but in Luke's opinion that's not what the verse you have quoted is about.

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

I didn't understood everything.

Q: Can you make your point more clearly, more simply and with fewer words?

Sure:

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

I notice that instead of calm and reasonable discussion you have again decided to stoop to the level of spewing bile and insults in this thread too. So rest assured that I am not really expecting any kind of objective consideration of these questions

[rogerg]

"In the first sentence we see a connection between the return of Jesus and a time when every person will be rewarded according to their deeds.
This is all only compatible with the judgment day.
The judgment day clearly did not happen.
Therefore the prophecy is dead wrong. Cool"

Nope-- that connection is NOT there. Please observe:

Mat 1627 & 28 KJV

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.

The "his" in 27 are CHRIST's works, not our works. It is solely by Christ's work (which were fully completed during His lifetime on earth) that one becomes saved -- we can contribute nothing -- that salvation occurs/is given (by grace)during this lifetime when Christ SPIRITUALLY inhabits those whom are to become saved- not during the next - and they are given eyes that see and ears that hear spiritually. When Christ comes again at the end of time it will be too late for salvation -- that is , for those whose sin has been covered by His work: salvation -- for those whose sins have not :judgment.
So.... his "reward" is awarded to each person during their lifetime one way or the other -- which harmonizes with the Bible and the conclusion of my prior reply. The final return of Jesus is not, and cannot be, in view in these or other verses

Not sure if this reply is clear so if it's not let me know and I'll try to clarify

[rogerg]

As always, it's important to look at context before leaping to conclusions about each individual author's meaning. It's more or less universally recognized both by early church tradition and by modern scholars that the gospels of Luke and John were written later than those by Mark and Matthew; and on this subject of Jesus' return, the fourth gospel is conspicuously silent. Only its 'appendix' even hints at the matter, and then only to carefully downplay the earlier expectations about "some standing here" and try to pass it off as some kind of misunderstanding (John 21:20-24).

Luke/Acts offers several hints suggesting that the author was familiar with the work of Josephus - at least Jewish War (written c.76CE) if not Jewish Antiquities (written c.94CE). So as one of the later gospel writers, is there any reason to assume that Luke thought Jesus would return within his followers' lifetimes; or could he, like the author/s of John, have considered it increasingly improbable and hence downplayed the concept?

His gospel pretty clearly suggests the latter: In their apocalypses Mark and Matthew both refer to an 'abomination of desolation' in the temple (Mk 13:40, Mt. 24:15), a reference to the prophecies of Daniel signifying the final 'seven' of the long countdown before God's final judgement (Daniel 9 and 11). However Luke conspicuously omits that explicitly-eschatological phrase, instead substituting it with "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" and - most tellingly - inserting an indefinite "times of the Gentiles" between that siege and the actual end of the age:

• Luke 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Any Christian or Jew who lived at the time would surely have assumed that the Jewish revolt and eventual destruction of the temple must somehow have been a fulfillment of prophecy; but as the years passed it would have become increasingly obvious that it was not that final 'seven' of Daniel's prediction. Luke pretty clearly indicates that perspective in the changes made to this passage.

By contrast, of all the gospels Matthew most clearly emphasises an expectation that Jesus' return was imminent: He not only keeps the 'abomination of desolation' in the apocalypse but adds an explicit comment pointing his readers towards Daniel; he changes "kingdom of God present with power" (Mark) into "Son of Man coming in his kingdom"; and he adds a brand new comment, not found in any other gospel, declaring that "you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Mt. 10:23). On this basis I think it's probable that Matthew must have written around 70-75CE, at a time when the eschatological expectations raised by the revolt were still strong. (Other thematic elements in the gospel suggest it may have been at least a couple of years after 70CE.)

So if Luke didn't particularly expect Jesus' imminent return, why did he keep the verse which you've quoted above? Quite simply, he didn't view the 'kingdom of God' the way in which you are choosing to interpret it. This is put very plainly in one of his stories:

• Luke 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.â€�

Extending his story with Acts, it seems clear that in Luke's opinion the "kingdom of God present with power" occurred on the Pentecost after Jesus' death. [Edit: The view mentioned by 1213 that Luke considered it fulfilled in the transfiguration is also potentially viable; the next verse does begin by saying "Now it came to pass about eight days after these sayings..." after all ] He still expected that one day Jesus would return and right all wrongs of course, but in Luke's opinion that's not what the verse you have quoted is about.

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

I didn't understood everything.

Q: Can you make your point more clearly, more simply and with fewer words?

Sure:

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

Sorry to interject into your dialog but as I'm new to this forum I'm a little confused as to whether there is an orientation to it - that is, is it a Catholic, Christian, other, etc. forum? The reason I ask is that you mention the apostles' beliefs during the writing of the Gospels. For Christians though, it is understood that God alone wrote the Bible (to include the Gospels) thru the human authors and had it say exactly what He wanted said.
Were it to be otherwise, no none would be able to completely trust it and
would place the reader in the position of ferreting out what is true and what is not. Thankfully, God would not allow us to be placed into that kind of situation.
Appreciate your feedback.

[1213]

Q: Are you trying to make Jesus schizophrenic?

No, I don’t think he is schizophrenic.

By this logic every human that lived before the birth of Jesus either goes straight to Heaven or Lake of Fire without judgment. Therefore not all people will face judgment in the Final Judgment.

According to the Bible, eternal life is for righteous. So people who are or were righteous, will get the eternal life, if we believe what the Bible tells.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

On “final judgement� it will be said who are the righteous and who are not.

Here: Yahweh the Father and Jesus the Son.
Q: Using the definite article (“the�) twice before the two distinctive nouns: "Father", "Son"does the job rather well, don't you think?

Sorry, I think that is wrong idea, because Bible tells clearly in other places that Jesus is not the one and only true God, but the temple of God. God dwells in Jesus, according to the Bible. And Jesus spoke what God had commanded him to speak. Where Jesus is, also God is, because God dwells in Jesus. It doesn’t mean they are the same.

[Mithrae]

Sure:

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

Sorry to interject into your dialog but as I'm new to this forum I'm a little confused as to whether there is an orientation to it - that is, is it a Catholic, Christian, other, etc. forum? The reason I ask is that you mention the apostles' beliefs during the writing of the Gospels. For Christians though, it is understood that God alone wrote the Bible (to include the Gospels) thru the human authors and had it say exactly what He wanted said.
Were it to be otherwise, no none would be able to completely trust it and
would place the reader in the position of ferreting out what is true and what is not. Thankfully, God would not allow us to be placed into that kind of situation.
Appreciate your feedback.

Hi Roger and welcome to the forum There's no particular orientation to the forum as a whole - we've got folk from all sorts of Christian denominations as well as from non-Christian religions, non-religious theists, atheists, ignostics, agnostics, agnomists and probably everything else in between. I myself haven't been a Christian since more than thirteen years ago, but I think it's more educational, enjoyable and constructive to look for ways in which traditional religious beliefs might be tweaked into more modern, rational understandings; rather than just crudely and (in the case of this thread) rudely bashing on traditional beliefs using an equally fundamentalist mindset.

On your point specifically, many Christians don't share the idea that the bible is a perfect Word of God - Jesus is the Word of God, after all - and in fact that doctrine is seemingly contradicted by the bible itself as merely a relic of the old covenant, when God's people did not want his direct spiritual guidance. And even from that old covenant perspective, there's a pretty stern warning in Deuteronomy against considering things to be the word of God when they are not spoken in his name (as most of the bible is not) or are seen to be untrue (which some such as these gospel contradictions obviously must be):

• Deuteronomy 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
  
  Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,� declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,� declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,� declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.�
  
  2 Corinthians 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?

Since the doctrine of biblical inerrancy also leads to all kinds of irrational attempts to justify contradictions and oppressive teachings found in some parts of the bible, I'm more than happy to promote a more accurate view of the 'new covenant' as a much better alternative

[rogerg]

Sure:

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

Sorry to interject into your dialog but as I'm new to this forum I'm a little confused as to whether there is an orientation to it - that is, is it a Catholic, Christian, other, etc. forum? The reason I ask is that you mention the apostles' beliefs during the writing of the Gospels. For Christians though, it is understood that God alone wrote the Bible (to include the Gospels) thru the human authors and had it say exactly what He wanted said.
Were it to be otherwise, no none would be able to completely trust it and
would place the reader in the position of ferreting out what is true and what is not. Thankfully, God would not allow us to be placed into that kind of situation.
Appreciate your feedback.

Hi Roger and welcome to the forum There's no particular orientation to the forum as a whole - we've got folk from all sorts of Christian denominations as well as from non-Christian religions, non-religious theists, atheists, ignostics, agnostics, agnomists and probably everything else in between. I myself haven't been a Christian since more than thirteen years ago, but I think it's more educational, enjoyable and constructive to look for ways in which traditional religious beliefs might be tweaked into more modern, rational understandings; rather than just crudely and (in the case of this thread) rudely bashing on traditional beliefs using an equally fundamentalist mindset.

On your point specifically, many Christians don't share the idea that the bible is a perfect Word of God - Jesus is the Word of God, after all - and in fact that doctrine is seemingly contradicted by the bible itself as merely a relic of the old covenant, when God's people did not want his direct spiritual guidance. And even from that old covenant perspective, there's a pretty stern warning in Deuteronomy against considering things to be the word of God when they are not spoken in his name (as most of the bible is not) or are seen to be untrue (which some such as these gospel contradictions obviously must be):

• Deuteronomy 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
  
  Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,� declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,� declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,� declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.�
  
  2 Corinthians 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?

Since the doctrine of biblical inerrancy also leads to all kinds of irrational attempts to justify contradictions and oppressive teachings found in some parts of the bible, I'm more than happy to promote a more accurate view of the 'new covenant' as a much better alternative

Mithrae,
Thank you very much for the welcome. I am hoping that we can continue a dialogue from time to time with your permission regarding things spiritual. And as the saying goes, there's no time like the present so here goes (and may I add that I can be dense at times so please bear with me and I'll try not too be burdensome) - actually now that I've read your reply in its entirety I think I may need to ask you for a little clarification regarding the points you've raised. So in general would it be correct to say your underlying premise is that the writers of the Bible (whom the believers of the Bible consider to be prophets) have lied and or prophesized falsely ? I ask because I don't see any obvious lies or contradictions in the verses you've included above.

[rogerg]

Sure:

- 'Matthew' believed that Jesus certainly would return within his disciples' lifetimes
- Luke and John seemingly did not share that belief, or at least carefully downplayed it in their gospels
- So what did Mark believe? And what did Jesus himself believe?

Sorry to interject into your dialog but as I'm new to this forum I'm a little confused as to whether there is an orientation to it - that is, is it a Catholic, Christian, other, etc. forum? The reason I ask is that you mention the apostles' beliefs during the writing of the Gospels. For Christians though, it is understood that God alone wrote the Bible (to include the Gospels) thru the human authors and had it say exactly what He wanted said.
Were it to be otherwise, no none would be able to completely trust it and
would place the reader in the position of ferreting out what is true and what is not. Thankfully, God would not allow us to be placed into that kind of situation.
Appreciate your feedback.

Hi Roger and welcome to the forum There's no particular orientation to the forum as a whole - we've got folk from all sorts of Christian denominations as well as from non-Christian religions, non-religious theists, atheists, ignostics, agnostics, agnomists and probably everything else in between. I myself haven't been a Christian since more than thirteen years ago, but I think it's more educational, enjoyable and constructive to look for ways in which traditional religious beliefs might be tweaked into more modern, rational understandings; rather than just crudely and (in the case of this thread) rudely bashing on traditional beliefs using an equally fundamentalist mindset.

On your point specifically, many Christians don't share the idea that the bible is a perfect Word of God - Jesus is the Word of God, after all - and in fact that doctrine is seemingly contradicted by the bible itself as merely a relic of the old covenant, when God's people did not want his direct spiritual guidance. And even from that old covenant perspective, there's a pretty stern warning in Deuteronomy against considering things to be the word of God when they are not spoken in his name (as most of the bible is not) or are seen to be untrue (which some such as these gospel contradictions obviously must be):

• Deuteronomy 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
  
  Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,� declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,� declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,� declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.�
  
  2 Corinthians 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?

Since the doctrine of biblical inerrancy also leads to all kinds of irrational attempts to justify contradictions and oppressive teachings found in some parts of the bible, I'm more than happy to promote a more accurate view of the 'new covenant' as a much better alternative

Hi Mithrae

Thank you for the welcome. I'm hoping that with your permission we can have an ongoing dialog regarding things spiritual from time to time. However I can be kind of dense so please bear with me but I'll do my best not to be too burdensome. Anyway, in reviewing your reply I was unable to find a problem with the verses included so I've probably missed your specific point. Are you using them in some manner as validation that the biblical writers (whom most Bible believing Christians consider to be prophets) lied and/or prophesized falsely? At your convenience if you would be so kind, please illuminate further.
Thank you
Roger

[Mithrae]

Hi Mithrae

Thank you for the welcome. I'm hoping that with your permission we can have an ongoing dialog regarding things spiritual from time to time. However I can be kind of dense so please bear with me but I'll do my best not to be too burdensome. Anyway, in reviewing your reply I was unable to find a problem with the verses included so I've probably missed your specific point. Are you using them in some manner as validation that the biblical writers (whom most Bible believing Christians consider to be prophets) lied and/or prophesized falsely? At your convenience if you would be so kind, please illuminate further.
Thank you
Roger

Hi Roger. I started a separate thread for this topic yesterday (Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?), so to avoid derailing this thread I've posted a response over there:
viewtopic.php?p=885980#885980

[alexxcJRO]

"In the first sentence we see a connection between the return of Jesus and a time when every person will be rewarded according to their deeds.
This is all only compatible with the judgment day.
The judgment day clearly did not happen.
Therefore the prophecy is dead wrong. Cool"

Nope-- that connection is NOT there. Please observe:

Mat 1627 & 28 KJV

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.

The "his" in 27 are CHRIST's works, not our works. It is solely by Christ's work (which were fully completed during His lifetime on earth) that one becomes saved -- we can contribute nothing -- that salvation occurs/is given (by grace)during this lifetime when Christ SPIRITUALLY inhabits those whom are to become saved- not during the next - and they are given eyes that see and ears that hear spiritually. When Christ comes again at the end of time it will be too late for salvation -- that is , for those whose sin has been covered by His work: salvation -- for those whose sins have not :judgment.
So.... his "reward" is awarded to each person during their lifetime one way or the other -- which harmonizes with the Bible and the conclusion of my prior reply. The final return of Jesus is not, and cannot be, in view in these or other verses

Not sure if this reply is clear so if it's not let me know and I'll try to clarify

Nonsensical, irrelevant ramblings cuz’ of cognitive dissonance born out of desperation to save what cannot be saved.

Let’s not choose one translation that allows us to distort otherwise a clear thing in a convoluted mess devoid of any logic, shall we?

The text I supplied clearly say "them" as in plural not in singular.
Therefore the bible is far from being the perfect word of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, but a collection of texts composed and translated by mere faulty humans.