Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Larsguy
    Larsguy

    Hi Joseph,
    Just for the RECORD....

    When Jesus said that "some would not die until he came", he meant just that, only there were two groups back then, ones who would not die for 1900 years until he came and those who would die and then have to be resurrected.

    Paul was one of these who said he would "SURVIVE until the Lord's day."

    So per another interpretation, some of us anointed ones understand that some of the disciples, including John and Paul, would indeed keep living over 1900 years down to our day; therefore, your argument is circular that the death of Jesus' disciples would limit when the second coming would occur based upon those dying naturally during that generation.

    But if you actually followed scripture, you would find several references where the two groups are noted; one who would die out and be resurrected and one who would not die at all but keep living.

    One reason for chosing some to keep living from the 1st century appears to be the necessity to preserve some of the original members of each of the 12 tribes of Israel so that none of the 12 tribes would die out. The easiest way to ensure that, of course, is to allow certain select ones from all 12 tribes to survive down to our day and then remarry during the last generation.

    Sooooo, your inability to accept yet another miracle (how strange Jesus can raise from the dead but not preserve a life over 1900 years?) has nothing to do with your misapplication of scripture or the reality of what took place.

    At any rate, Paul was indeed one who was chosen to survive down to our day and I've seen him. That means nothing to you other than some believe Jesus' words were to be literal but his second coming is timed specifically to occur during the last 70th week of 1989 to 1996 and thus, indeed, some from his time would live down to our day as he said. There is no Biblical conflict. It's only a conflict because your beliefs don't allow you to accept that Jesus could cause someone to live through all that time. But in fact, he did.

    On the other hand, think of the incredible advantages of someone not dying over that time. Obviously they would be in a very advantaged position financially to assist Jesus at the second coming to carry out what he needed to with respect to the kingdom interests.

    So it's a matter of interpretation and faith, but you should know that some of us don't limit the second coming to the normal lifespan of Jesus' disciples back then.

    L.G.

  • accuracy
    accuracy

    Well Joe, for all I know those Muslims who sacrificed all, bismillah, did go to Paradise to be with the beautiful Houris. I can't prove that one way or another, but it is not for me to judge their faith. As for the followers of David Koresh, at least they had no doubts that the man David Koresh actually existed, whether he was Jesus Christ or not.

    The thing about Jesus, though, is that his disciples and apostles were eyewitnesses of the man, and Paul of the resurrected Christ. It is also interesting that the ancient Jewish writers in the Mishnah and Talmud never doubted the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, they accepted that there was a Jesus, Yeshu bar-Maryam, "Jesus the son of Mary," just that he was not the Son of God. It does not surprise that secular records make no mention of Jesus, since to them he would have been just another wild visionary or Jewish revolutionary among hundreds of the time. The world is concerned with its own affairs at all times, and seldom with the affairs of God.

    S-S, I really can't treat your reply with any seriousness. The nature of faith is belief in the unseen. Even scientists believe in the unseen, and several theories of physics are based on the unseen. It is irrelelvant that I have not personally seen Jesus. I believe in Jesus. And the resurrected Jesus in whom I believe is reported to have said to a disbelieving disciple: "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (John 20:29, NASB)

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Accuracy

    Granted, to most christians it seems like a dumb question. Nevertheless, to indivduals who have seen jesus, it's not. There is actually a book, published a couple of years ago, which documents the visions people had of jesus. I don't remember if it gives the peoples' names, but it gives their locations and backgrounds. They were people of different religions, some with none. Some catholic saints have seen him. I communicated with a catholic mystic in ontario canada, who claims to have seen also.

    Christians of the serious flavors will reject all this out of hand. 'Things like that have all passed. No more miracles'. But why should they? The spirit bears witness with our spirit. In as much as you are a spirit, and you live in the spirit, to use christian terms, you should theoretically be able to percieve a bit of the spirit world. If a person asks for a fish, god will not give him a serpent, will he? Why would a person looking for god get a demon? He may of course, come to realise he has his own negative spirits which he has been carrying.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    When Matthew had Jesus say to the men with him that not all of them would die before the apocalypse came, how were they supposed to know that Jesus *really* meant that the apocalypse wouldn't come for about two thousand years or more? What clue was there to be found in the words Matthew gave Jesus which would alert the listeners to this fact? None. If Matthew was inspired by God to write these words, then that God would have known that the listeners, as well as generations of readers, would not be hearing or reading the "true" message from God; since the god of the Bible is perfect, and all-powerful, and all-knowing, it would have known how to guide Matthew to write a far more accurate description of the time of the apocalypse. The fact that the god didn't do this is evidence that Matthew wasn't inspired at all when he wrote that passage; no wonder his prediction about the end time didn't come true.

    As further evidence that Matthew wanted his readers to know the apocalypse was coming within the lifetime of his disciples, Matthew tells us that Jesus said that his disciples wouldn't even have enough time to visit all of the cities of Israel. It is perfectly evident that Matthew wanted his readers to believe that this was a comparatively short time; it is obvious that he didn't think it would take two thousand years or more to visit the cities of Israel. The time it would take for the disciples to travel to these cities and spread the good news wouldn't be more than a few months, at most a few years. The message, once again, is crystal clear: the end was coming soon. If Matthew was inspired by God, God would have known that the words Matthew used told *everybody* that the end was coming very soon; if that wasn't true, God wouldn't have let Matthew use those words. The fact that Matthew *did* use those words is strong evidence that Matthew wasn't inspired, and that's why he was in error.

    Furthermore, the author of 1 Peter reiterated to Christians what Jesus said about the imminence of Jesus' return: "But the end of all things is at hand; be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
    (1 Peter 4:7)

    If this author didn't think the end was "at hand," then he should have used different words; the fact that he didn't shows that he, too, thought the end was to come very soon, that it was close, close enough to reach with one's hand, figuratively speaking. Who in the world can believe that this writer thought that "at hand" meant two thousand years? If he thought the end was two thousand years or more away, why didn't he give his readers the slightest hint that that is what he believed? The fact that he gave no such clue is strong evidence that he actually thought the end was near.

    In summary, the evidence is overwhelming that some of the Bible writers believed that Jesus would return with the apocalypse in a few years, perhaps less. It didn't happen, which means these writers were, at best, mistaken; at worst, they were no better than those who constantly preach the end is near to scare money out of the faithful.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • Larsguy
    Larsguy

    >>>When Matthew had Jesus say to the men with him that not all of them would die before the apocalypse came, how were they supposed to know that Jesus *really* meant that the apocalypse wouldn't come for about two thousand years or more? What clue was there to be found in the words Matthew gave Jesus which would alert the listeners to this fact? None.

    This is the thing that always amazes me about your "errancy" folks; you misread the scriptures and miss the subtle details and then run off claiming there is an error. This is the perfect example.

    You claim there is "none" context in Jesus' words that would make these listeners not know that the kingdom was 1900 years down the road or at least beyond the lifetime of those living in his day. But that's not true. Because Paul includes himself into the group that would "survive down to the Lord's day", but contrasts his group with those who would die first.

    1 Thess 4:15 shows Paul reassuring those persons who would die first that those who would "survive until the Lord's day" would not supercede them into the kingdom, but all would get their heavenly reward at the same time.

    Also Jesus in the last words of John is making a reference where Jesus told Peter how he would die but there was doubt as to whether John would be among those chosen not to die until Jesus returned.

    But within that reference, of course, is the profound understanding that those who would, in fact, not die or "survive until the Lord's day" would clearly outlive those who would die. So the Bible indeed shows that they understood that generation would die out before the second coming, necessitating a resurrection for them.

    So out the two groups concerned, those who would die and need a resurrection, and those who would never die, it seems clear that the second coming must have been beyond the normal lifespan of that generation. After all, would we presume Jesus' statement that "some would not die before they see me coming into the kingdom" was just a reference that perhaps a few of them would live into the nineties, perhaps, while the rest of them would die? Of course not.

    He was noting what they all knew and understood and that was that he would not arrive again for centuries into the future and thus it was an amazement that he was telling them that some would be selected for special purposes to live down through the centuries until he came and that some of them were right there in that group. For sure, we know that John was one of them, though Peter was not.

    So you see, you just don't read the scriptures closely enough or understand them fully enough to be finding "errors" in specialized texts you don't understand.

    On the other hand, you are also presuming that the chronology prophecies, specifically the "7 times" prophecy was not understood by the Jews. But in fact, Jesus in Luke refers to the time when Jerusalem would be destroyed and the Jews would go into "exile until the appointed times of the nations were fulfilled." So the disciples knew that Jerusalem was set to be trampled upon for many many years after its destruction and they would have understood as well that this period of time would likely reach well into the future if they understood the "7 times" to be a period of 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem.

    That's why they asked what would be the "signs" that would accompany his second coming because the Bible specifically dates the second coming to 2520 years past the fall of Jerusalem. So they knew it was going to be far, far into the future before he returned and that the majority of them would die off first before it occurred, though some, a select few, likely representatives of the 12 tribes, would live on and "survive until the Lord's day."

    Another hint that they fully understood this would be far into the future are the words in Hebrew where Paul clearly understands about the millennium being a thousand years of a special "sabbath". If the seventh day is 1000 years near the end of a 7,000-year creative day, then obviously they would understand that nearly 6000 years would have to elapse prior to that and they knew by Jewish chronology that they had just less than 2000 years to go before reaching that typology.

    Just how understanding the Christians were about this subtextual chronology can even be demonstrated by Venerable Bede who around 700 understood that the Passover week which was from the 15th through the 21st representing the third week of the month was understood to extrapolate over a month of 8,000 years and that the Messiah's two advents by this pattern would occupy the last 2,000 years prior to the last week of 2000 years.

    So with that understanding, extrapolating implied chronology from Jewish ritual would have told them the general pattern of chronology which extended over a period of 7,000 years and that they were just 4000 years into that 7,000-year week.

    So there are lots of things in scripture which would have been known to them that the Messiah was not to return for his kingdom until well into the future, in fact, specifically 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem. After all, are we to assume they didn't understand the symbolism of the "7 times" that would pass over the chopped down tree not being 2520 years?

    Of course they understood it. And they understood that the double bands on the tree, the first being iron and the second copper represented the first and second coming.

    Further, why wouldn't Jesus have told them he wasn't expected to arrive until 2520 years after the fall of Jerusalem if, in fact, that was the case?

    So you see, Joseph, AGAIN, it's your own misreading and poor reading of scripture, based upon biased presumptions that you add all up togehter to create an anxious "error" in scripture, when really there is none. The only obvious error is your anxiety over finding error without doing your adequate homework.

    The disciples knew precisely when Jesus would arrive which was 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem, the year of the second coming is specifically dated. So they knew the year Jesus would return in the flesh, what they didn't know was what else would be happening just before that and that's why they asked him "what are the signs of your parousia"? It didn't mean they didn't know when he would arrive.

    Now, even though they knew the YEAR he would come, they were still told to stay awake, because they still didn't know the specific DAY or HOUR. That means that by the time it got close to the time of the second coming, they would have figured out the probable month he would arrive, but not the day nor hour. Anyway, The Bible gives the chronology for the specific year of the second coming, but not the day nor hour, and the disciples certainly should have understood this.

    So it is only YOU who is confused over thinking that the kingdom would come before his first-century followers would die off, not them.

    Sorry.

    L.G.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Lars

    What you are saying is that those 1st century christians understood and believed the present wt chronology back then. Right?

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    I've seen no rebuttal of my argument that Matthew wanted his readers to know the apocalypse was coming within the lifetime of his disciples. Matthew tells us that Jesus said that his disciples wouldn't even have enough time to visit all of the cities of Israel.

    "...Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of Man be come." (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 10:23)

    It is perfectly evident that Matthew wanted his readers to believe that this was a comparatively short time; it is obvious that he didn't think it would take two thousand years or more to visit the cities of Israel. If not, why not?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    Joe: You are indeed a welcome addition to the board. I don't have the
    patience to muck about with the Bible thumpers, and you seem to do it
    very eloquently.

    Keep it up!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit