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?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]



"Or that Divinely inspired writers, would in fact be better, more precise writers. That is, if "inerrancy" is claimed."

Divinely inspired writers speak of divine things using natural language to express spiritual ideas. Everything that Jesus did and said had a deeper meaning.

Untill we enter the inner sanctum of the Word we shall continue to stumble in the dark.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]



"Or that Divinely inspired writers, would in fact be better, more precise writers. That is, if "inerrancy" is claimed."

Divinely inspired writers speak of divine things using natural language to express spiritual ideas. Everything that Jesus did and said had a deeper meaning.

Untill we enter the inner sanctum of the Word we shall continue to stumble in the dark.

Moderator Comment

This post would be considered to not comply with the guidelines on preaching. In order to avoid 'preaching,' please support your opinions with evidence of some sort. In this case, an example of the 'deeper meaning' would have been appropriate.

Please read through the guidelines and abide by them.


______________

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.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]



"Or that Divinely inspired writers, would in fact be better, more precise writers. That is, if "inerrancy" is claimed."

Divinely inspired writers speak of divine things using natural language to express spiritual ideas. Everything that Jesus did and said had a deeper meaning.

Untill we enter the inner sanctum of the Word we shall continue to stumble in the dark.

This is, of course, ridiculous. To paraphrase, the claim is that "unless you agree with me; unless you interpret scripture exactly the way I do, you must be wrong."

[Checkpoint]

Would apologists on this thread agree that to admit that Jesus was indeed wrong in the passage in question, (Matthew 16.27-28) or that the Gospel evangelist was wrong, would be to admit to a crack in the facade of Bible perfection? Or the notion that Jesus was perfect?

And if that is the case, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the apologist has a protective bias that would hinder them from viewing the passage objectively, and missing the plain meaning (with it's unsettling implication) that Jesus or the Bible were indeed mistaken?

"Confirmation bias" I believe it is called.

Don't you get that what you say here is a two-way street?

It would be easy for me to turn it around by changing a word here or there, such as replacing "apologists" with "skeptics".

You know my story, you know that is not true in my case. I was a believer in Bible perfection when I discovered that passage...on my own. No skeptic pointed it out to me.

That passage, Matthew 16.27-28 (and others like it) made a skeptic out of me. With regards to Bible perfection and the Divinity of Jesus, anyway.

I read it with an open mind. That is not confimation bias.

And I'm sure others have had similar experiences.

I've had similar experiences, so I accept that yours was not confirmation bias.

However, having arrived at your position some years ago, your defense and promotion of it shows clear signs of confirmation bias.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]

Two different topics in one paragraph? Speaks of lack of focus, if it is as you say. One would think that God Incarnate would have a better command of rhetoric, language, composition, and communication. [strike]

This comes across as an attack of the messenger"s presentation and an ignoring or rejection of what his message may have been.[/strike]

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]

Two different topics in one paragraph? Speaks of lack of focus, if it is as you say. One would think that God Incarnate would have a better command of rhetoric, language, composition, and communication. [strike]

This comes across as an attack of the messenger"s presentation and an ignoring or rejection of what his message may have been.[/strike]

If the presentation is not clear, then how do we know exactly what the message is? The fact that his statements need to be interpreted as we are attempting to do in debate here indicates a very human lack of focus in presentation, as opposed to the expected Divine lucidity. That is, if one expects the Scriptures to be perfect and innerrant.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]

Two different topics in one paragraph? Speaks of lack of focus, if it is as you say. One would think that God Incarnate would have a better command of rhetoric, language, composition, and communication. [strike]

This comes across as an attack of the messenger"s presentation and an ignoring or rejection of what his message may have been.[/strike]

If the presentation is not clear, then how do we know exactly what the message is? The fact that his statements need to be interpreted as we are attempting to do in debate here indicates a very human lack of focus in presentation, as opposed to the expected Divine lucidity. That is, if one expects the Scriptures to be perfect and innerrant.

"Divine lucidity" is there in abundance; there is no "lack of focus".

The lack is not in him but in us.

[marco]

"Divine lucidity" is there in abundance; there is no "lack of focus".

The lack is not in him but in us.

I had a mathematics professor who used to refuse explanation since he said his notes were lucid enough. The judge of lucidity is of course the receiver. There are those who take what is perhaps a wrong interpretation and they consider there is lucidity. Different churches take different meanings. We can safely deduce that lucidity is in question, far from being "in abundance."

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]

Two different topics in one paragraph? Speaks of lack of focus, if it is as you say. One would think that God Incarnate would have a better command of rhetoric, language, composition, and communication. [strike]

This comes across as an attack of the messenger"s presentation and an ignoring or rejection of what his message may have been.[/strike]

If the presentation is not clear, then how do we know exactly what the message is? The fact that his statements need to be interpreted as we are attempting to do in debate here indicates a very human lack of focus in presentation, as opposed to the expected Divine lucidity. That is, if one expects the Scriptures to be perfect and innerrant.

"Divine lucidity" is there in abundance; there is no "lack of focus".

The lack is not in him but in us.

Blaming the reader for ambiguity in the writing? How does that make sense. Didn't you yourself state that Jesus switched topics one verse to another? In this case rapidly. I'm not calling that "mental illness" as has already been done, but it is a lack of focus, and that lack of focus is the cause of our present disagreement in interpretation.

The rapid switch of topic is, at best, imprecise rhetoric leaving confusion in it's wake. (at this point some people accuse their opponent of "being confused", caution advised) But if Jesus was speaking of the same topic in the passage under consideration, we have a misleading, erroneous prediction with which to come to terms.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 199 by Elijah John]

Two different topics in one paragraph? Speaks of lack of focus, if it is as you say. One would think that God Incarnate would have a better command of rhetoric, language, composition, and communication. [strike]

This comes across as an attack of the messenger"s presentation and an ignoring or rejection of what his message may have been.[/strike]

If the presentation is not clear, then how do we know exactly what the message is? The fact that his statements need to be interpreted as we are attempting to do in debate here indicates a very human lack of focus in presentation, as opposed to the expected Divine lucidity. That is, if one expects the Scriptures to be perfect and innerrant.

"Divine lucidity" is there in abundance; there is no "lack of focus".

The lack is not in him but in us.

Blaming the reader for ambiguity in the writing? How does that make sense. Didn't you yourself state that Jesus switched topics one verse to another? In this case rapidly. I'm not calling that "mental illness" as has already been done, but it is a lack of focus, and that lack of focus is the cause of our present disagreement in interpretation.

The rapid switch of topic is, at best, imprecise rhetoric leaving confusion in it's wake. (at this point some people accuse their opponent of "being confused", caution advised)

How does topic change take place in conversation?

We do it often, and in various ways.

Some people are fast talkers who may change rapidly at times. Others are slow talkers who have non-talk gaps until they begin a new subject.

But all begin at some point, end at another, and often then start a new topic, and so they continue.

Instead of seeing topic change as negative or confusing, we should surely be looking more closely at verses in dispute, to determine where any topic begins and ends, and how it is introduced and concluded.

And ask and answer what that specific topic is and why it was initiated.

But if Jesus was speaking of the same topic in the passage under consideration, we have a misleading, erroneous prediction with which to come to terms.

But if Jesus was not speaking of the same topic in that passage under consideration, we have a misleading erroneous explanation with which to come to terms.