Many failed predictions of Jesus return..

[Elijah John]

Matthew 16:27-28 New International Version (NIV)

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers 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.

There have been many failed predictions of the "2nd coming of Christ". Most notably, Charles Taze Russell who predicted Jesus would return in 1914. When he didn't return, the prediction was revised to mean an "invisible return".

For debate, in light of the quoted passage from Matthew, was Jesus the first person to mistakenly predict his return?

How is Jesus prediction different from any of the others who have mistakenly predicted the time of his return?

[tam]

[Replying to post 189 by Elijah John]


Peace to you,

And change the plain meaning of the passage to make it comply with orthodoxy?

Why do you guys keep insisting that we have somehow changed the plain meaning of the word, genea?


Here (again, from post 152) is the usage of the word genea (generation):

I. fathered, birth, nativity

II. that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

. A. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy

. B. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

. i. esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

III. the whole multitude of men living at the same time

IV. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of
30 - 33 years


https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 1074&t=KJV

Why do you (general) ignore all the other meanings of the word, genea, to instead choose a meaning that would indicate Christ spoke falsely? I mean, it doesn't even have to be (what many would consider) the plain meaning of the word. Christ did not use (what many considered to be) the plain meaning of the words 'eat my flesh and drink my blood, did He?

If a word or a phrase CAN mean something that would reveal Christ having spoken truthfully, why go with something else?


But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matt 6:33, Luke 12:31





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 187 by Checkpoint]

The predicted return in the liftime of Jesus contemporaries fits the context of the times, and of many other verses which indicate Bible writers expected the "end is nigh". Beyond just the Gospel Evanglelists, also Paul and the author of Hebrews. "in these last days" reads the opening chapter of Hebrews.

Last days? For 2000 years?

Also don't foget under Roman occupation, there was apolcalyptic ferver in first century Palestine.

The expectation that God's immanent intervention was nigh.

Advocates of Bible perfection ignore that historical context.

The context of the times is one thing, how Jesus responded to expectations was quite another.

We are looking at what Jesus said, not at how others expressed their understanding.

It is the apologists and advocates of Bibe perfection who are moving the goalposts, not us. "Jesus" set the goal of his own generation, apologists attempt to redefine generation, and stretch it, to included such notions as "dispensations" etc.

The goal Jesus set was that no one will know the time, and to therefore be ready at all times, for his coming will be "at an hour you do not expect", Matthew 24:44.

I do not redefine or stretch the meaning of "generation".

Rather, it is skeptics who assume its meaning and refuse to use the meaning Jesus actually used repeatedly, and one sometimes used elsewhere in both Testaments.

[Checkpoint]

Duplication deleted

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 187 by Checkpoint]

The predicted return in the liftime of Jesus contemporaries fits the context of the times, and of many other verses which indicate Bible writers expected the "end is nigh". Beyond just the Gospel Evanglelists, also Paul and the author of Hebrews. "in these last days" reads the opening chapter of Hebrews.

Last days? For 2000 years?

Also don't foget under Roman occupation, there was apolcalyptic ferver in first century Palestine.

The expectation that God's immanent intervention was nigh.

Advocates of Bible perfection ignore that historical context.

The context of the times is one thing, how Jesus responded to expectations was quite another.

We are looking at what Jesus said, not at how others expressed their understanding.

It is the apologists and advocates of Bibe perfection who are moving the goalposts, not us. "Jesus" set the goal of his own generation, apologists attempt to redefine generation, and stretch it, to included such notions as "dispensations" etc.

The goal Jesus set was that no one will know the time, and to therefore be ready at all times, for his coming will be "at an hour you do not expect", Matthew 24:44.

I do not redefine or stretch the meaning of "generation".

Rather, it is skeptics who assume its meaning and refuse to use the meaning Jesus actually used repeatedly, and one sometimes used elsewhere in both Testaments.

Not the skeptics, but the apologists who distort plain meaning in order to make it conform to orthodoxy, one's Pastor's or the Church's interpretation.

Yes, Jesus did say "at an hour you do not expect". He did not give a specific day and time, but he did give a specific time frame for the "2nd coming". Namely, the lifetime of his own apostles.

No skeptic pointed out the troublesome passage to me. I discovered it on my own, as a believer in the Bible's perfection. It was the passage itself, it's plain meaning that made a skeptic out of me.

A skeptic with regard to the Bible's perfection, and the Divinity of Jesus anyway.

And once the crack of error opens in the Bible, the whole facade of Bible perfection crumbles.

But meaning, and inspiration can still be salvaged from it's pages. There are ways.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 187 by Checkpoint]

Also, if "plain meaning" favors apologists and not skeptics, why isn't Matthew 16.27-28 an Evangelical "memory verse"?

Is that passage even in the Lectionary of Liturgical Churches? I've never heard it preached in Mass.

What Evangelical or Liturgical Churches do or don't do with those verses means little or nothing to me or in this debate.

Could it be that passage in plain reading is an embarrassment, and too difficult to explain away?

And isn't that very difficulty in explainlng passages like that a good indication that verbal, mental and theological gymnastics are necessary in order to explain it away? And change the plain meaning of the passage to make it comply with orthodoxy?

In your mind yes, it could be.

Anything is possible to the skeptic who so readily labels any explanations given by apologists as "verbal, mental and theological gymnastics".

[Elijah John]

Would apologists on this thread agree that to admit that Jesus was indeed wrong in the passage in question, (Matthew 16.27-28) or that the Gospel evangelist was wrong, would be to admit to a crack in the facade of Bible perfection? Or the notion that Jesus was perfect?

And if that is the case, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the apologist has a protective bias that would hinder them from viewing the passage objectively, and missing the plain meaning (with it's unsettling implication) that Jesus or the Bible were indeed mistaken?

"Confirmation bias" I believe it is called.

[Checkpoint]

Would apologists on this thread agree that to admit that Jesus was indeed wrong in the passage in question, (Matthew 16.27-28) or that the Gospel evangelist was wrong, would be to admit to a crack in the facade of Bible perfection? Or the notion that Jesus was perfect?

And if that is the case, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the apologist has a protective bias that would hinder them from viewing the passage objectively, and missing the plain meaning (with it's unsettling implication) that Jesus or the Bible were indeed mistaken?

"Confirmation bias" I believe it is called.

Don't you get that what you say here is a two-way street?

It would be easy for me to turn it around by changing a word here or there, such as replacing "apologists" with "skeptics".

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 193 by Elijah John]

Yes, Jesus did say "at an hour you do not expect". He did not give a specific day and time, but he did give a specific time frame for the "2nd coming". Namely, the lifetime of his own apostles.

No skeptic pointed out the troublesome passage to me. I discovered it on my own, as a believer in the Bible's perfection. It was the passage itself, it's plain meaning that made a skeptic out of me.

The specific time frame you mention was not for the second coming, but for something else that some, not all, would soon see.

That "troublesome passage" comprises two verses on two different topics about two different events.

Of course the passage is troublesome if one does not know that, or refuses to accept it.

Verse 27 ends one topic, and verse 28 begins another topic.

Grouping those verses together as if each is the context for the other, is a recipe for error.

[Elijah John]

Would apologists on this thread agree that to admit that Jesus was indeed wrong in the passage in question, (Matthew 16.27-28) or that the Gospel evangelist was wrong, would be to admit to a crack in the facade of Bible perfection? Or the notion that Jesus was perfect?

And if that is the case, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the apologist has a protective bias that would hinder them from viewing the passage objectively, and missing the plain meaning (with it's unsettling implication) that Jesus or the Bible were indeed mistaken?

"Confirmation bias" I believe it is called.

Don't you get that what you say here is a two-way street?

It would be easy for me to turn it around by changing a word here or there, such as replacing "apologists" with "skeptics".

You know my story, you know that is not true in my case. I was a believer in Bible perfection when I discovered that passage...on my own. No skeptic pointed it out to me.

That passage, Matthew 16.27-28 (and others like it) made a skeptic out of me. With regards to Bible perfection and the Divinity of Jesus, anyway.

I read it with an open mind. That is not confimation bias.

And I'm sure others have had similar experiences.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 193 by Elijah John]

Yes, Jesus did say "at an hour you do not expect". He did not give a specific day and time, but he did give a specific time frame for the "2nd coming". Namely, the lifetime of his own apostles.

No skeptic pointed out the troublesome passage to me. I discovered it on my own, as a believer in the Bible's perfection. It was the passage itself, it's plain meaning that made a skeptic out of me.

The specific time frame you mention was not for the second coming, but for something else that some, not all, would soon see.

That "troublesome passage" comprises two verses on two different topics about two different events.

..........................

Verse 27 ends one topic, and verse 28 begins another topic.

Grouping those verses together as if each is the context for the other, is a recipe for error.

The Bible itself contains error, and this passage is a prime example.

Two different topics in one paragraph? Speaks of lack of focus, if it is as you say. One would think that God Incarnate would have a better command of rhetoric, language, composition, and communication.

Or that Divinely inspired writers, would in fact be better, more precise writers. That is, if "inerrancy" is claimed.

But again, I think you are ignoring the context of other verses from other NT writers who also indicated they believed the end was nigh. Including Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews ("in these last days") and Paul.

And the context of the times, which was wrought with apocalyptic fervor.

Israel was under Roman occupation. And Jews and the first Christians eagerly awaited delieverance from the Romans, at the hand of YHVH God Himself, or His agent the Messiah.