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]

[Replying to post 222 by Elijah John]

Could be wrong, but I doubt that the refutation you attempted for Matthew 16.28 would fit all those other verses, which combined create a very solid argument that "Matthew" as well as most of the other NT writers, (including Paul), and by extention, Jesus himself, were clearly mistaken in predicting the timing of the apocalypse.

When it comes to issues of this nature, each poster has a mindset.

We either look for ammunition to attack with, or we look for answers as our defence that will refute.

A stalemate results, with each side concluding they have the truth, the facts that have successfully refuted error.

This is a false equivalency

The rest of your post illustrates the attack mindset.

As has existed for ... how long?

1948 years late and counting....

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, and, following their own mocking ways, will say,

Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it always has".(2 Peter 3:3-4)

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 222 by Elijah John]

Could be wrong, but I doubt that the refutation you attempted for Matthew 16.28 would fit all those other verses, which combined create a very solid argument that "Matthew" as well as most of the other NT writers, (including Paul), and by extention, Jesus himself, were clearly mistaken in predicting the timing of the apocalypse.

When it comes to issues of this nature, each poster has a mindset.

We either look for ammunition to attack with, or we look for answers as our defence that will refute.

A stalemate results, with each side concluding they have the truth, the facts that have successfully refuted error.

This is a false equivalency

The rest of your post illustrates the attack mindset.

As has existed for ... how long?

1948 years late and counting....

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, and, following their own mocking ways, will say,

Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it always has".(2 Peter 3:3-4)

Do you have an argument to present? The quote from 2d Peter, a letter of dubious provenance, is merely a phrase that anyone on any side of any argument can present. It has no informational or argumentative value.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 230 by Danmark]

Do you have an argument to present?

Apparently not on this thread.

When the alternatives offered are flogging a dead horse or swallowing a dead rat, it is time to seek greener pastures.

[otseng]

You can keep on banging your head against that wall as long as you want, my friend. I'd stop it if I were you, but you are, after all is said and done, your own man.

Moderator Comment

On this forum, please avoid making any personal comments about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

The rest of your post illustrates the attack mindset.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting on the mindset of another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker wrote: "Christ is not speaking of His return"

Danmark wrote: "Could have fooled me. I guess words don't matter."

Well -- LOL -- you fooled yourself. I'm kidding; you just misunderstand (along with a WHOLE LOT of other folks down through the centuries). You must have missed my earlier post (212). Go back and read it in full, if you want my full answer. But here's a paraphrased snip that should suffice:

When Jesus speaks of the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 16, He is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13-14. 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, but 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 not any kind of contradiction, but rather simply another way of saying the coming of the kingdom of God. The difference between Matthew's account and that of Mark and Luke is that Matthew wrote from the perspective of the Israelites and much more steeped in the OT Scriptures.

So, no, he's not talking about making schnitzel, and he's not talking about His second coming, either.

[Danmark]

PinSeeker wrote: "Christ is not speaking of His return"

Danmark wrote: "Could have fooled me. I guess words don't matter."

Well -- LOL -- you fooled yourself. I'm kidding; you just misunderstand (along with a WHOLE LOT of other folks down through the centuries). You must have missed my earlier post (212). Go back and read it in full, if you want my full answer. But here's a paraphrased snip that should suffice:

When Jesus speaks of the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 16, He is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13-14. 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, but 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 not any kind of contradiction, but rather simply another way of saying the coming of the kingdom of God. The difference between Matthew's account and that of Mark and Luke is that Matthew wrote from the perspective of the Israelites and much more steeped in the OT Scriptures.

So, no, he's not talking about making schnitzel, and he's not talking about His second coming, either.

This is your interpretation and it strikes me as terribly strained if not absurd. Certainly there may be a reference to Daniel, but are you claiming that Jesus never referred to himself as 'the Son of Man?' In any event neither he nor Daniel returned in the clouds and there has been no 'tribulation' preceding that return. It is failed apocalyptic prophesy, one of many.

Only with an imminent apocalypse do the crazy admonitions to not marry, not have sex, giving away all of one's property, and abandoning one's family and all worldly affairs make the slightest sense.

[marco]

When Jesus speaks of the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 16, He is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13-14. 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.

Well let us suppose that his listeners caught the allusion to Daniel. They would recall:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed"


This amazing piece of night vision would lose much of its power if the Ancient of Days quietly gave his son authority while the world slept. The involvement of all nations of every language suggests something stupendous with the clouds of heaven involved. Naturally ordinary people thought Christ was referring to himself but you tell us the transfer of authority was done quietly, so that those speaking Greek, Chinese, Swahili, Finnish and some of the Zulu dialects didn't get to hear about it. What a shame.


When you say: " he's not talking about making schnitzel, and he's not talking about His second coming either" - his audience would disagree, since they would expect trumpets and maybe fireworks from Daniel's dream sequence. Jesus probably expected he'd be back soon too. Sadly, he wasn't. The reference to some not tasting death before the miracle happened does suggest one should expect a dramatic return soon. Of course if his audience was entirely theologians with umpteen years of theological grammar at their fingertips then maybe we could take an absurdly obscure reading.

Or maybe not.

[PinSeeker]

Danmark:

"This is your interpretation"
Well, yes, mine -- and a lot of other folks down through the centuries. It's the correct one.

"...and it strikes me as terribly strained if not absurd."
Okay, well, that's too bad, but okay.

"Certainly there may be a reference to Daniel..."
There is; Jesus made direct references to many Old Testament passages. This is one of them. We have to let Scripture interpret Scripture; God is His own arbiter. And that's what I'm doing here, citing Daniel 7 and comparing Matthew's account of this event with Mark's and Luke's. It's really not as hard as you seem to want to make it out to be. It's very clear.

"...but are you claiming that Jesus never referred to himself as 'the Son of Man?'"
Absolutely not. I'm merely saying, based on Scripture, that you -- and again, you are not alone -- misunderstand what Jesus is talking about here when He speaks of the coming of the Son of Man.

"In any event neither he nor Daniel returned in the clouds and there has been no 'tribulation' preceding that return."
LOL! Daniel was recounting a dream, a vision, where he saw certain things, namely, the coming of the Lord and His kingdom. Okay, follow me here:

1.) As you might know, Jesus said the kingdom is here now -- it had come with Him; He had brought it (Matthew 3:2, 4:7; Mark 1:15). This is what Daniel's vision was about: the coming -- the incarnation of Jesus -- His birth, actually.

2.) But not everyone who was alive at the time of Jesus's birth actually saw the coming of the kingdom in Jesus. Only a few did, and ever since then, that number has been growing. And that was the situation at the time of Jesus's comments to His disciples in Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9... there were a great many folks who had not yet seen the coming of the Son of Man, or his Kingdom. There would be many -- but not all -- who would, before they tasted death.

3.) Jesus, Danmark, was talking about SALVATION, which comes to many (but not all) during their lifetimes.

4.) This conversation immediately follows Peter's confession of Christ, which Jesus said was revealed to Him not by flesh and blood, but by God the Father. This is a very logical next step in the conversation, because this is how salvation occurs; salvation is of the Lord.

An aside:
It was the same then, and it is the same now, even for you and me. That's why we can say what Jesus was saying then is just as relevant for us now as it was for them then.

5. Thus, Jesus's comment in Matthew 16:28 that "there are some who are standing here..." -- even though he is talking to his disciples only, He is referring to the many others who are in the vicinity (some, but not all) -- "...who will not taste death..." (die) "...until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (ARE SAVED -- are given by God faith and have their eyes opened and come to repentance and belief in Jesus, the Son of Man).

"It is failed apocalyptic prophesy, one of many."
Nope. Not in any way. It's not an apocalyptic prophecy in any way.

"Only with an imminent apocalypse do the crazy admonitions to not marry, not have sex, giving away all of one's property, and abandoning one's family and all worldly affairs make the slightest sense."
Jesus didn't say any of that in the light you are trying to cast them in. In all these things, He's just saying, basically, "Don't sin." Not that any one of those things (sex, property, family, worldly affairs) are sin in and of themselves... But putting any one of those things before God is. "Seek first the kingdom of God."

See, it's not "strained" or "absurd" in any sense. Not to compare myself with Jesus at all, but in His words, he who has ears to hear, let him hear.

[PinSeeker]

Marco:

LOL! See above reply to Danmark.

It is possible, I guess, that Matthew is the only one who caught Jesus's allusion to Daniel. but that's really not worth speculating on and immaterial anyway.

Read the Daniel passage a little closer: "And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him..." Might. In other words, to make it possible for them to acknowledge His Lordship and serve Him. Some will, some will not. Daniel is not talking about Jesus's return, here, he's describing his coming. Which happened a little over 2000 years ago. And makes it possible for people of all nations and languages to obtain God's great salvation and subseqently serve Him, and not themselves or the world. And people have been seeing it -- sometime in their lifetimes -- and coming to faith ever since. Just like Jesus described in Matthew 16.

And no, His audience, specifically His disciples, heard and understood: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in perfect accord. The immediate silence of the others is deafening, indicating understanding and agreement. And the subsequent preaching and teaching of John, Peter, and Paul falls right in line.

"The reference to some not tasting death before the miracle happened does suggest one should expect a dramatic return soon."

Well sure, to the simple-minded, or those who don't really make the effort to understand. Without knowing you, I would think you are probably in the second category...

Ah, well, what you way here might be true if Jesus had said what he said to more than just His disciples, because others would not have been intimately knowledgeable of Scripture in general and Daniel in particular. But Jesus was speaking of salvation and it being of the Lord, and He was talking to those who had been saved and called by Him (his disciples), and He was talking about the many others in the vicinity who were not yet saved. He was saying, essentially, "Some whom you see here will be saved (before they die) but many will not."