When Is Jesus Coming?

[MarcAC]

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".

Simple. When you isolate one particular verse and apply all methods of translation to it you are bound to err. You have to interpret things with regards to the "Biblical Framework"... Also... see below...

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.

Again, Jesus died once and for all. I hope you made note (if you actually read it) of the brackets in my statement. It seems you forgot... or did another piecewise interpretation. Interpret it according to all the information available to you or"as it is available to you"? It is my view that since Jesus died once for all and we all have a destiny according to the choices we make wrt Jesus and the kind of person He is then our destiny will be decided on the choices we make or made (if you lived before Him as the God-Man) with regards to when we live/d (in other words how we live our lives).

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).

Yes, intersting isn't it? Well this was addressed in a previous post, though not to you (so forgiven). The Bible is still in use today, it still inspires today, it still guides today as much as it did when there were no Christians on earth. It is interesting when you just slightly change afew words how thinds can look different; try to see the Bible as not a "man made collection of books" but as a "Collection of texts written by men who believed and had faith in God". Then, hopefully, you will see why I say the book is inspired (Divinely so) to be timeless. As surely as God exists, the Bible is Divinely inspired. What will you ask of me next? Prove that God exists?

Please don't address only one of my questions in your reply and ignore the others, I hate it when you do that.

Which question did I ignore (pointless to make such a blank statement since I obviously can't know)? Please, don't make it sound so familiar... as far as I know I had only replied to two of your posts when you posted that one.

 

[MarcAC]

... and if you dare muster a reply to my posts please be specific when saying "that is a baseless claim" and "you didn't answer my question" or whatever.... also... stick to the issue at hand and don't try to divert as I notice has been the trend in defences on this thread... 'preciate it.

 

[robtex]

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?

Which means you don't know. In southstar original post he explained how the Christians said it would be in their lifetime and than soon.

You state that it is not known.

Why would a God who is using the Bible to communicate one of the most import parts of the Bible--final judgement, leave of such an important detail like the time he would send his son back?

Is it because:

1) the timeframe is not important enough to be known.
2) God was not able to communicate such information.
3) Man was not able to discover the information provided
4) There is no certainty of a second coming

Which one and why?

 

[MarcAC]

Which means you don't know. In southstar original post he explained how the Christians said it would be in their lifetime and than soon.

O.k. The Star put across an interpretation from which The Star's conclusion still doesn't follow. Regardless, the whole point is be prepared - the specific date is not of particular importance... God is a timeless being... The event is of particular importance. The Star has yet to show how some Christians' expectation of the coming in their lifetime was anything bad with regards to their relationship with God. Live as if Jesus' return is a nanosecond away, live as if Jesus is HERE.

Why would a God who is using the Bible to communicate one of the most import parts of the Bible--final judgement, leave of such an important detail like the time he would send his son back?

Is it because:

1) the timeframe is not important enough to be known.

See above.

2) God was not able to communicate such information.

I prefer to use the phrase "It was not His will to communicate such information." See a nuance?

3) Man was not able to discover the information provided

The Biblical text states that only The Father knows. My preferred phrase above follows from this. Man will discover the information, when it happens. How's that?

4) There is no certainty of a second coming

No. The fact that God said He would be returning but didn't say the date doesn't mean He won't be returning. What? Will this Being, God, Who Is Timeless (according to human understanding) die before His Second Coming?

Of course you or I might die before such an event, but it doesn't matter (duh... right?) because, as the Bible indesputably states, the event will be as relevant to the Humans living at the time as to those who had long returned to stardust (the life you live?).

Which one and why?

Of course, I'm not God, so I can only state what makes sense with regards to what the Bible says... and my rationale. No human knows when the time will be. No human will know, they will only realise it is happening, or realise it has happened. That's what the Bible says. So, God has His reasons... because I don't know them means I should rebel? Should I then conclude that God doesn't exist or some weird stupidness like that? You hear someone say "I'll be back soon so be prepared for my return, you won't see me coming, you won't even know when it is, in fact, it will be a time that you least expect." Don't you think those words are truly fulfilled with regards to the Star's essay? What in the Star's essay contradict's that statement? That phrase embodies all of the Star's essay. Now where do you conlcude in that that the person won't be coming at all? The point stands: The conclusion is unwarranted, and will not convince any rational Christian that Jesus isn't coming... nor make the convication of a rational non-Christian who knows anything about Christianity and the Bible any more convinced that Jesus isn't coming back.

 

[MarcAC]

Oh boy... I'm in trouble now.

 

[robtex]

Marc, you are not in trouble. I am sorry if I offended you. I threw out the four senerios

1) the timeframe is not important enough to be known.
2) God was not able to communicate such information.
3) Man was not able to discover the information provided
4) There is no certainty of a second coming

Because I figured it has to be one of them...or at least one if not more. Aren't you curious as to why it is not known? Southstar's point is solid. The resurrection is a big part of the Christian religous system. Even if you say it is God's will that you know or don't know don't you have a theory. And more importantly the sense of urgency that you spoke of of earlier posts..isn't it odd...sense the fact that he has not returned yet dictates a non-urgency?

 

[§outh§tar]

Well MarcAc, I will address your point; maybe tomorrow. I have a lot to say in response..

For those who don't know:
MarcAc's claim is that the allusions to the timeframe of the Parousia by Jesus and His "inspired" disciples were merely allegorical. Of course, in this case, "any rational Christian" can not depend on the claims of Jesus to be God's Son to be literal but rather merely allegorical. Of course, we see no evidence of a metaphorical tone for either claim. I have asked MarcAc to show me contextual evidence (esp. since he's so hellbent on having me take everything in the Bible "in context) to corroborate his allegation that Jesus' words were allegorical. Of course he is unable to and will not be able to; there is no such evidence. I have already dismissed this apology of "it's meant to be taking metaphorically" in the original post but he seems persistent in his defense. We shall see.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: Well MarcAc, I will address your point; maybe tomorrow. I have a lot to say in response..

For those who don't know:
MarcAc's claim is that the allusions to the timeframe of the Parousia by Jesus and His "inspired" disciples were merely allegorical. Of course, in this case, "any rational Christian" can not depend on the claims of Jesus to be God's Son to be literal but rather merely allegorical. Of course, we see no evidence of a metaphorical tone for either claim. I have asked MarcAc to show me contextual evidence (esp. since he's so hellbent on having me take everything in the Bible "in context) to corroborate his allegation that Jesus' words were allegorical. Of course he is unable to and will not be able to; there is no such evidence. I have already dismissed this apology of "it's meant to be taking metaphorically" in the original post but he seems persistent in his defense. We shall see.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: Well MarcAc, I will address your point; maybe tomorrow. I have a lot to say in response..For those who don't know: MarcAc's claim is that the allusions to the timeframe of the Parousia by Jesus and His "inspired" disciples were merely allegorical. Of course, in this case, "any rational Christian" can not depend on the claims of Jesus to be God's Son to be literal but rather merely allegorical. Of course, we see no evidence of a metaphorical tone for either claim. I have asked MarcAc to show me contextual evidence (esp. since he's so hellbent on having me take everything in the Bible "in context) to corroborate his allegation that Jesus' words were allegorical. Of course he is unable to and will not be able to; there is no such evidence. I have already dismissed this apology of "it's meant to be taking metaphorically" in the original post but he seems persistent in his defense. We shall see.
*************
M*W: Allegorical? Jesus' words? Why don't you even submit to the truth, Jesus was only allegorical?

Don't confess the last religion. Confess the truth as homoincideous. You wanted to make me out to be an enemy. I am the baby's father. Troy to fake that!

 

[MarcAC]

Where did I indicate I was offended by anything? Oh... that trouble thing was for The Star.... I like to call it reverse psychology. I hope I didn't offend you in any way with my post... at times it can't be avoided though... we are very connected to the precepts we hold. Notice how The Star called my initial post a "charge"?

Because I figured it has to be one of them...or at least one if not more.

I just didn't like your phrasing... so... I kind of rephrased them my way... but a few nuances are applied.

Aren't you curious as to why it is not known?

Well, yes.

Southstar's point is solid.

The Star made several points. Which do you refer to? Regardless, the conlusion still doesn't follow. I notice you have not denied anything in my post. Is it that you grasp my point?

The resurrection is a big part of the Christian religous system. Even if you say it is God's will that you know or don't know don't you have a theory.

It's like asking why did God create wolves? How many reasons can you come up with? I assume you meant second coming and not ressurection.

And more importantly the sense of urgency that you spoke of of earlier posts..isn't it odd...sense the fact that he has not returned yet dictates a non-urgency?

You still don't grasp my point. A non-urgency to whom? To Him or to the human who lives 100 yrs (with some surfeit of grace)? You see, the return might as well be in our lifetime orhave been in Paul's era because we only have one life to live and the single life we live determines our fate. The Bible states the dead sleep until he comes (or some paraphrase)... Paul's and the other Christian's fates are already decided. Thus they were fully justified in living as if Jesus was returning in their day.

 

[MarcAC]

MarcAc's claim is that the allusions to the timeframe of the Parousia by Jesus and His "inspired" disciples were merely allegorical. Of course, in this case, "any rational Christian" can not depend on the claims of Jesus to be God's Son to be literal but rather merely allegorical.

Be careful Star. I made no comment of such proportions. The Bible is obviously an amalgam of allegory and history. The trick is to maintain the balance. Just to put you on my wavelength: 2000 yrs from now, there might be a 'Bible' with the writiings of many 'Pauls' of our era.

Of course, we see no evidence of a metaphorical tone for either claim. I have asked MarcAc to show me contextual evidence (esp. since he's so hellbent on having me take everything in the Bible "in context) to corroborate his allegation that Jesus' words were allegorical.

You see, we focus on two different things here it seems. I focus on your conclusion with regards to the content of the essay, while you focus on the content and forget the unwaranted conlusion.

Of course he is unable to and will not be able to; there is no such evidence. I have already dismissed this apology of "it's meant to be taking metaphorically" in the original post but he seems persistent in his defense. We shall see.

I invite you to read my posts, read the verses, then comment. Trivially dismissing something isn't disproving it's necessity.

Yes, I realised something. Thise whole thread has been a lovely diversion in and of itself. The Devil's work it seems. We are all subject to his cunning now and then. What? This:

You ask When Is Jesus Coming? But to ask that is to display a replete ignorance of what the 'Coming' is all about (unless you are deceitful). You focus on when, the Bible focuses on how. The Bible assumes the Coming is as certain as your conlusion is unwarranted. What you try to do is work within that framework of certainty and then prove (via the stated ignorance of the exact time of the event) that the event is uncertain (won't happen). Now that's a twister... and really twisted. Did you know that's what you were doing?

 

[robtex]

there is nothing to deny. You say you don't know to everything. You don't know when Jesus is coming. You don't know why you don't know when you don't know how. you just know......For somebody who doesn't know much about Jesus triumphent return you sure are confident it is going to happen.

Why is that? No theory of when or why or how....but absolute assurity that he will return. No reasoning or cognitive evaulation at all as to any of those questions or why you don't know.

And southstar's question (to which you said you don't know) is when is Jesus coming back?

It is kinda like waiting at the post office because you are sure the mailman is going to be with your package today. You know the package exists though you have never seen it, don't know what day it is suppose to arrive, don't know exactly what is in..only approximatly, don't know how it is suppose to arrive or what you are suppose to do with it when you get there ..but you just hang out waiting for the package.

throw us a bone other than I don't know. Guess if you have to. But make it an educated guess using deductive reasoning instead of some gut feeling about a book that you don't take as literal.

 

[Gravity]

When is he coming? I don't know, but I hope soon . . . I'm hungry!

 

[SnakeLord]

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?

MarcAC:

I know it's not specifically to topic, but I see little sense in saying a sensible christian would think jesus will be back "like a thief in the night".

It's just that a thief in the night is unseen, unheard, quiet and precise, whereas the whole second coming is nothing of the sort.

The second coming will be like "lightning strikes in the east and flashing far into the west..", after which "the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, (crash landing onto the earth funnily enough), and the powers of the heavens will be shaken". After that all the people of the earth "will beat their breasts.." (like a scene from Planet of the Apes), and "he will send his angels with a loud trumpet.."

To be honest, there is absolutely no sense in saying he'll return like a "thief in the night". Maybe a 'sensible' christian should claim he'll return like a herd of stampeding cattle.

So although it was certainly nice of you to inform everyone to 'keep an eye open', there's really little need.

 

[Gravity]

sensible Christian

Contradiction in Terms

 

[§outh§tar]

MarcAc, WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about?

You have made NO attempt whatsoever to address my points and yet you are attacking my conclusion and insisting that Jesus IS coming back. For those of us like robtex who see the implications, if the only historical information FROM JESUS OWN LIPS so very clearly points to a timeframe long past, then there is NO reason to say otherwise.

I have asked you many times to supply ONE shred of evidence to support your claim that Jesus claims of "I am coming soon" were meant to be taken allegorically and yet you give me NOTHING. Even if I am to be permissive, and allow your claim, then we can only conclude that all claims by Jesus that He is God are also to be taken metaphorically since it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily take one part metaphorically and take the other literally.

Either PROVIDE something contextual our discussion can go on, or keep rambling about this thread being a "diversion". I have listed the points systematically and addressed any objections a reader might have and reached my conclusion. You have done none of these except insist I am wrong because I am interpreting it "wrongly". To put it bluntly: 'Put up, or shut up'.

 

[§outh§tar]

throw us a bone other than I don't know. Guess if you have to. But make it an educated guess using deductive reasoning instead of some gut feeling about a book that you don't take as literal.

Notice how when it threatens his theological views, he likes to take it metaphorically. Otherwise, he is simply content with taking it in literally and satisfying his own eisegesis.

 

[Gravity]

§outh§tar, it would threaten his reality view far too much to give real attention to your points. Easier just to write you off because you clearly must have been brainwashed by (SNL's Church Lady voice here please) -- "SATAAAN!?"

 

[duendy]

next tuesday afternoon....no serious, next tuesday after noon is Christ' return with sword at the ready. and he will smite....hha only kidding

here's my view. summarized:

Jesus story is a myth--a Hellenistic-Judaic myth
the myth's main themes and motifs are drect ripp-offs from more ancient pagan god~man nyths of the "ever living ever dying ever regenerating god, who was Son of the GODDESS.

this 'Son' who could also be her 'Lover' represented Nature in all its chngese, and of course the 'Divine Child', the 'Sun' which also 'dies' and is reborn' at the stages of the year
the god ALSO represents--and this is the most hidden-for various reasons (err think of the existing drug war even toDAY)--the phallic hallucinogenc mushroom that gives itgs imbiber ecstatic inspiration

so all these associations and more are of the 'Son'

now, what happens with the Christian myth is that they drop the ever dying, ever regenerating aspects of the god~man and keep the "ever living" aspect. ie., that after his 'sacrifice' to 'God' he ascends to heaven to eternal life

The crucial thing to understand what happens here is this: rather than DIRECT experience of god and all s/he represents....we NOw have 'him deified as 'God'--A DISTANT 'god'....no more a Direct experience of YOU beCOMING god. do you see the difference. THAt now is taboo, and desacrilized. and all we are left with is empty symbols and the worry of "errr, whens he gonna come back" (looks at watch!

 

[MarcAC]

...You don't know why you don't know when you don't know how...

Now hold on there, I didn't say I don't know why or have any theory as how Jesus will come ... I just said nobody knows when, and God has his reasons why nobody knows. I can think of several reasons why we don't know a date. They all boil down to us living with a sense of urgency as we may die any second with our fates sealed. Can you see why we would need to live with a sense of urgency with regards to the event as the Bible states?

Why is that? No theory of when or why or how....but absolute assurity that he will return. No reasoning or cognitive evaulation at all as to any of those questions or why you don't know.

Again, when is not important and what why boils down to is above. Do you see why when is not improtant? You are really difficult, you know that right? Let me ask you this then; Why do you exist? When you answer that with an answer everyone agrees with then I'll put forward definite answers to your questions.

And southstar's question (to which you said you don't know) is when is Jesus coming back?

Not important. He is coming back according to the Bible. The Star used the Bible to try to say He isn't coming back. I use it to say He is. Equal sources of authority. Take it or leave it and leave The Star's cliams behind too.

It is kinda like waiting at the post office because you are sure the mailman is going to be with your package today. You know the package exists though you have never seen it, don't know what day it is suppose to arrive, don't know exactly what is in..only approximatly, don't know how it is suppose to arrive or what you are suppose to do with it when you get there ..but you just hang out waiting for the package.

No. It's not. You know how it's supposed to arrive and you know what's in it and you won't do anything with the package. The package will do something to you. It's a medicine if you wish to call it that. his package is one of life or death significance. If you want to live, you go to that post office and check everyday, if you want to die, well, stay home and die.