When Is Jesus Coming?
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
I do believe the question was, When is Jesus coming?
The essay is very one sided for sure. It only advocates a literal interpretation of much of the biblical text. That I think reflects intellectual dishonesty. The Bible's text is inspired (not written) to be timeless. The whole idea of "soon" is to bring across the point that "you don't have any time to waste". Jesus himself said he didn't know when he was coming. The Bible itself states in several contexts the disparity between time as humans see it and God's timelessness.§outh§tar said:
The figurative interpretations of much of the Biblical text is totally warranted when taken in its entirety. As a Christian, when you read text in the Bible you don't read it looking for anything which will make the whole thing not make any sense (which seems to happen only when you isolate particular sections and ignore the rest - as above). You read it with reference to the remaining text. You assume that if it is indeed inspired by God then it will make sense in its entirety - which it does (at least to me). When you go along with 'piecewise' interpretations you are bound to err.
We don't look at the world in isolated bits. How would it make sense if we did that? If, as an astronomer, you study EM radiation from a star, there is a whole spectrum of frequencies on which the star emits EM radiation. If you were to just look at one or two particular frequencies and ignore the rest and then try to make interpretations on the complete nature of the star then obviously you would get things wrong. Especially when you take into account the Law of Conservation of Energy. Such 'isolations' can't make sense if it is indeed your intention to understand something. The above conclusion is totally unwarranted (at least for those whose intention it is to understand and not to demolish).
It is sooo easy to be a critic/skeptic. The difficulty arises when you try to make sense of the world you live in. Many like to take the easy way out. We are lazy humans after all.
MarcAC said:
Do you have any idea how annoying it is when people play the word game in debate? The bible is written. That is a fact. Surely you are not going to sit there and argue that is was not written and in the same breath argue the validity of its content. YOU are inpired by it as a timeless piece. The rest of the non-Christian world (and maybe lot of Christians too) see it as written.
You contend that soon of is an idea of when he is coming in the Bible but than somehow 2000 years and counting falls withing the bounds of that defintion? Are you kidding me!?! Soon has come and gone and come and gone again. If he showed-up tomarrow I would not say he was coming soon within the context of 2000. It is also a contradiction to say you don't have time to waste and than wait 2000 plus years.....that is a lot wasted time don't you think?
As a Christian when you fellas read the bible you see it as all being absolutly true and shift your reality to fit within the realm of the Bible. Even when it goes against the discovery of science. When you say non-christians read it looking for mistakes you are off base. Many non-christians started as Christians and than realized how off-base the Bible is from reality.
We do look at the world at isolated bits. You look at evidence one piece at a time evaulating it before moving on. That is how discoveries are made. What you don't do is assume the whole paradign is correct (in this case the Bible) and than see how the isolated piece would fit into the paradign that is assumed as true.
I also notice with your long winded speech that you completly side stepped the question of when is Jesus coming. I am assuming you didn't find an answer other than soon in your Bible.
Maybe it all depends on your perspective. Just because we are insignificant compared to the universe, that doesn't mean we have no hope. If you want hope, then live each day as if it was your last, and do all that you want to do without being afraid of being yourself. There, you may fnd your hope.§outh§tar said:
He also said that he didn't know the day he would come back. And he also said that he is not good, only God in heaven is good. Jesus was a teacher, not a prophet. Well... maybe he was a prophet sometimes, but only when God wanted him to be. And I don't think he really knew when God would come back.§outh§tar said:
You understand that Jesus was speaking in God's behalf, do you?
You can always read it in the original language. You will get the right meanings that way. Two things that people often forget is that the New Testament wasn't designed to be read by so many people. The New Testament is a collection of books and letters - that's all. Finding the common truth between all those books and letters is the key. Also, there are more books and letters that have been discredited. Some may be true, and others may not. And some of the books in the Bible may be true, but others not. The key is to understand what God is all about. Once you know it, you are able to understand everything and discern between what is correct and what is not correct. God is not futile and superficial like our society. He is abstract and very deep. Unfortunately, we are not used with thinking in very abstract ways. Children do it all the time, but when we grow up we just forget how to do it. Also, the second point is that the books and letters were designed to be read by the people that received them - not us. That's why is written in their language. If it was written in ours, that would be strange, wouldn't it?
Also, we shouldn't just trust the Catholic translation. They left some things out (that have been already re-incorporated) and who knows whatever they did.The important thing, the first step, is to understand that God is not futile and superficial like most of us are. God doesn't worry about getting food and sleeping. And God is very abstract Himself. Understanding God's wisdom is hard, but once you do it, you can even explain to others (hopefullly).
Do you mean this one:
Luke 17:20-21
"20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
?
There's no equivalent of this verse anywhere else in the Bible.
How do you know this site is correct? That only show their perspective. My perspective is that the "kingdom of God" is joy. And also hope, in your case.
(well... there's no joy without hope anyways). The kingdom of God is within us, ready to be discovered. It is that essential and joyful part of yourself. It is that part of yourself that is fully self-sufficient. It is the core, the heart of your own being. That's the kingdom of God. And there are two kinds of mentioning on the kingdom, in the Bible. The first one is the individual one, where the kingdom comes with signs that cannot be observed. The second one is when all mankind starts experiencing the kingdom of God. And believe me, it is up to us to make it happen. And God is always helping us to do that, wheter we are aware of that or not.Well... that's just my insights for today.
Found this site in the ads. Not bad....
http://www.bible-truths-revealed.com/
http://www.bible-truths-revealed.com/
Ok. Nevermind. It is bad.... :bugeye:
TruthSeeker said:
Truthseeker, I don't want to butt in your thing with southstar but do you realize that in that post you
1) rejected Jesus inclusion of the trinity
2) admitted the Bible was manipulated by the catholics for their own political agenda
3) said that your belief in a higher power and following of it is based on morality not the dogma of the Bible.
4) contended that one must search for the answers as one goes through life
5) reject God as theistic and omni potent (and thus one who could prevent preversion by catholic church of the the holy bible)
I think that is wonderful that you said and think all of that. There is not a preacher that you will ever meet who would agree. What you are contending is that you are a thiest but if that philosphy is your honest assement at this point in time you are not a Christian. I say this because as part of Christanity you must accept
1) Jesus as a member of the trinity which you did not in that post
2) Accept the notion that the Bible was inspired by God which you do not
3) Use the dogma of the words contained within the Bible as a outline for moral aptitude which you do not
4) God is omni-potent and theistically inclined
In addtion, but not included in your post you must"
5) accept Jeuss as your savior (meaning you need to be saved )
6) accept the notion of orginal sin
7) Accept heavan and hell as real places
I think your spirutuality is strong and good and moral but incongruent with Christian thinking. But don't take my word for it. Print out your post and make a list summarizing that
1) The bible was not made to be read by "so many people"
2) The bible has errors in it
3) Jesus was just a teacher (ie a rabbi by the way)
4) suggest one can search their conscious for the "answers" (as opposed to the Bible)
and take it around to say 10 christian churches and see how many of them agree with your theory. I am guessing none. Its not a bad thing though. It is an honest thing and a liberating thing to not have to fit reality into the confines of a book that you yourself said has errors.
Only a mad person would say the Bible wasn't written. I said the Bible is inspired as a timeless text, obviously - it is still in use today. The authors mastered the text with regards to their respective eras. You annoyed yourself there with your misinterpretation.robtex said:
Well I know of no human who has lived beyond 150 yrs (365 days each). So... I guess the writers were justified in telling them they had no time to waste. Christianity does not advocate reincarnation (one life to live - make use of it). With regards to Jesus/God; the Bible itself states the disparities between how we view time and God's timelessness (repeat). Thus I don't see what the whole fuss is about.
Oh? Evaluating it with respect to what? Itself? Or do you evaluate it with respect to the current scientific framework? Well if you mean the former, no wonder such conclusions can be arrived at (Jesus isn't coming). Which aspect of Christianity has gone against the discoveries of science (or do you say this with the literal mindset?)?
Well, good you noticed that.
The Bible doesn't state when Jesus is coming (no matter how many dooms day and diagrammatic predictions there are). "Soon" simply means be prepared. He'll be back like a thief in the night. No sensible Christian takes it any other way. The message is for everyone btw. Keep an eye open, k?
Last edited:
MarcAC said:
MarcAC, very sly..
In that case, if I am to respect your charge, I challenge you to provide evidence from the context of the verses to show that an allegorical interpretation was intended by the speaker to His immediate audience. We must remember that Jesus was speaking to His audience of 35AD and therefore if he meant "soon" allegorically, then He sure did intend to fool a lot of people (including His own disciples) into thinking His second coming would be during their lifetimes. That in turn would show His lacking morality. Of course, the onus is now on you to provide any and all textual evidence of allegorical meaning. If you cannot, that makes you a liar since you have no reason to make such a claim. I await your response.
That is a foolish statement. You are supposing the Synoptics and epistles were written for the purpose of amalgation into one Holy Writ. Again, I challenge you to show me any textual evidence of this. Consequently, we must then conclude by such a baseless assumption that all those Christians who lived before men put together the Bible were subject to your so-called "piecewise interpretations". That means the audiences of Paul's letters were doomed to interpret his letters incorrectly since they had no Bible as such to "take it in its entirety". I hope you see how foolish this seems. Apart from this, I must also add that by your reasoning, anyone who heard Jesus talking about humility was being lead amiss since they did not have the entire Bible to take in its entirety. Again, this is a foolish thing to say. Then again, I have challenged you to prove these two things and save yourself from appearing to be deceitful.
I must first dismiss your entire analogy on the grounds that it does not taken into account the potenty of God's "revelation" and its potency. Like I said in the previous paragraph, if that is the case then those who weren't able to see the whole "spectrum" since the "spectrum" would be created years after their death had all been condemned.
It is equally easy to come up with cop-outs. I await your evidences to support your claims.
The bible is nothing more than a historical accounts of a people, the Hebrews. These stories at times were copied, or borrowed from other ancient religious text of others, the Hebrews then used these other stories and wrote them to meet their agenda, through hundreds of years scholars have interpreted, and reworded bible texts to fit their perspective views. The bible in reality was a primitive atempt at metaphysics and philosophy with borowed philosophycal ideas of Plato. The creator of human mysticism, Plato's views of "higher forms" gave way to notions such as soul and "supreme soul" ruler of all souls. These notions were then borrowed through the ages to establish relious beliefs, of ancient past.
The bible is just one more of these texts, that surprisingly have lasted this long, but that's only because the people who believe such rhetoric have maintained that the bible is "truth" and that it is a manuscript of moral value. However there has been division of contextual interpretation witch has led to division of religous doctrinations. Thefore the ineficacy of the bible comes from so many interpretations, translations, and the fact that many scholars worked on these documents throughout the ages.
link
Godless.
The bible is just one more of these texts, that surprisingly have lasted this long, but that's only because the people who believe such rhetoric have maintained that the bible is "truth" and that it is a manuscript of moral value. However there has been division of contextual interpretation witch has led to division of religous doctrinations. Thefore the ineficacy of the bible comes from so many interpretations, translations, and the fact that many scholars worked on these documents throughout the ages.
link
Godless.
I struggle to grasp your basis for such a statement Star from the South.§outh§tar said:
Here, when you say "context", I hope you mean the Biblical context. Meaning, according to other verses in the Bible (or even in the entire text from which the collage of verses was put together)? You see, you have to take it all together (as it is available to you) or not at all (even the Apocrypha).
I am not one to state Jesus' intentions. However I know (according to the text - see some below - many believed, not all) that many times when He spoke He spoke in such a sense that some might take Him the wrong way. It is like teaching. He was and is The Teacher after all. In math you don't immediately throw in the whole concept that infinity/infnity can be any number, and, infact, can be evaluated. You first condition the mind for it (you have to learn some calculus first). Maybe Jesus was 'conditioning' the people's minds for the event to come.
Well hold on there... so... if Jesus speaks and some understand, and believe and some don't understand and disbelieve that illustrates his "amorality". I'm lost here. I'm sure we've all been through some stages of education and I'm sure the teacher/lecturer always tries his/her best to make you understand as much he/she can... but not everyone understands. So that means the teacher didn't want you to understand in the first place? Hilarious and ridiculous. Maybe it is that you have some preconcieved idea of what the teacher is going to say (or what you want?) and come out of the class/lecture with your idea in your head... not what the teacher said.
- Matthew 15:10-20
- John 2:13-21
As posted:
"Matthew 24
36Therefore be on the alert, for you [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.]... 42do not know which day your Lord is coming...44at an hour when you do not think he will"
A fair, unbiased post:
Matthew 24:
36. No one knows the day or hour. The angels in heaven don't know, and the Son himself doesn't know. Only the Father knows. 37. When the Son of Man appears, things will be just as they were when Noah lived. 38. People were eating, drinking, and getting married right up to the day that the flood came and Noah went into the big boat. 39. They didn't know anything was happening until the flood came and swept them all away. That is how it will be when the Son of Man appears. 40. Two men will be in the same field, but only one will be taken. The other will be left. 41. Two women will be together grinding grain, but only one will be taken. The other will be left. 42. So be on your guard! You don't know when your Lord will come. 43. Homeowners never know when a thief is coming, and they are always on guard to keep one from breaking in. 44. Always be ready! You don't know when the Son of Man will come.
Now how is it "obvious" that Jesus was indeed reffering to some event during the people's lifetime? Piecewise quotes are always deceptive.
No, it isn't a foolish statement Star from the South. It reflects the idea that all the text are mutually reinforcing and mutually supportive (inspired to be timeless; not written to be timeless). Christians, Jews, and Gentiles back then had all the info they needed to make the correct decision (regarding faith in God) according to the Era in which they lived. "How do you know that?" Read these:
- John 4:31-41
- John 8:21-30
With regards to your "grounds" I'm lost. Oh. This is the whole question of; "What about those who weren't able to put faith in Jesus?" Jesus died once and for all. How do I reconcile this to the fact that Jesus lived after millions of humans died? Well it simply tells me one thing; you don't have to have explicit knowledge of Jesus to be saved by Jesus. It all comes down to the way you live your life within its context. If you know about Jesus and reject Jesus (seemingly like you) well, you subject yourself to condemnation (your word really). It also takes me to the Truth Seeker's idea of an implicit knowledge of God through your subconscious (conscience). We, as Homo Sapiens, live by an objective moral code... but many times we just choose to go against it... go against life... go against God... go for death.
Actually I equate skepticism to 'copping'-out... or cop-'outting'
... whichever suits. Also, a one sided, unfair evaluation of any topic is just ridiculous. What is indeed interesting are the verses which were conveniently ignored with regards to the Biblical texts quoted (piecewise) in context. I would hope the author(s) read the text in its entirety before even embarking on using the word "context" in defence of any arguments posted.Oh my, just reading through the thing... It is solely based ones interpretation of "soon" and "near" and can easily be reduced with these texts:
Psalm 90:4
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
2 Peter 3:8
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
My two favourite Bible verses btw. Everything seems so much clearer with them. I take all my text from the CEV (Contemporary English Version). Not to mention the ones which were even quoted in the starting post stating that noone knows when the time will be except God the Father himself.
Hey, not a bad try... well done in throwing all those verses together... but not dice. I'm still a Christian after this one... and it is very far from intellectual suicide.
Psalm 90:4
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
2 Peter 3:8
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
My two favourite Bible verses btw. Everything seems so much clearer with them. I take all my text from the CEV (Contemporary English Version). Not to mention the ones which were even quoted in the starting post stating that noone knows when the time will be except God the Father himself.
Hey, not a bad try... well done in throwing all those verses together... but not dice. I'm still a Christian after this one... and it is very far from intellectual suicide.
MarcAC said:
LOL... you obviously didn't read the post before replying. I already addressed that verse in 2 Peter. Moreover, that would make Jesus and His disciples fools since they obviously thought otherwise.
As for no one knowing when the time will be, that is sadly incorrect. Jesus referred to the exact time and hour, which He said no one knows. Apart from rejecting His supposed divinity by pointing out His limitations, He also showed that although He knew when, He did not know when exactly.
I'm afraid you should read the verses in their entirety before making such baseless claims. Then again, nice try. You have yet to provide any of the evidences I asked for to support your claims and yet to want to weasel around. For someone who claims it must all be taken in its entirety, it sure is quite stupid of you to say it can all be reduced to two verses. Contradict yourself some more, would you?
P.S. Actually read the post before replying, a lot of your "explanations" have already been dealt with in there.
MarcAc, before I answer your previous post, you must show me why the Bible must be taken all together in order to interpret it "correctly".
Moreover, anyone who has never read the entire Bible and understood it all is condemned by your naieve statement since they can't possibly know.
You also have to tell me why a man made collection of books is "mutually reinforcing and mutually supportive " and also how you know it is "inspired to be timeless" when it has outright lies like saints rising from the dead and walking into Jerusalem for all to see (when ironically, not one other soul recorded this groundshaking event that would surely have convinced anyone that Jesus was God).
Please don't address only one of my questions in your reply and ignore the others, I hate it when you do that.
Moreover, anyone who has never read the entire Bible and understood it all is condemned by your naieve statement since they can't possibly know.
You also have to tell me why a man made collection of books is "mutually reinforcing and mutually supportive " and also how you know it is "inspired to be timeless" when it has outright lies like saints rising from the dead and walking into Jerusalem for all to see (when ironically, not one other soul recorded this groundshaking event that would surely have convinced anyone that Jesus was God).
Please don't address only one of my questions in your reply and ignore the others, I hate it when you do that.
I replied to what I read (a lot of it seems to be persuasion through repetition - didn't persuade me though). The author(s) have not proven in any part of the post that a metaphorical interpretation of the text is invalid. Thus the concluding comments are rather one-sided (nothing you have stated kills that fact). The "addresssing" is just a trivial dismissal via a referral back to the author(s) idea that the disciples 'thought the event would happen within their lifetimes'. So what if they thought that? The whole point was be prepared - see the verses in the post you ignored. In the post the author(s) seem to use syllogisms like If all animals have four legs, a dog is an animal, thus all dogs have four legs. Then further down in the post the big If is forgotten and reduced to all animals have four legs and a whole expansive essay, and nowhere is it conclusively proven that all animals have four legs.§outh§tar said:
Refer to the exact time and hour that no one knows? Does that compute? Where did you see that one (don't want to make you outr to be a liar)? That is quite an original conclusion. I know of not even an atheist who has come up with that one. I really can't see how this in any way diminishes the point in my post that no one knows but The Father. Odd reply indeed (it more reflects confusion). And your idea that Jesus, by pointing out his limitations, rejected his divinity is made quite void by other things He said. So maybe, in fact, He was making an indirect reference to the truth of the Trinity (valid interpretation). Strange conclusion that is. Another piecewise interpretation.
Now, calm down Star from the South. Which verses do you refer to when you state this, and what baseless claims? And, well, since you seem to know the identity of the evidence which you ask for (basically the student who comes to class to learn with some preconceived and unalterable picture of what will be taught in his/her head) why don't you specifically state it then instead of using the word "evidence"? Did you read the Bible verses I posted? And you use the phrase "such baseless claims" and you don't show how the claims are "baseless". Not in the starting post if that's what you think (see above).
No, they haven't. I notice that form of a reply has been made before. That is very insufficient. The verses I posted above were overlooked in your post. Did you read them (again I ask - specifically due to the lack of a reply)? Face it, your conclusions are still unwarranted. Even Chris, atheist royale, a bit after the starting post, illustrated the fact that he has never seen such a view of things before. I don't think any sound-minded Christian would demit their faith because of something so... unwarranted... and... trivial (easily dismissed).
Last edited: