Is the Second Coming of Jesus a Hoax?

[Rational Atheist]

For debate:

Is the Second Coming of Jesus a Hoax?

Arguably the most important doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ, also known as the "Final Judgment." This is the key event that Christians look forward to--the event when Jesus comes down from the clouds of Heaven, to rescue the righteous believers and save them from the wrath of God, while raining merciless judgment upon the unbelievers in the fires of Hell. But what most Christians likely don't know about this "second coming" is that the Bible actually predicted that it would occur soon after Jesus walked the earth. And, as it turns out, the Bible actually says that Jesus predicted exactly when it would occur, and, clearly, this timeframe has passed.

Mark 13:9-30 states:

9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:

16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

So, apparently, the second coming was supposed to occur within the generation alive during Jesus' time. But many apologists object to this and claim that the "generation" referred to in the Mark passage is either referring to a future generation, or means something other than the standard definition of the word "generation." And this objection could be valid IF there were not other scriptures containing the exact same language (and hence the same prophecy) that used different language to specify when the events would occur. As it turns out, Matthew Chapter 10 contains the exact same prophecies (I have underlined the common words), and further specifies that these events would take place within the disciples' lifetimes, specifically, they would be rescued before they finished running away from their persecutors, through the cities of Israel, as we can read in Matthew 10:16-23:

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


Take note of the underlined passages. Mark 13:9-13 and Matthew 10:17-22 contain nearly the exact same words, so there is no question that they are referring to the same events. The second coming of Christ (along with the destruction of the solar system, the earth, and many of the stars) was supposed to occur, according to the bible, within the lifetimes of the people alive in Jesus' time, so no later than 100 AD. Obviously this didn't happen. So, in my opinion, we are forced to conclude that the return of Christ is a fable, in the same class as the 2012 doomsday hoax, and other failed Armageddon predictions.

[brunumb]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #3]

Mark 13 states that part of this prophecy involved the stars falling to the earth. You're aware that this would destroy the earth, yes?

Not only that, but it's an impossibility. Of course, to the ancients, stars were just twinkling lights up in the sky and not gigantic balls of fiery plasma or distant galaxies consisting of billions of stars that appear as just one point of light to us. Earth might fall into a star, but stars falling on us is ludicrous.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #3]

Mark 13 states that part of this prophecy involved the stars falling to the earth. You're aware that this would destroy the earth, yes?

Not only that, but it's an impossibility. Of course, to the ancients, stars were just twinkling lights up in the sky and not gigantic balls of fiery plasma or distant galaxies consisting of billions of stars that appear as just one point of light to us. Earth might fall into a star, but stars falling on us is ludicrous.

Just another reason why Christians should really fess up and be honest about their religion...

[otseng]

[Replying to Rational Atheist in post #1]

Moderator Action

Edited OP to include a debate question. Please review Tips on starting a debate topic.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[JehovahsWitness]

But I bet you believe he was speaking literally when he said "I and the Father are one.” in John 10:30.

No need to bet you have but to ask . There are few books short of a telephone directory that are entirely one or the other. Language is naturally a combination of literal and figurative speech and the bible imho, logically reflects this.






JW

[Mithrae]

So coming back to Mark, the earliest gospel and presumably the closest record to what Jesus actually said. Some scholars suppose that (like gMatthew) Mark 13 and some other features of the gospel indicate that it was written after 70CE, or at least after the start of the great revolt. If so then presumably Mark was predicting Jesus' imminent return, but those were not Jesus' words just Mark's own 'prophecy after the event,' or at least after some of the seemingly key events. Alternatively if Mark was written before 70CE (which also seems plausible), the verses which most strongly seem to predict an imminent return are 13:30 as quoted in the OP and Mark 9:1, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." There's plenty more which could be debated about those passages in themselves, but what I find interesting first and foremost is how Luke and 'Matthew' treated them: Luke changed the abomination of desolation from Mark 13:14 but left the wording of 13:30 about "this generation" unchanged, and 9:1 almost unchanged. By contrast as we've seen 'Matthew' changed the wording from Mark 9:1 quite noticeably, and added a new prediction about the timing of Jesus' return.

Apparently the author of Matthew didn't think that Mark predicted an imminent return of Jesus very clearly (so he had to change it and add more), and Luke wasn't too concerned that Mark's wording set a constrictive timeframe either (so he left them as they were).

If anything, this is evidence that Christians were interpreting Jesus in their own ways, right from the very beginning...since it is these who are reportedly the very apostles of Jesus, doing so here. Perhaps the reports themselves are fake?

It's certainly evidence that the authors of Matthew, Luke and the appendix to John 'reinterpreted' Jesus to suit their own needs. But perhaps Mark was right?

[William]

So coming back to Mark, the earliest gospel and presumably the closest record to what Jesus actually said. Some scholars suppose that (like gMatthew) Mark 13 and some other features of the gospel indicate that it was written after 70CE, or at least after the start of the great revolt. If so then presumably Mark was predicting Jesus' imminent return, but those were not Jesus' words just Mark's own 'prophecy after the event,' or at least after some of the seemingly key events. Alternatively if Mark was written before 70CE (which also seems plausible), the verses which most strongly seem to predict an imminent return are 13:30 as quoted in the OP and Mark 9:1, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." There's plenty more which could be debated about those passages in themselves, but what I find interesting first and foremost is how Luke and 'Matthew' treated them: Luke changed the abomination of desolation from Mark 13:14 but left the wording of 13:30 about "this generation" unchanged, and 9:1 almost unchanged. By contrast as we've seen 'Matthew' changed the wording from Mark 9:1 quite noticeably, and added a new prediction about the timing of Jesus' return.

Apparently the author of Matthew didn't think that Mark predicted an imminent return of Jesus very clearly (so he had to change it and add more), and Luke wasn't too concerned that Mark's wording set a constrictive timeframe either (so he left them as they were).

If anything, this is evidence that Christians were interpreting Jesus in their own ways, right from the very beginning...since it is these who are reportedly the very apostles of Jesus, doing so here. Perhaps the reports themselves are fake?

It's certainly evidence that the authors of Matthew, Luke and the appendix to John 'reinterpreted' Jesus to suit their own needs. But perhaps Mark was right?

How can we tell that?

[Miles]

But I bet you believe he was speaking literally when he said "I and the Father are one.” in John 10:30.

No need to bet you have but to ask . There are few books short of a telephone directory that are entirely one or the other. Language is naturally a combination of literal and figurative speech and the bible imho, logically reflects this.

And obviously the operating principle of sorting the figurative from literal isn't objectively established, but resides in how well a statement supports one's particular theology. Your bowl cherries isn't anything like the bowl of cherries of the Christian living across the street from you.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

And obviously the operating principle of sorting the figurative from literal isn't objectively established, but resides in how well a statement supports one's particular theology.

If this is an "operating principle" for some, it is not the case for me and I daresay not for those that use critical thinking skills with a view to finding truth and/or accuracy of understanding. It is better perhaps you put aside conclusions about motivation and what essentially amounts to a formula for intellectuel dishonesty, in favor of mature exchange on the given text based on what has been said by those present.






JW


RELATED POSTS

Is favouring one interpretation over another necessarily a bad thing ?
viewtopic.php?p=1028407#p1028407

Is everyone on earth guilty of eisegesis?[this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1028189#p1028189

* Exegesis is legitimate interpretation which "reads out of' the text what the original author or authors meant to convey. Eisegesis, on the other hand, reads into the text what the interpreter wishes to find or thinks he finds there. It expresses the reader's own subjective ideas, not the meaning which is in the text.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[historia]

Perhaps not, but certainly a colossal restructuring of the universe

Mark 13 states that part of this prophecy involved the stars falling to the earth.

Do you think the apologetics on display here belong in my thread about double standards?

A question for our atheists friends. When you read poetry -- say, a Robert Frost poem -- is your inclination to interpret everything in the poem literally? Or do you expect that poetry often contains figurative language?

[Tcg]

Perhaps not, but certainly a colossal restructuring of the universe

Mark 13 states that part of this prophecy involved the stars falling to the earth.

Do you think the apologetics on display here belong in my thread about double standards?

A question for our atheists friends. When you read poetry -- say, a Robert Frost poem -- is your inclination to interpret everything in the poem literally? Or do you expect that poetry often contains figurative language?

A question for our theist friend. What relevance does a poem written many centuries after the religious propaganda from the author of the gospel of Mark have to the religious propaganda under consideration?

Additionally, why do you think changing the subject helps address the issue at hand? If you can provide a clear cut reason to consider this section of propaganda figurative, please do so directly rather than confusing the issue with an irrelevant question related to poetry.


Tcg