Messiah's 2nd Coming?

[Elijah John]

Was the doctrine of the 2nd coming of Jesus forumulated because he failed to accomplish Messianic expectations the first time around? I.e., universal peace and justice, the redemption of Israel from it's enemies?

Where was it written in the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would need to come twice to accomplish his Messianic role?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 88 by onewithhim]

And the Bible was written by imperfect men, and words are themselves imperfect.
Oops.

What if Moses was a paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions of a perfect God?

[onewithhim]

What is Moses was a purple dinosaur with yellow spots?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 88 by onewithhim]

And the Bible was written by imperfect men, and words are themselves imperfect.
Oops.

What if Moses was a paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions of a perfect God?

RESPONSE:

If you keep up with your archaeology, you will find that the first seven books of the Old Testament were written between 800 and 700 BC more or less at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

The Hebrews in Egypt and the Moses story were part of the "founding legend" of Israel. What is now call Israelites were herders of Canaan who were originally hill dwellers.

Since 1967, many of their dwellings have been uncovered. The first Egyptian reference to the Israelites was written about 1203 by An Egyptian Pharoh who conquered them in Canaan. So, no Moses and no Exodus.

References:

Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) - YouTube


The Bible Unearthed
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/fi ... bible.html

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 93 by polonius.advice]

There are just as many scholars and archaeologists who disagree with your assertions.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 93 by polonius.advice]

There are just as many scholars and archaeologists who disagree with your assertions.

RESPONSE: Really? Then please name six and tell us if they are on the staff of Tel Aviv University and what evidence do they present.

Should we take your claim seriously, and what evidence do you present?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

"As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com[2] the approach and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly new. Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Haaretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public.[2]"

But, evidently, not yet yourself. Perhaps you should read more widely

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 93 by polonius.advice]

There are just as many scholars and archaeologists who disagree with your assertions.

RESPONSE: Really? Then please name six and tell us if they are on the staff of Tel Aviv University and what evidence do they present.

Should we take your claim seriously, and what evidence do you present?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

"As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com[2] the approach and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly new. Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Haaretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public.[2]"

But, evidently, not yet yourself. Perhaps you should read more widely

I have read some of those scholars' work and seen documentaries of their opinions. I really like listening to William Dever. I just don't agree with him or the others. The world hasn't been apprised of any evidence of the Israelites transversing the desert from Goshen to the Aqabba, but I can't help but think that there will become evident something along those lines in the future. I think perhaps they haven't been looking in the right places. I continue to read all I can on the subject.

Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, presents the work of a wide assortment of scholars, and many of them believe that archaeology supports the Bible. I can't remember names at present, but as I read, I will jot down the names of scholars that believe that Moses and the Exodus were real.

[polonius]

Was the doctrine of the 2nd coming of Jesus forumulated because he failed to accomplish Messianic expectations the first time around? I.e., universal peace and justice, the redemption of Israel from it's enemies?

Where was it written in the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would need to come twice to accomplish his Messianic role?

You would have thought that a messenger from God, spending some thirty odd years on the planet, would have had time to accomplish God's mission. He lingered for a very long time before stirring himself to fulfil God's plan. And then, after a brief three-year period, he announced his immanent return. It is an unfulfilled promise that seems to suggest Jesus himself thought he would return soon. The ornate interpretations placed on his message would be absurd to his listeners who required explanations for some fairly simple parables.

Jesus was a favored missionary, it would seem, a fine orator caught up in the ways of his time. There is no indication he was a god. His wonders were worked by the power he acknowledged, the Father.

RESPONSE:

Yes. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 claims Jesus was only a man through whom God worked the signs.

"You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.j
23
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.k
24
But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it.l

Note: Jesus was raised up. He did not rise by his own power.

[ttruscott]

You would have thought that a messenger from God, spending some thirty odd years on the planet, would have had time to accomplish God's mission. He lingered for a very long time before stirring himself to fulfil God's plan.

Since the beneficial effects of His death for His sinful elect are efficacious for salvation all the way back to Eden and all the way forward to the great white throne, there is no need to nit pick on the niceties of His timing in arriving at the cross.

And then, after a brief three-year period, he announced his immanent return.

In your opinion...Christian scholars are not in agreement that that is the only interpretation / presupposition that fits the words He supposedly said.

[onewithhim]

Was the doctrine of the 2nd coming of Jesus forumulated because he failed to accomplish Messianic expectations the first time around? I.e., universal peace and justice, the redemption of Israel from it's enemies?

Where was it written in the "Old" Testament/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would need to come twice to accomplish his Messianic role?

You would have thought that a messenger from God, spending some thirty odd years on the planet, would have had time to accomplish God's mission. He lingered for a very long time before stirring himself to fulfil God's plan. And then, after a brief three-year period, he announced his immanent return. It is an unfulfilled promise that seems to suggest Jesus himself thought he would return soon. The ornate interpretations placed on his message would be absurd to his listeners who required explanations for some fairly simple parables.

Jesus was a favored missionary, it would seem, a fine orator caught up in the ways of his time. There is no indication he was a god. His wonders were worked by the power he acknowledged, the Father.

RESPONSE:

Yes. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 claims Jesus was only a man through whom God worked the signs.

"You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.j
23
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.k
24
But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it.l

Note: Jesus was raised up. He did not rise by his own power.

Yes, Peter and Paul and others called Jesus "a man," because he WAS. He was fully human, born of a human woman. If he was NOT a man, he could never have replaced Adam as the "second Adam" and truly redeemed mankind by completely covering over the badness the Adam caused to contaminate the world. (It is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (I Corinth.15:45, NASB)

There had to be a perfect like for like---perfect man for perfect man. Otherwise what Paul wrote to the Corinthians would have no real meaning. "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (I Corinth. 15:22, NASB)

Jesus had to be a man, and he was. He didn't remain a man, however....he went back to heaven in the body he had before he came here. A spirit body, like God's (John 4:24).