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?

[Checkpoint]

"Divine lucidity" is there in abundance; there is no "lack of focus".

The lack is not in him but in us.

I had a mathematics professor who used to refuse explanation since he said his notes were lucid enough. The judge of lucidity is of course the receiver. There are those who take what is perhaps a wrong interpretation and they consider there is lucidity. Different churches take different meanings. We can safely deduce that lucidity is in question, far from being "in abundance."

I was talking about "Divine lucidity", not about "The judge of lucidity".

The lucidity that is in question is that of us judgers.

[Elijah John]

How does topic change take place in conversation?

We do it often, and in various ways.

Some people are fast talkers who may change rapidly at times. Others are slow talkers who have non-talk gaps until they begin a new subject.

But all begin at some point, end at another, and often then start a new topic, and so they continue.

Instead of seeing topic change as negative or confusing, we should surely be looking more closely at verses in dispute, to determine where any topic begins and ends, and how it is introduced and concluded.

And ask and answer what that specific topic is and why it was initiated.

Points well taken, but consider. We are speaking of the presumed Son of God here, God incarnate, and a spiritual teacher, allegedly speaking in a prohetic capacity. We are not speaking of "some people" or "others", ie ordinary people.

Is it too much to expect "God Incarnate" to be focused in his rhetoric, so as to not lose any of his audience or confuse them?

Also, (notice the transition ), you seem to be admitting that if indeed Jesus was speaking of the same topic in verse 16.27 and 16.28, that he or the Gospel Evangelist was mistaken.

But I do understand that you are insisting that Jesus was not speaking of the same topic.

In light of my original observations in this post, regarding reasonable expectations of the Son of God (expecting him to be more clear in his presentation), will you reconsider your position?

[PinSeeker]

I would agree with CheckPoint, that there is no lack of "lucidity" or "focus" in Jesus and what He says here (or in Matthew's recounting of it, because it's really the Holy Spirit's recounting of Jesus's words through Matthew). I would add that we may have some lack of "lucidity" or "focus," but all that's really relevant here is lack of understanding in us (or at least some of us).

Here's my understanding of the whole passage (not just vv. 27-28) and how it all flows together forming and elucidating Jesus's one complete thought and teaching:

From the point of Peters confession onward, Jesus begins to teach his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, suffer, be killed, and on the third day, be raised (16:21). Peter rebukes Jesus for saying this, but Jesus shows him that this is the only way (vv. 22"23). Jesus tells his disciples that they must take up their cross and follow him because it is foolish to gain the world and lose ones soul (vv. 24"26). Then Jesus says, For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (vv. 27"28).

Interpretations include the following:

(1) Jesus is referring to His transfiguration (which is narrated in the following chapter)
(2) Jesus is referring to his resurrection
(3) Jesus is referring to Pentecost
(4) Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70.
(5) Jesus is speaking here of his Second Coming and of the end of history. Among those holding this view, (a.) there are those who believe Jesus was mistaken because he believed this would occur within the lifetime of his hearers, and (b.) there are those who believe that Jesus was correct because the some standing here refers to a later generation.

I think that in order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the coming of the Son of Man, he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13-14. And the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (Daniel 7:9-10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). I believe that the point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, -- in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The coming of the Son of Man, then, is simply another way of saying the coming of the kingdom of God.

Obviously, it is the assumption that the words coming of the Son of Man must mean Second Coming that has caused much of the confusion. In my opinion, once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasnt speaking of the Second Coming at all. He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (Matthew 16:28).

So there is no "failed prediction." And there is no "jumping from one subject to another." And there is no "lack of lucidity or focus" on Jesus's part.

Peace, gentlemen.

[Checkpoint]

How does topic change take place in conversation?

We do it often, and in various ways.

Some people are fast talkers who may change rapidly at times. Others are slow talkers who have non-talk gaps until they begin a new subject.

But all begin at some point, end at another, and often then start a new topic, and so they continue.

Instead of seeing topic change as negative or confusing, we should surely be looking more closely at verses in dispute, to determine where any topic begins and ends, and how it is introduced and concluded.

And ask and answer what that specific topic is and why it was initiated.

Points well taken, but consider. We are speaking of the presumed Son of God here, God incarnate, and a spiritual teacher, allegedly speaking in a prohetic capacity. We are not speaking of "some people" or "others", ie ordinary people.

Is it too much to expect "God Incarnate" to be focused in his rhetoric, so as to not lose any of his audience or confuse them?

Yes, that is who we are speaking about.

An extraordinary spiritual teacher of whom YHVH said, "This is My beloved son in whom I am well pleased; listen to him".

One focused in his rhetoric, but one often misunderstood because his message was radical and spiritual.

He himself said his teaching would only register with those who had eyes to see and ears to hear.

Also, (notice the transition ), you seem to be admitting that if indeed Jesus was speaking of the same topic in verse 16.27 and 16.28, that he or the Gospel Evangelist was mistaken.

But I do understand that you are insisting that Jesus was not speaking of the same topic.

In light of my original observations in this post, regarding reasonable expectations of the Son of God (expecting him to be more clear in his presentation), will you reconsider your position?

I see no reason to do that, and have no need to do that.

But what I do see, and did notice, was your transitional word, "also".

I also see how similar that is to his transitional "truly I say to you".

[Elijah John]

I see no reason to do that, and have no need to do that.

But what I do see, and did notice, was your transitional word, "also".

I also see how similar that is to his transitional "truly I say to you".

"Truly I say to you" is not transitional, but emphatic. "Also" "as well" "and" are transitional.

Perhaps this article will put things into perspective, that Jesus and the New Testament writers in general, expected the end of days to occur in their own lifetime/generation. This is from Wikipedia summarizes Albert Schweitzwer's case quite well.

The concept that Christianity started as a Jewish apocalyptic movement is evidenced by the teachings of the Historical Jesus concerning the end of days. Not only did he preach he would rise from the grave, but that he would also ascend to the Heaven and one day return to judge and rule over the world, saying that no one, including himself, knew the exact time of his return, but it would be before the end of his generation. Schweitzer verified the many New Testament references clearly explaining that 1st-century Christians believed in the imminent fulfillment of the promise of the World's ending, within the lifetime of Jesus's original followers.[37] He noted that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of a "tribulation", with his coming in the clouds with great power and glory" (St Mark), and states when it will happen: "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (St Matthew, 24:34) (or, "have taken place" (Luke 21:32))
In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer observes the Bible contradicting the possibility of important events that never took place and never can take place as they are described; Jesus specifically states that we are to "not seal up the words of the prophecy" and promises that some of his listeners as well as the high priest at his trial would be alive to see him return to the Earth. "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near" (Revelation 1:3). Saint Paul spoke of the "last times": "Brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none" (1 Corinthians 7:29); "God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:2); "There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28) (or, "until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power" (Mark 9:1); or, "till they see the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27).)
Schweitzer continues writing in The Quest of the Historical Jesus that it is totally unreasonable to think that "coming quickly", "near", and "soon" could mean hundreds of years, much less, thousands of years in the future. "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3) "And he said to me, 'These words are faithful and true'; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place." "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book." And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Revelation 22:6, 7, 10, 12). "All these things shall come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:36). Schweitzer concludes that the 1st-century theology, originating in the lifetimes of those who first followed Jesus, is totally incompatible with modern Christian belief.
In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer notes the passage "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3) Similarly in St Peter: "Christ .. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Peter 1:20), and "But the end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7). "Surely I come quickly" (Revelation 22:20). Schweitzer felt that St. Paul clearly believed in the immediacy of the Second Coming of Jesus, in stark contrast to modern organized Christianity.

Now will you reconsider your position?

[PinSeeker]

"The concept that Christianity started as a Jewish apocalyptic movement is evidenced by the teachings of the Historical Jesus concerning the end of days. Not only did he preach he would rise from the grave, but that he would also ascend to the Heaven and one day return to judge and rule over the world, saying that no one, including himself, knew the exact time of his return..."

Yes...

"...but it would be before the end of his generation."

That's incorrect. Nice copy and paste job from Wikipedia by the way... Albert Schweitzer has denied that Christ ever existed, saying:

"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb. This image has not been destroyed from outside; it has fallen to pieces..."

That should discredit him from commenting on what Jesus said, no? Schweitzer was Lutheran (which is pretty good, following after Martin Luther), but his eschatology was decidedly Jewish, which made for a very odd mix. But denying Christ ever existed pretty much disqualifies him from even being a Christian, doesn't it? Well, yes, it does.

Anyway, again, it is the assumption that the words coming of the Son of Man must mean Second Coming that has caused much of the confusion. Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers; He wasnt speaking of the Second Coming at all. He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers. And this is corroberrated by Mark and Luke, as I said above.

"Schweitzer verified the many New Testament references clearly explaining that 1st-century Christians believed in the imminent fulfillment of the promise of the World's ending, within the lifetime of Jesus's original followers."

Sure. A lot of them did. A lot of them were making the same mistake in understanding that is still being made today.

Now will you reconsider your position?

If he's smart, no.

[Elijah John]

"The concept that Christianity started as a Jewish apocalyptic movement is evidenced by the teachings of the Historical Jesus concerning the end of days. Not only did he preach he would rise from the grave, but that he would also ascend to the Heaven and one day return to judge and rule over the world, saying that no one, including himself, knew the exact time of his return..."

Yes...

"...but it would be before the end of his generation."

That's incorrect. Nice copy and paste job from Wikipedia by the way...

Thank you, and welcome to the forum. Now, why do you say "incorrect". That is not refutation. Also, attacking Schweitzer personally, does not invalidate his argument. Please address the argument, not the man.

Albert Schweitzer has denied that Christ ever existed, saying:

"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb. This image has not been destroyed from outside; it has fallen to pieces..."

Could be wrong, but I don't see that as him saying Jesus never existed. But rather, the rationalistic image created by scholars of his own day, that is what Schweitzer was calling into question.

That should discredit him from commenting on what Jesus said, no?

No indeed. That would not invalidate his argument that Jesus and NT writers in general were wrong about Jesus 2nd coming.

Schweitzer was Lutheran (which is pretty good, following after Martin Luther), but his eschatology was decidedly Jewish, which made for a very odd mix.

So? Has no bearing on the question under consideration.

But denying Christ ever existed pretty much disqualifies him from even being a Christian, doesn't it? Well, yes, it does.

Even so, how would that disqualify him from observing that "Jesus" was simply wrong? Again, you're attacking the man, not his argument.

Anyway, again, it is the assumption that the words coming of the Son of Man must mean Second Coming that has caused much of the confusion. Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers; He wasnt speaking of the Second Coming at all. He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers. And this is corroberrated by Mark and Luke, as I said above.

That is a thought provoking observation. But context, all about context. The many other supporting references that Schweitzer cited indicate that Matthew, Mark and Luke, or "Jesus" was not alone in expecting his 2nd coming in the lifetime of his apostles, bascically the whole New Testament reflected that expectation. Yes Jesus at times spoke in the present tense regarding the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven, ( IS within, among you, etc,) but here he was speaking of a near future event, the culmination of the Kingdom.

"Schweitzer verified the many New Testament references clearly explaining that 1st-century Christians believed in the imminent fulfillment of the promise of the World's ending, within the lifetime of Jesus's original followers."

Sure. A lot of them did. A lot of them were making the same mistake in understanding that is still being made today.

And that brings the post full circle back to the OP. "Jesus" or the NT writers were the first to errorneously predict his return.

Now will you reconsider your position?

If he's smart, no.

If you are wise, you both will.

[PinSeeker]

"Now, why do you say "incorrect". That is not refutation."

Because I had explained, with Scripture citations -- why it is incorrect in my previous post. And I explain again later in the post you're responding to here. I can do it again if you want, but I think that would be an insult to your intelligence, and I wouldn't do that. At any rate, Scripture refutes it; I am merely agreeing with Scripture and relating it.

"Also, attacking Schweitzer personally, does not invalidate his argument. Please address the argument, not the man."

I'm not addressing him in any way. I'm merely saying that his eschatology is Jewish (which is very strange in view of his Lutheran background). I'll bet he and his Lutheran pastor father had some really interesting conversations. And he really sort of invalidates himself by commenting on what Jesus said and meant, all the while denying that Jesus even existed. You tell me: How can the same man say "Jesus didn't exist" and "Jesus was wrong"? Maybe Schweitzer was... schizophrenic? Had multiple personalities? I'm not "attacking him," but merely throwing out possible logical deductions for that, um, juxtaposition.


"Could be wrong, but I don't see that as him saying Jesus never existed. But rather, the rationalistic created by scholars of his own day, that is what Schweitzer was calling into question."

No offense, but I'm not sure how in the world you come up with this. Let me present again the Schweitzer quote you're comment pertains to, with emphasis added:

"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb."

That can be read and understood only one way, that Jesus never existed, and that he's an imaginary character dreamed up by those who are... reinventing history, basically, and rationalizing past events to fit their own narrative.



Okay, so I said before: "Anyway, again, it is the assumption that the words coming of the Son of Man must mean 'Second Coming' that has caused much of the confusion. Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers; He wasnt speaking of the Second Coming at all. He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers. And this is corroberrated by Mark and Luke, as I said above.[/quote]

"That is a thought provoking observation."

Thank you. Think about it some more. Wrestle with it. Maybe God, by His Holy Spirit, will bring you to believe it. I hope so.


"But context, all about context."

Absolutely. Context. Your "context" (and Schweitzer's) is (was) both too narrow and off-target. That's the issue here. We have four gospels, not just one. Mark and Luke recount the same events. Matthew's wording is a little different, but don't let that throw you. Neither Mark nor Luke contradicted Matthew's account of the same events. But Matthew was much more steeped in the Scriptures of the ancient Israelites (what we know today as the Old Testament) and wrote from that perspective. That's why Matthew used such a strong allusion -- and the same language and imagery -- as we find in Daniel 7. The correct context, my friend, is the whole counsel of God. There's really more here than just Daniel, Matthew, Luke, and Mark; but those are the passages of the most immediate relevance.

"The many other supporting references that Schweitzer cited indicate that Matthew, Mark and Luke, or "Jesus" was not alone in expecting his 2nd coming in the lifetime of his apostles, bascically the whole New Testament reflected that expectation."

Well, sure. No dispute regarding that. But that's not what is in view here, either by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Jesus.

"Yes Jesus at times spoke in the present tense regarding the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven, (IS within, among you, etc,) but here he was speaking of a near future event, the culmination of the Kingdom."

Nope. Jesus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke were addressing the erroneous understandings of many first century Christians... and also the lack of any understanding at all. Jesus was not speaking in any way whatsoever about His Second Coming, and neither did Matthew, Mark, or Luke in recounting the Lord's words.



"If you are wise, you both] will (reconsider)."

LOL!

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 214 by Elijah John]


Checkpoint wrote:

I see no reason to do that, and have no need to do that.

But what I do see, and did notice, was your transitional word, "also".

I also see how similar that is to his transitional "truly I say to you".

You countered

"Truly I say to you" is not transitional, but emphatic. "Also" "as well" "and" are transitional.

It is both emphatic and transitional.

A phrase he often used to introduce what he had in mind for his listeners.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 214 by Elijah John]

Perhaps this article will put things into perspective, that Jesus and the New Testament writers in general, expected the end of days to occur in their own lifetime/generation.

Whatever others have said or expected, may or may not be accurate, wheter they be of that or of recent times.