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?

[polonius]

Pinseeker posted:

"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

RESPONSE: Or who can't accept the fact that Jesus didn't return as he said he would in a number of different passages.

As far as I know, only the Jehovah Witnesses claim that Jesus returned in 1914, but he's invisible.

[Danmark]

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.

Then why does Jesus refer to this as a future event, within the lifetime of 'those standing here' when he speaks?

As a friend wrote/quoted privately:
Chapter 16: 27 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.

28 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.

Chapter 25: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Chapter 24 starts with Jesus speaking of the signs his disciples would see before his return...chapter 25 continues with Jesus still speaking.

[Danmark]

Son of man is an expression in the sayings of Jesus in Christian writings, including the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Revelation. The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.

The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.
Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making by James D. G. Dunn (Jul 29, 2003), pages 724-725
The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation by Delbert Royce Burkett (Jan 28, 2000) Cambridge Univ Press, pages 3-5
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry W. Hurtado

It is also used frequently in the Hebrew Bible

[Danmark]

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.

Exactly!
And in fact, orthodox Christianity is based in this very interpretation, which is why anonymous Church fathers tried to soften and make more ambiguous the timing with the anonymous additions of 2d Peter and 2d Thessalonians.

[PinSeeker]

Pinseeker posted:

"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

RESPONSE: Or who can't accept the fact that Jesus didn't return as he said he would in a number of different passages.

Case in point. Jesus didn't mean what you are apparently claiming he did. Again, He wasn't talking about His return; he was talking about salvation of individuals. And what He said was absolutely true.

[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.

Then why does Jesus refer to this as a future event, within the lifetime of 'those standing here' when he speaks?

As a friend wrote/quoted privately:
Chapter 16: 27 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.

28 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.

Chapter 25: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Chapter 24 starts with Jesus speaking of the signs his disciples would see before his return...chapter 25 continues with Jesus still speaking.

Because at the end of Matthew 24, Jesus IS actually talking about His return -- as opposed to Matthew 16, where He is merely talking about salvation. Look at what you quoted above again (I realize it's a quote of a quote). Here, let me point it out to you, adding emphasis to make it evident:

Chapter 16: 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels

Chapter 25: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne...

See the difference? That's what happens when a person is given salvation; Jesus comes to that person in the glory of his Father. Conversely, when Jesus returns at the end of the age and executes the judgment and consummates His kingdom, He will be coming in His own glory. Just because the "Son of man" is referenced in both verses -- the same person -- does not mean they are referencing the same things/events.

[marco]

Because at the end of Matthew 24, Jesus IS actually talking about His return -- as opposed to Matthew 16, where He is merely talking about salvation. Look at what you quoted above again (I realize it's a quote of a quote). Here, let me point it out to you, adding emphasis to make it evident:

Chapter 16: 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels

Chapter 25: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne...

See the difference? That's what happens when a person is given salvation; Jesus comes to that person in the glory of his Father. Conversely, when Jesus returns at the end of the age and executes the judgment and consummates His kingdom, He will be coming in His own glory. Just because the "Son of man" is referenced in both verses -- the same person -- does not mean they are referencing the same things/events.

You are taking far more from the words than they merit. The similarity of the phraseology suggests the same context; one would have to show conclusively that it is otherwise.


The text that you believe refers to mundane salvation is:

"What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27For 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."

(a) He is coming WITH his angels (b) He will reward EACH PERSON, suggesting that we have a collected assembly - some getting a blessing, others losing their souls. (c) Verse 28 makes no sense under your interpretation. It clearly suggests that the grand showdown will take place in the lifetime of some of the audience.Were it referring to simple salvation, this would be dispensed when it was needed - no call for the dramatic statement of some being still alive when it happens. The glorious throne is a piece of oracular ornamentation - the two accounts otherwise say the same thing.

Your interpretation is wrong or, at best dubious.

[PinSeeker]

"You are taking far more from the words than they merit."

No, you are not taking nearly enough from them. That's the point.


"The similarity of the phraseology suggests the same context."

Nope. That's a very (no offense intended) wooden stance to take.


"One would have to show conclusively that it is otherwise."

I did. Or, actually, Jesus did.


"He is coming WITH his angels..."

You don't believe there are angels among us right now? Well good grief, what am I saying? Of course you don't. Too bad.


"He will reward EACH PERSON..."

"Right, by giving them salvation.


"...suggesting that we have a collected assembly - some getting a blessing, others losing their souls."

Well, yeah, a lot of folks will be saved, and a lot won't be saved. Sure. And that has both temporal and eternal implications.


"Verse 28 makes no sense under your interpretation."

LOL! Yes it does. You just don't accept that it does. Which doesn't make what you say here true.


"It clearly suggests that the grand showdown will take place in the lifetime of some of the audience."

That's right! Salvation is the most important event in a person's life. I agree with this!


"Were it referring to simple salvation, this would be dispensed when it was needed - no call for the dramatic statement of some being still alive when it happens."

Au contraire. Who are you to say this? You can certainly believe what you want; I'm perfectly okay with that. But salvation is truly a matter of life and death. In both the temporal and eternal sense.


"The glorious throne is a piece of oracular ornamentation - the two accounts otherwise say the same thing."

Nope. The throne is a very important piece in illustrating the difference in the two. Yeah, see? I think it IS willful ignorance.


"Your interpretation is wrong or, at best dubious."

Nope. It's willful ignorance on your part. I don't mean to insult you with that. But obviously, you've decided what you want to believe, and you're sticking to it. I'm okay with that; it's your problem, not mine. But you're understanding is only superficial, and as a result, though you may not mean to do it, you miss the subtleties of the words.

[polonius]

Son of man is an expression in the sayings of Jesus in Christian writings, including the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Revelation. The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.

RESPONSE:

Not really.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

SON OF MAN

"It is employed as a poetical synonym for man, or for the ideal man, e.g. "God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19). "Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2). "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand: and upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself" (Psalm 79:18)."

"The early Fathers were of the opinion that the expression was used out of humility and to show Christ's human nature, and this is very probable considering the early rise of Docetism. This is also the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide. Others, such as Knabenbauer, think that He adopted a title which would not give umbrage to His enemies, and which, as time went on, was capable of being applied so as to cover His Messianic claims " to include everything that had been foretold of the representative man, the second Adam, the suffering servant of Jehovah, the Messianic king."

[marco]

Nope. It's willful ignorance on your part. I don't mean to insult you with that. But obviously, you've decided what you want to believe, and you're sticking to it. I'm okay with that; it's your problem, not mine. But you're understanding is only superficial, and as a result, though you may not mean to do it, you miss the subtleties of the words.

We are looking at some simple sentences. I am as good as the next in understanding subtleties in whatever language I read them.

When Jesus was addressing his fish finders I strongly suspect they heard the meaning I took; it was given to instil faith and hope, which it did. Only when it became obvious that Christ's prediction was wrong did people search for "subtleties" in the simple: "I will come back before some of you are dead."

Angels may indeed frequent the high street. If they are such a commonplace, it's surprising Christ bothers to acknowledge them in his coming. If one can so easily see subtleties in the simplest of texts it is hardly surprising Christianity has many mansions, all differing and all claiming truth.