Why hasn't Jesus come back yet?
- Thread starter Grumpy Old Man
- Start date
SanFrank
Islam Lies to Muslims - Facebook
- Mar 11, 2009
- 2,329
- 62
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Actually, I was just the opposite having noticed many biblical signs being fulfilled as we speak, signalling that the day of the Lord is near. Keep that thought, "what's he waiting for."
Upvote
0
ephraimanesti
Senior Veteran
MY DEAR GRUMPY BROTHER,
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you in particular so much that it would break His Heart if you chose to spend eternity in hell rather than at His side in the Kingdom. In His Love for you, He has put His return on hold until that glorious day with you finally get your head and your heart together and choose Him rather than the adversary to be your Beloved.
You need to hurry up (please!) with this because the rest of us would like to get started on our little bout of eternal happiness with our Lord and you are holding up the show. YOU CAN DO THIS!
ABBA'S FOOL,ephraim
Upvote
0
I used to be a Rapturist and read tonnes of books and articles on how prophecy was being "fulfilled before our eyes". The problem with trying to hold a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other is that the Christians who do this keep getting it wrong; just like I did repeatedly. I used to watch the likes of Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe on TV and they were always wrong. Their programs are still on TV as far as I know, and they're still trying to tie in news stories with Bible prophecy and they're still getting it wrong. Hal Lindsey should know better, seeing as he predicted the rapture in '89 in his book The Late Great Planet Earth. He whipped America into a frenzy (as did Harold Camping) with his false prophecies. And the Rapture fanaticism has only been exacerbated by the Left Behind series, which goes to fantastical lengths to stretch Bible prophecy into a real world setting.
I think the best cure for any Christian obsessed with the rapture and End Times prophecy is to pick up Gary DeMar's book End Times Madness. It's written by a Preterist Christian and actually makes sense. However, as a non-Christian now, I think it's rather silly to hold onto any view of end times events. Humanity seems to have a disturbing fascination with its own destruction, and many Christians today seem to treat their faith like a doomsday cult, obsessing over conspiracy theories and news stories and natural disasters. There's clearly something wrong with a person when they start to consider tsunamis as good news - which appears to be the case with many Rapturists these days.
Upvote
0
ephraimanesti
Senior Veteran
MY DEAR BROTHER,
Unfortunately, your critique is spot-on. In my opinion, the cause of this malady is looking at Jesus as a get-out-of-hell-free card "after-life insurance" rather than as a Divine Physician to provide us with Life BEFORE death rather than just AFTER.
ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
Upvote
0
SanFrank
Islam Lies to Muslims - Facebook
- Mar 11, 2009
- 2,329
- 62
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Thanks for the references. I'm not much for date setting nor date setters, and even though I have my own dates from my own studies, I will not divulge them to anyone (except my wife). The Left Behind series claims to be fiction and just stories.
Would it be safe to say most past studies were going by wars/plagues/earthquakes in areas outside of the middle east? What does the U.S. or the cold war have to do with Mathew 24? Nothing. Though eschatology takes many forms, I look at middle east events.
Did the Lord fulfill prophecy? Yes; he died on the feast of passover, he was resurrected on the 3rd day corresponding to the feast of firstfruits, he was in the earth without sin corresponding to feast of unleavened bread. I look at events that occur on these feast days and remarkably things happened on Rosh Hoshanah, 2001 and 2008. What can I say, I'm stuck on the Lord.
Upvote
0
Revelation chapter 22
7 And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.
12 Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
20 He who testifies to these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly.
2000 years ago Jesus says three times that he is coming quickly.
2000 years is not quick
Something seems to be wrong.
7 And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.
12 Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
20 He who testifies to these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly.
2000 years ago Jesus says three times that he is coming quickly.
2000 years is not quick
Something seems to be wrong.
Upvote
0
Compared to eternity... What is life? Why not give God your best and make it a determination to finish well?
RW Schambach - The Outcome - Psalms 34 - YouTube
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
GrayAngel
Senior Member
Who's side are you on? It's my understanding that most denominations, including Pentecostal, at least claim to believe in the Bible.
1. Jesus, by His own admission, did not know when He'd come back.
2. He did not give any indication that it would be within the lifetimes of the disciples. He explains elsewhere how there will be many signs of war and other events, which people will attribute to the end times, and that there will be many claiming to be the second coming of Christ. These things suggest a lengthy passage of time.
3. 2000 years is not all that long, given the grand scheme of things. For thousands of years, the Jews awaited the coming Messiah. It took longer for that promise to happen. And now that Christ's job is finished, there is only one more thing that needs to happen. The end times. Every day since Jesus ascension and extending to the end of the world are the last days, the last period of time. And it will come suddenly, without warning.
Upvote
0
And the Jews are still waiting. The Jews readily claim that Jesus did not fulfil prophecy; only the Christians claim this.
Upvote
0
GrayAngel
Senior Member
Actually, there is such a thing as Messianic Jews, and they accept the obvious fact that Jesus was the Messiah who was prophesied in the Old Testament. The other Jews will keep on waiting.
You need to remove your Pentecostal status, because you are clearly not a Pentecostal. Right now, I'm having doubts that you are even a Christian.
You obviously don't know what quick means. Try reading the Bible once and a while, then maybe you'll know enough to start talking about it. Jesus never put a time table on His return. The predictions made of events which would occur would require a long period of time to occur. There is absolutely no indication that Jesus believed He would return by your definition of soon.
For example:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 - Dont let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day [the day of judgement] will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
The rebellion/falling away/apostasy is the abandonment of truth by the church. It would take time before the church would decay to such a degree. Now, 2000 years later, it is happening. Churches are no longer standing by the Bible. You are evidence of this. However, there are still some churches that attempt to follow the Bible, so I'm not sure the apostasy is complete yet.
Also, as I've alluded to earlier:
Matthew 24:3-14 - As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. Tell us, they said, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?
Jesus answered: Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, I am the Messiah, and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.
Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
1. The Gospel would be preached throughout the whole world. This would take a while to happen.
2. Many wars will happen, and nations will turn against each other. This is again, something requiring a considerable passage of time.
3. Many other things that people would consider to be signs, such as natural disasters, will happen, but Jesus would still not come.
And most importantly, as I've also already pointed out...JESUS DID NOT KNOW WHEN HE WAS COMING BACK. How could you say that Jesus believed He come back by your idea of soon when Jesus Himself didn't even know how long it would be?
Upvote
0
I know about Messianic Jews. I generally consider them Christians, because that's exactly what they are if they believe in Jesus as the Messiah. I was talking about non-Christian Jews who are still waiting for their Messiah.
2 Thessalonians is a pseudepigraphal work, meaning it's a forgery. It wasn't written by Paul and should not be considered Scripture.
Also, you claim that churches are no longer standing by the Bible. Are you referring to a literal Biblical interpretation? Because that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Christianity has never wholly stood by the Bible in a literal sense anyway; Biblical literalism is a recent phenomenon - a knee jerk reaction to the discovery of evolution.
Also, seeing as Christians have been divided over doctrine since it started as a religion, it will be interesting to see which Church denomination wins the debate regarding what "standing by the Bible" actually means. For example, should Christians speak in tongues or not? Baptise infants or not? Preach "once saved always saved" or not? Practice the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or not? "Standing by the Bible" is much easier said than done.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
GrayAngel
Senior Member
Most Christians are Gentiles. Messianic Jews are Jews in every way, except for their acceptance of Jesus as the Christ.
I don't believe that. I'll have to see some convincing evidence before I will.
Biblical literalism is not a new phenomenon. The Jews of Jesus time were split in two groups. The Pharisees were the literalists, and the Sadducees believed that angels, demons, and the afterlife were not real.
However, that is not what I was referring to. Churches are interpreting the Bible by their ideas, instead of forming their ideas around the Bible. For example, some Lutheran organizations have become gay-friendly. They no longer teach what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Even in Paul's time, this was happening. The biggest reason for the many splits is the fact that most churches don't teach the Bible by what it actually says. They teach what they want to teach, cherrypicking from the Bible and misinterpreting however is convenient for them.
Speaking in tongues? Paul was very clear on that subject. It's not to be used too frequently, and not at all if there is no one to translate. Also, it is called the least of the gifts, not the greatest, as some churches teach.
The once-saved-always-saved debate is largely a matter of semantics. I've found that what people argue sounds very much the same. However, again, this is another topic that is not open for debate. The Bible teaches that:
1. God chooses salvation for us. It's not our choice.
2. If you fall from the faith, you cannot be saved a second time. Probably because were either never saved in the first place (a wolf in sheep's clothing). Because of 1., however, someone who returns to the faith could be said to have never lost their salvation.
3. Those who are saved will live accordingly. You can't simply say a prayer of faith once and expect to go to Heaven.
I'm not sure what you mean by baptism of the Holy Spirit. My experience with different denominations concerns sprinkling versus submersion, or "in the name of Jesus" versus "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
For the first, there is still no room for debate. The word "baptism" does not exist in Greek. It's a made up word made to sound like the Greek "baptiso," which means "immerse" or "bury." Baptism was a symbol of death to sin and resurrection to new life, and a believers baptism was also a symbol of Christ's burial and resurrection. Sprinkling was invented later, when Catholics figured it was easier that immersion, but sprinkling lacks the meaning of real baptism.
The second is based on the false belief some hold that Trinitarians believe in three gods. The command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit comes from the last chapter of Matthew. Baptism in the name of Jesus is in the Bible too, so either way is valid.
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
1) Praytell, can you explain why it would be a forgery if it weren't written by Paul?
2) And if it so happens that it wasn't written by Paul, why should that have any bearing on its status as Scripture?
You have a habit of throwing out these wild conclusions, and you really should examine them more closely.
Upvote
0
And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. - Luke 12:38-40
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; - 2 Peter 3:10
Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. - Revelation 3:3
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. - Revelation 16:15
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; - 2 Peter 3:10
Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. - Revelation 3:3
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. - Revelation 16:15
Upvote
0
1) Praytell, can you explain why it would be a forgery if it weren't written by Paul?
2) And if it so happens that it wasn't written by Paul, why should that have any bearing on its status as Scripture?
You have a habit of throwing out these wild conclusions, and you really should examine them more closely.
Bart Ehrman's book "Forged". It's widely known and accepted among scholars that Paul didn't write 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians. Ask anyone who's studied the NT at University level (a decent University, not a Fundie sausage factory) and they'll tell you. At the very least there is reason to doubt Paul wrote these Epistles.
Forgery was quite common in ancient times (because there was no printing press or copyright laws) and was frowned upon when uncovered. Ehrman gives several examples of non-scriptural forgeries in his book before going on to cover the forgers in the NT. Among them are 1 & 2 Peter; Peter was a fisherman from Capernaum and therefore was almost certainly too poor to be educated to read and write. Also, Acts 4:13 says that both he and John were illiterate (which sheds doubt on the Epistles attributed to John too).
We, the common laypeople, don't hear about this because, obviously, we are not University educated in NT studies, and our Pastors teach us only what they believe. Why most Pastors continue to teach that the Apostles wrote these letters, despite the fact that they've seen the evidence for themselves, is anyone's guess.
If you have a problem with what I've said, then you should probably read Ehrman's book for yourself. He provides pretty solid reasons as to why many of the books in the NT are forgeries. I see no reason to doubt him.
As I've said above, check out Ehrman's book "Forged".
EDIT: Regarding Acts 4:13, the Greek word for uneducated (depending on translation) is agrammatos, which means "illiterate, unlearned" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G62). The ESV translates this as uneducated, as I said above. I looked at the note on this verse in my ESV Study Bible and it tries to shrug this off rather unconvincingly;
ESV Study Bible note on Acts 4:13 said:
Ugh, please. Agrammatos literally means "illiterate". They could not read, or write. They were fishermen and education, in ancient times, was something only the wealthy could afford. Peter and John spoke Aramaic (as did Jesus), so they would have had to have learned to read and write in Greek in order to write their Epistles (as well as have an intimate knowledge of the Greek translation of the scriptures).
Another good reason for believing that the Epistles of Peter are forged is that "Peter" calls Paul's letters "scripture". Paul's letters weren't considered scripture until during the second century when they were more widely known among the churches. Not even Paul considered his letters scripture; he just thought he was writing letters.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Yes, we have previously established that you can be quite good at giving out pat answers to questions that were never asked.
Care to actually engage the conversation and actually be responsive to what was said, or no?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
