The Second Coming – Why would there be a need for a church

[polonius]

Four times in the New Testament it is recorded that Jesus would return during his generation. But he didn’t. And this raises the question as to why if Jesus believed he was returning to found his kingdom on earth there would be any need for him to found a church.

Luke 9:27 “'I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.'

Matthew 16:28 “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not d taste death e until they see the Son of Manf coming in his kingdom."

Mark 9 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not l taste death m until they see the kingdom of God after it has come n with power."

1Thes 4 “15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. “


One religion has an interesting answer. They first claimed that Jesus would return in 1874, but when Jesus didn’t they changed the date to 1914. They now insist that Jesus did return but he is invisible.

If so, how would they know he has returned?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Yes, one would think that if one wanted to found a church, that person would be thinking for the long haul. I think the apologist would argue that the church, the "ship of faith" would be needed to sustain the faithful in the event of a delayed return of the Messiah.

The verses you provide, however, would seem to contradict that notion.

[Elijah John]

One religion has an interesting answer. They first claimed that Jesus would return in 1874, but when Jesus didn’t they changed the date to 1914. They now insist that Jesus did return but he is invisible.

If so, how would they know he has returned?

Another excellent question. And a great example of how one absurdity leads to another, much in the same manner is that a web of lies is often necessary to sustain the original lie.

I often wonder why they cling to this doctrine, when it would have been so much easier to admit that their founder was simply wrong. After all, the WTS has in other instances admitted that their founder was wrong. Or that their beliefs have evolved. One wonders why not in the case of the doctrine of Christ's 1914 return?

[marco]

One religion has an interesting answer. They first claimed that Jesus would return in 1874, but when Jesus didn’t they changed the date to 1914. They now insist that Jesus did return but he is invisible.

If so, how would they know he has returned?

It must fill folk with sadness to discover their cherished beliefs are false. They can leave or they can invent, for fiction can offer comfort. If one has to talk of invisible beings moving around the Somme, then what is life worth?

Jesus undoubtedly believed he'd be home soon. Other constructions on his alleged words are based on simple hope. The whole idea that the Prince will come back on a clump of cumulus is the stuff of moist-eyed wishing. I wonder what purpose it serves.

[JehovahsWitness]

They now insist that Jesus did return but he is invisible.

If so, how would they know he has returned?

If you are refering to JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES we believe know because of the signs Jesus provided to identify the time (see Mat 24, Lk 21, Mk 14) and we believe it started in 1914 because of our interpretation of bible chronology (see link below).

Learn more
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... -prophecy/


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

... their beliefs have evolved. One wonders why not in the case of the doctrine of Christ's 1914 return?

Yes you said the same thing on Friday 12th May 2017, my answer is unchanged
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 990#864990

Because we (Jehovah's Witnesses) don't believe we are wrong on this. If one day we come to believe this is wrong we will change our beliefs; we have no problem changing our beliefs once we see we are wrong.

RELATED POSTS

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe Charles Taze Russell was wrong about certain teachings?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 789#864789

Are Jehovah's Witnesses happy to change their beliefs?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 304#865304

Docu-drama on CTR?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 789#864789

[JehovahsWitness]

...why if Jesus believed he was returning to found his kingdom on earth there would be any need for him to found a church.

Well JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES don't believe Jesus will ever establish his kingdom-government "on earth" (or indeed that Jesus will literally ever return to reside on this planet) but speaking for my own religion we do believe that there is a need for a "church" during this period of time. The "need" is not God's (YHWH/Jehovah in English) because God "needs" nothing, the need is we believe on the part of humans, many of whom are looking for comfort and react positively to our message.

Jesus is spoken of in the bible as referring to "the good news of the kingdom" a message of hope that God will soon destroy all human governments and replace them with His own government, with Jesus ruling from heaven. This government will we believe eliminate all human suffering (wars, famines, poverty, sickeness...) and this our planet earth will finally be inherited by "the meek" as Jesus promised.

Jehovah's Witnesses view it as their privilege and responsibility to publicize what the kingdom has and will do for mankind and have for over 100 years been serious about the commission to preach the good news earthwide.






[youtube][/youtube]

[marco]

we know because of the signs Jesus provided to identify the time and we know when it started because of bible chronology.

Well unfortunately he gave ambiguous meteorological signs and predicted events that are pretty commonplace through history.

He did not say:
A dragon the size of ten mountains will appear in the Northern sky.
Clouds will turn Green, then Orange then Red over a face inscribed YHWH
The Pacific ocean will vanish for a week, and North Korea will put on games for the hungry of the world

and so on.

Instead he said it will be rainy, a bit; thundery, a bit; stormy, a bit; unpeaceful, a bit...

and so on.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by marco]

That's not a problem for us as we believe holy spirit makes everything clear in due time to but ONLY to spirit anointed true followers. Our belief is that those that are not of (or in support of) that number will remain in the dark on spiritual matters and will find such spiritual things "ambiguous", "vague" "confusing" even "foolish" (see 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Cor 3:19, 20)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Because we (Jehovah's Witnesses) don't believe we are wrong on this. If one day we come to believe this is wrong we will change our beliefs; we have no problem changing our beliefs once we see we are wrong.

This is fascinating JW. Readers and yourself will remember that a number of weeks ago, I (in my own estimation) demolished a claim from yourself that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, that the odds of Jesus fulfilling what you call prophecies by mere happenstance were too great to be worth considering.
Why do I bring this up? Because several times (about three times I can remember off the top of my head) and then again via PM, I requested a retort from you, a follow-up, to see if you could indeed defend your claim and perhaps show where I had erred.

Here is the conversation we had.
Initial message from myself to JW

Hi, I'm just wondering if you have a rebuttal to my rebuttal to what you posted on the 'Whole Bible is about Jesus' thread.

viewtopic.php?p=887783#887783

The reason I'm asking is because while I honestly believe that what I put up is a slamdunk, there is a chance I missed something.
There is also my concern over whether or not you are a person who admits when something they believed is just not true (or least, that their reasons for it are not as strong as they made it out to be). You may not be aware, but I went through my childhood and teenage years strongly convinced my father was good. Then I learned he did something evil, and instead of dismissing it, I accepted it, even though it was extremely painful.
I also want to find out whether or not you are willing to learn new information. When I saw you posted there, and before I did my rebuttal, I was aghast at what I saw, because all of what I saw was incredibly trivial to debunk, such as pointing out one character in a psalm being paid 30 pieces of silver does not a prophecy make, or that the calculations over the Micah 5:2 'prophecy' ignore entirely the part about the ruler of Israel.
From my point of view, what I'm seeing is a person who saw a write-up that supposedly is itself a slam dunk on the probability of Jesus fulfilling prophecy, and that person (you) never actually examining this write-up, to see if it holds muster.
Is that what happened? Or did you honestly examine the bereanpublishers article with a skeptical eye, only to miss all that I pointed out?

Reply back from JW to myself

Please do not PM me I am not interested in any private exchange with you;

Thank you for your understanding,

JW

To which I responded by clarifying thusly

Just to be clear. I was not asking for a private discussion via Pm, but rather a continuation of the thread on that thread. As I said before from where I'm standing I countered your claims of fulfilled prophecy quite simply and nicely but I want to see what you have to say in response.
Did jesus really fulfil prophecy? Are you willing to publicly acknowledge when you say something in error or is there somewhere I myself can be corrected?

After this I shall honour your wish and shall not darken your inbox again. Take care and have a wonderful day.

To which...there was silence. JW has not posted on the "Whole Bible is about Jesus" thread in response to myself, and to my knowledge, has not commented elsewhere as to the 'fulfilled prophecies' claim or the 'odds of fulfilling prophecy by happenstance' claim.

To be absolutely clear, I am NOT saying that JW must respond to rikuoamero. What I am saying is that JW has made claims about Jesus, has not defended them after they were countered, and here in this thread, claims and I shall quote again

Because we (Jehovah's Witnesses) don't believe we are wrong on this. If one day we come to believe this is wrong we will change our beliefs; we have no problem changing our beliefs once we see we are wrong.