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.

[Rational Atheist]

[Replying to historia in post #30]

As another poster stated, poetry is irrelevant. I'm curious as to just how you decide which parts of the bible are literal and which are metaphorical.

[William]

[Replying to historia in post #30]

As another poster stated, poetry is irrelevant. I'm curious as to just how you decide which parts of the bible are literal and which are metaphorical.

It is a scam. A Christian scamming device.

Christians can play the game without end because they have learned to refine their methods over time to bamboozle, confound, anger, frustrate, deflect, all critique of their many interpretations.
In that, they are no different from atheists who also use such methods and in that, when all is said and done, what we are spotlighting is neither christian or atheist in nature, but human - although - because there are humans who do not use such methods, they are distinctly different in nature.

So the question becomes "What is 'human' in nature?" and if it is just a matter of numbers, one can say that "a human is a member of a race of beings who refine their methods over time to bamboozle, confound, anger, frustrate, deflect, all critique of their many interpretations of life and experience." but then, what to call those humans who are not like that?

I gave up referring to myself as a "Christian" because of the abhorrent connotations the label is attached to. I seriously have also ceased referring to myself as a "Human", for the same reasons...

[1213]

Is the Second Coming of Jesus a Hoax?

I don’t think so.

Arguably the most important doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ

I don’t think it is very important, for example because:

It isn't for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set within His own authority.
Acts 1:7

But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matt. 24:36

Because of those I think it is foolish to think that there was some exact time line. Jesus only told what we should expect so that we would be prepared to difficult times.

The main thing in the message of Jesus is the forgiveness and the idea that people should be righteous. After all, the eternal life is promised for righteous.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

But, disciple of Jesus should be prepared for that day, because it will come unexpectedly.

For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.
1 Thes. 5:2
Watch therefore, for you don't know in what hour your Lord comes. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what watch of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore also be ready, for in an hour that you don't expect, the Son of Man will come.
Matt. 24:42-44

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

I think that is one of the important requirements. Has that happened yet?

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

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…

I think it means the generation that sees all the things to be done. However, there is also possibility that those things that should have happened have already happened.

….Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Jesus came after 3 days from the death so that I think is actually true.

[Rational Atheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #34]

If you think "this generation" refers to the generation alive at some future time, how do you explain Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 16:28?

[Miles]

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?

I do, I do; however, I don't consider the Bible to be poetry. I don't consider "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly." (Leviticus 25:44-46) to be poetry.

Or "A river flowed from Eden and watered the garden. The river then separated and became four smaller rivers. The name of the first river was Pishon. This river flowed around the entire country of Havilah (There is gold in that country, and that gold is pure. A kind of expensive perfume and onyx are also found there.) 13 The name of the second river was Gihon. This river flowed around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river was Tigris. This river flowed east of Assyria. The fourth river was the Euphrates.." (Genesis 2:10-14) to be poetry. It may be fantasy or fabrication, but it isn't poetry.

Nor do I consider

Matthew 24:29-30, 34
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
.
.
.
34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

to be poetry. Rather, it's a failed prophecy. That generation passed and none of those things took place.


.

[brunumb]

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?

Does the fate of my immortal soul depend on how I read the poem?

[Difflugia]

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?

Does the fate of my immortal soul depend on how I read the poem?

Only if you have miles to go before you sleep.

[historia]

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?

My question is not about "a poem" -- I just gave Frost as an example -- but rather about poetry, generally, as a literary genre.

As another poster stated, poetry is irrelevant.

My question is directly relevant to the point Miles and you made in post #6 and post #8, respectively.

Does the fate of my immortal soul depend on how I read the poem?

Again, my question is not about any one poem, but about how you approach the genre of poetry.

This is also not a hard question, so I'm not sure why you guys are afraid to answer it:

When you read poetry, is your inclination to interpret everything literally? Or do you expect that poetry often contains figurative language?

[historia]

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?

I do, I do

Good. See, that wasn't hard.

Okay, another question about literary genres -- Tcg, Rational Atheist, and brunumb can feel free to answer this one too.

When you read apocalyptic literature -- such as Daniel and Revelation -- is it your your inclination to interpret everything literally? Or do you expect that apocalyptic literature often contains figurative language?

[historia]

I don't consider the Bible to be poetry.

I'm just going to assume that you recognize that the Bible is a compilation of many different works that span various literary genres, and that several of those works contain poetry. If that's not your understanding, let me know, and we can clear-up any confusion on this point.