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 JehovahsWitness in post #10]

OK, fair enough, so you don't believe the stars falling to earth thing is literal. How about the "Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory" in Mark 13:26? Is that literal? If so, then did the people alive in the 1st century AD live to literally see it? If it's not literal, then just what does the second coming mean to you?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #4]

When something is prophesied, it is always open to interpretation as long as the prophesy remains unfulfilled...handy that...

So in Mark 13:30 where Jesus prophesied:

"I assure you that all these things will happen while some of the people of this time are still living."

what is to be interpreted differently so as save the verse from its failure?


.

Ask any of those 2.168 billion Christians who obviously interpret differently...I my myself don't know...

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #10]

OK, fair enough, so you don't believe the stars falling to earth thing is literal. How about the "Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory" in Mark 13:26? Is that literal? If so, then did the people alive in the 1st century AD live to literally see it? If it's not literal, then just what does the second coming mean to you?

I was informed today that the Serpent in the garden might not be literal but figurative of character flaw in Eve...I think Christians would draw the line at saying anything Jesus DID was figurative...

[Miles]

[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?

I do not believe Jesus was speaking literally.

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

Perhaps not, but certainly a colossal restructuring of the universe:

No, I don't believe so at all. There is nothing wrong with the structure of the physical universe and absolutly no reason to restructure it.

Right, because Jesus's prophecy failed.

The Sun did not become dark,
The moon continues to give light.
The stars did not fall from the sky,
and nothing in the sky changed.

.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

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

[Miles]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #4]

When something is prophesied, it is always open to interpretation as long as the prophesy remains unfulfilled...handy that...

So in Mark 13:30 where Jesus prophesied:

"I assure you that all these things will happen while some of the people of this time are still living."

what is to be interpreted differently so as save the verse from its failure?


.

Ask any of those 2.168 billion Christians who obviously interpret differently...I my myself don't know...

Of course they interpret it differently (more likely they just ignore it). They have no choice; nobody wants to admit their religious icon is fallible.


.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

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

Not familiar with it. Got a link?


.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Miles in post #18]

viewtopic.php?p=1027398#p1027398

[Mithrae]

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.

In this as in so many other instances, a lot of Christians shoot themselves in the foot by treating 'the bible' as a unitary, supposedly infallible book. I would say that Mark, 'Matthew,' Luke and gJohn each offered their own distinct perspectives on Jesus' return. The author of Matthew obviously expected an imminent return of Jesus; what you've quoted in 10:23 is a prediction/timeframe found nowhere else in the canon and was perhaps invented by 'Matthew' himself. In addition we have Matt. 16:28 "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"; that's not quite the same as what was written in Mark 9:1, so if 'Matthew' was using material from the earlier gospel (as almost everyone agrees) then it seems he changed the story to emphasize Jesus' imminent return. Personally the conclusion I draw from this (though many scholars disagree, albeit based on reasoning I've never found convincing) would be that 'Matthew' probably wrote around 70-73 CE and had taken the destruction of the Jewish temple as proof that the prophecy of Daniel 9 was being fulfilled before his very eyes.

By contrast, in Luke's version of the Mark 13 prophecy he removes the most strongly eschatological aspect, the 'abomination of desolation' from Daniel, replacing it with 'Jerusalem surrounded by armies' (Luke 21:20) and has Jerusalem being trampled by the nations until an indefinite "times of the gentiles are fulfilled" before Jesus' eventual return (v24). Other hints (such as the suggestion in Mary's song that "from now on all generations will call me blessed") are not particularly hard to find: I think it's reasonable to conclude that Luke wrote a decade or more after the destruction of the temple and realized that Daniel's seventieth 'seven' was not being immediately fulfilled. So he hedges his bets, keeping the passage but downplaying it a little and elsewhere adding cryptic comments like "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you" (Luke 17:20-21). The gospel of John makes no reference to the timing of Jesus' return at all, besides a story in the later-added final chapter in which all these expectations that it would happen within his disciples' lifetimes is clumsily passed off as just a silly little misunderstanding (John 21:23).

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).

[William]

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.

In this as in so many other instances, a lot of Christians shoot themselves in the foot by treating 'the bible' as a unitary, supposedly infallible book. I would say that Mark, 'Matthew,' Luke and gJohn each offered their own distinct perspectives on Jesus' return. The author of Matthew obviously expected an imminent return of Jesus; what you've quoted in 10:23 is a prediction/timeframe found nowhere else in the canon and was perhaps invented by 'Matthew' himself. In addition we have Matt. 16:28 "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"; that's not quite the same as what was written in Mark 9:1, so if 'Matthew' was using material from the earlier gospel (as almost everyone agrees) then it seems he changed the story to emphasize Jesus' imminent return. Personally the conclusion I draw from this (though many scholars disagree, albeit based on reasoning I've never found convincing) would be that 'Matthew' probably wrote around 70-73 CE and had taken the destruction of the Jewish temple as proof that the prophecy of Daniel 9 was being fulfilled before his very eyes.

By contrast, in Luke's version of the Mark 13 prophecy he removes the most strongly eschatological aspect, the 'abomination of desolation' from Daniel, replacing it with 'Jerusalem surrounded by armies' (Luke 21:20) and has Jerusalem being trampled by the nations until an indefinite "times of the gentiles are fulfilled" before Jesus' eventual return (v24). Other hints (such as the suggestion in Mary's song that "from now on all generations will call me blessed") are not particularly hard to find: I think it's reasonable to conclude that Luke wrote a decade or more after the destruction of the temple and realized that Daniel's seventieth 'seven' was not being immediately fulfilled. So he hedges his bets, keeping the passage but downplaying it a little and elsewhere adding cryptic comments like "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you" (Luke 17:20-21). The gospel of John makes no reference to the timing of Jesus' return at all, besides a story in the later-added final chapter in which all these expectations that it would happen within his disciples' lifetimes is clumsily passed off as just a silly little misunderstanding (John 21:23).

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?