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 Father’s 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?

[alexxcJRO]

All of this depends upon the evidence you are willing to accept, does it not? For me, according to the evidence I have been given and that I accept, it is more than just probable that Christ spoke with the Adversary and with God, that Christ is the Son of God, that He died and was resurrected and who lives even now.

It is certain.

Essentially, your questions seem to boil down to whether or not there is a God who has a Son.

I am not certain Jesus was suffering from psychosis for I am not omniscient.
I am saying one hypothesis is more likely to be true then the other because the evidence of people suffering from psychotic disorders which includes symptoms such the 3 outlined by me is overwhelming while the evidence for Satan, Yahweh is kind of non-existent.
I am saying one can make a case for Jesus being psychotic using known psychiatric knowledge.

Well then, I guess you're the one stuck trying to prove that Christ suffered hallucinations and delusions. Oh, I guess you're also stuck trying to prove that His thinking was disordered as well.

Disordered thinking - jumping between unrelated topics, rapidly switching topics: Mathew 27 talking of one topic, Mathew 28 talking of different topic.

Hallucinations – Jesus saw and heard the voice of Satan(an imaginary being)

Grandiose delusions Jesus had a fantastical beliefs that he was the son of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God, that he had a special power and importance(the savior of mankind), that he was perfect, sinless.

[tam]

All of this depends upon the evidence you are willing to accept, does it not? For me, according to the evidence I have been given and that I accept, it is more than just probable that Christ spoke with the Adversary and with God, that Christ is the Son of God, that He died and was resurrected and who lives even now.

It is certain.

Essentially, your questions seem to boil down to whether or not there is a God who has a Son.

I am not certain Jesus was suffering from psychosis for I am not omniscient.
I am saying one hypothesis is more likely to be true then the other because the evidence of people suffering from psychotic disorders which includes symptoms such the 3 outlined by me is overwhelming while the evidence for Satan, Yahweh is kind of non-existent.
I am saying one can make a case for Jesus being psychotic using known psychiatric knowledge.

I'm guessing you are also not a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists observe their patients before they diagnose them.


As for evidence, you seem to just be repeating what you said at first, so my response is the same now as it was then. Same goes for your hypothesis and my response to that.



Peace again to you.

[alexxcJRO]

I'm guessing you are also not a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists observe their patients before they diagnose them.

Nonsense.
Psychiatrist diagnose people without them being present.
Here an psychological analysis on Stalin. Him being a Sociopath and suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder.


https://file.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH_2013091614084923.pdf

As for evidence, you seem to just be repeating what you said at first, so my response is the same now as it was then. Same goes for your hypothesis and my response to that.

Q: So you don’t believe people suffering from psychotic disorders which includes symptoms such as the 3 outlined by me exist?


Also please don’t ignore big chunks of my post. Looks bad.

Here again:

Tam wrote: Well then, I guess you're the one stuck trying to prove that Christ suffered hallucinations and delusions. Oh, I guess you're also stuck trying to prove that His thinking was disordered as well.



Disordered thinking - jumping between unrelated topics, rapidly switching topics: Mathew 27 talking of one topic, Mathew 28 talking of different topic.

Hallucinations – Jesus saw and heard the voice of Satan(an imaginary being)

Grandiose delusions Jesus had a fantastical beliefs that he was the son of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God, that he had a special power and importance(the savior of mankind), that he was perfect, sinless.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 73 by tam]

All that being said, you can't take this example and apply it to Christ if that is your intent. You can't apply your second point (rapidly switching topics; etc) based upon words from him that you have read.

Not when you do not have the tone or inflection, pacing or pauses, eye contact, audience direction, body language, emotion, etc, to go with those words. Any of those things could indicate a natural progression into another topic (if indeed another topic was even being broached).

Not that a single or even couple of examples of quickly switching topics can possibly indicate that someone has a mental illness. Not everyone thinks the same way; regardless though, I suspect that most people have done this at some point in their lives.

Good points well presented.

The particular "other topic" possibility being discussed on this thread is Matthew 16:27-28, the question being whether those verses are about different topics or the same topic.

The final results are the posts here that you are currently answering.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 73 by tam]

All that being said, you can't take this example and apply it to Christ if that is your intent. You can't apply your second point (rapidly switching topics; etc) based upon words from him that you have read.

Not when you do not have the tone or inflection, pacing or pauses, eye contact, audience direction, body language, emotion, etc, to go with those words. Any of those things could indicate a natural progression into another topic (if indeed another topic was even being broached).

Not that a single or even couple of examples of quickly switching topics can possibly indicate that someone has a mental illness. Not everyone thinks the same way; regardless though, I suspect that most people have done this at some point in their lives.

Good points well presented.

The particular "other topic" possibility being discussed on this thread is Matthew 16:27-28, the question being whether those verses are about different topics or the same topic.

The final results are the posts here that you are currently answering.

Sure, there is the possibility that Jesus was simply "shifting gears" in mid paragraph. And that would not in and of itself make him "mentally ill". Certainly not.

But given the context of "end times" expectations by NT authors as a whole, and other statements (presumably) by Jesus himself, it seems far more likely that Jesus was also swept up in immenent apolcalyptic expectation.

And, as hard as it is for so many to accept, that he was simply, plainly wrong.

[Checkpoint]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 962#918962]

Tam wrote:

Well then, I guess you're the one stuck trying to prove that Christ suffered hallucinations and delusions. Oh, I guess you're also stuck trying to prove that His thinking was disordered as well.

You responded

Disordered thinking - jumping between unrelated topics, rapidly switching topics: Mathew 27 talking of one topic, Mathew 28 talking of different topic.

Hallucinations – Jesus saw and heard the voice of Satan(an imaginary being)

Grandiose delusions Jesus had a fantastical beliefs that he was the son of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God, that he had a special power and importance(the savior of mankind), that he was perfect, sinless.

Just an opinion once again, given for free.

Proof of what you think and how you think, yes.

Proof that what you think and how you think is an accurate evaluation, it is not.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 73 by tam]

All that being said, you can't take this example and apply it to Christ if that is your intent. You can't apply your second point (rapidly switching topics; etc) based upon words from him that you have read.

Not when you do not have the tone or inflection, pacing or pauses, eye contact, audience direction, body language, emotion, etc, to go with those words. Any of those things could indicate a natural progression into another topic (if indeed another topic was even being broached).

Not that a single or even couple of examples of quickly switching topics can possibly indicate that someone has a mental illness. Not everyone thinks the same way; regardless though, I suspect that most people have done this at some point in their lives.

Good points well presented.

The particular "other topic" possibility being discussed on this thread is Matthew 16:27-28, the question being whether those verses are about different topics or the same topic.

The final results are the posts here that you are currently answering.

Sure, there is the possibility that Jesus was simply "shifting gears" in mid paragraph. And that would not in and of itself make him "mentally ill". Certainly not.

But given the context of "end times" expectations by NT authors as a whole, and other statements (presumably) by Jesus himself, it seems far more likely that Jesus was also swept up in immenent apolcalyptic expectation.

And, as hard as it is for so many to accept, that he was simply, plainly wrong.

I see where you are coming from, but I also see things differently.

Jesus was not "swept up" by anything he encountered, including "apocalyptic expectation".

Rather, what he said came from his close relationship with the Father.

As to his return, he made it clear the time would not be known, and he may be delayed.

What seems so hard for many to accept is they are simply wrong in their own understanding of the verses they major on.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 87 by Checkpoint]

Your ignoring the context of the times, the context of other New Testament writers and some of the other statements by Jesus himself. It's true, Jesus is said to have said "only the Father knows" when he will return.

But that is a revision of his earlier statments, which predicted his return in the lifetime of his apostles. When that didn't happen when expected, a revision was needed.

Jesus, the NT writers and John the Baptist, as well as other apocalyptic figures of the time, all believed the "end was nigh", that those were the "last days" and the "end times".

Religous context of John the Baptist, conventional ecclisastic interpretation is that John was preparing the way for Jesus to be a spiritual savior.

Historical context, by contrast, was that John was preparing the way of direct intervention by YHVH, through the agency of the Son of Man/Messiah. In this case for the purpose of actual deliverance from Roman occupation. This Jesus did not accomplish.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 88 by Elijah John]

Your ignoring the context of the times, the context of other New Testament writers and some of the other statements by Jesus himself. It's true, Jesus is said to have said "only the Father knows" when he will return.

But that is a revision of his earlier statments, which predicted his return in the lifetime of his apostles. When that didn't happen when expected, a revision was needed.

No statements of his "predicted his return in the lifetime of his apostles".

That claim is often made, as you have, but is no more than opinion drawn from a misreading or misapplication of certain verses.

Hence no revision took place because none was needed.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 88 by Elijah John]

Religous context of John the Baptist, conventional ecclisastic interpretation is that John was preparing the way for Jesus to be a spiritual savior.

Historical context, by contrast, was that John was preparing the way of direct intervention by YHVH, through the agency of the Son of Man/Messiah. In this case for the purpose of actual deliverance from Roman occupation. This Jesus did not accomplish.

It was never his intention to accomplish deliverance from Roman occupation, a position he made clear throughout his ministry, including to John.

For him the context was whatever he heard from the Father.