Hello everyone, here is an article about Jesus not returning, is it true? I hope not.

[Pericles]

verse 27 -28 are speaking of two different distinctions... if christ returned in 70ad...did he reward EVERY man according to his works...did the whole world see him coming with power and great glory..did every knee bow..did every mouth confess....and if this was witnessed by many...wouldn't you think...record upon record would testify....wouldn't you think the greatest revival ever would have happened...

The two verses are talking about the same thing...Jesus is speaking one continuous sentence...he didn't divide his sentences into verses. Verses are later additions to the Bible...

 

[Ephron]

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly, I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" - Matthew 16:27,28

I want to point out that this is talking about the transfiguration. Because Jesus says "they". The only person alive in ad 70 was John. Not the "they" that Jesus mentioned. In the next chapter they witness a picture of His coming and that was what Jesus was talking about. "They" perfectly fits peter,James and John. But it don't just fit John. God Bless.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also.........Mark 9:1 ..there be some that stand here which shall not taste death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Jesus is talking to the people (jews) along with His disciples.

 

[Pericles]

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also.........Mark 9:1 ..there be some that stand here which shall not taste death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Jesus is talking to the people (jews) along with His disciples.

Yes he was takling to living and breathing people - this original intent is even stronger in Mark 8

 

[Justme]

Hi Forum,

I would like to see some more discussion on that article which was in the first post. The writer of that article either misinterpreted the bible or the bible means something a lot different than what the writer thought it should mean.

For instance, Jesus didn't physically return in the first century, the writer is corecct, the bible says that Jesus would return in the first century. How wrong is the bible if Jesus was to return spiritually to meet the dead in the clouds so they would always be with the LOrd. How wrong would the bible be if that is what Jesus meant.

Justme

 

[Wills]

Hi Forum,

I would like to see some more discussion on that article which was in the first post. The writer of that article either misinterpreted the bible or the bible means something a lot different than what the writer thought it should mean.

For instance, Jesus didn't physically return in the first century, the writer is corecct, the bible says that Jesus would return in the first century. How wrong is the bible if Jesus was to return spiritually to meet the dead in the clouds so they would always be with the LOrd. How wrong would the bible be if that is what Jesus meant.

Justme

Why would Jesus be focusing on DEAD PEOPLE ONLY?? God is NOT the God of the dead.

The Bible NEVER supports the idea that Jesus deals with THE DEAD ONLY.

That is very wrong.

 

[Pericles]

Why would Jesus be focusing on DEAD PEOPLE ONLY?? God is NOT the God of the dead.

The Bible NEVER supports the idea that Jesus deals with THE DEAD ONLY.

That is very wrong.

Jesus came to give life to those that needed life - if you want to put it this way, He actually IS the God of the dead. If you already have salvation, you must not need God. If you are spiritually dead, you definitely need him. I think that's the point that was being made..

 

[Wills]

Jesus came to give life to those that needed life - if you want to put it this way, He actually IS the God of the dead. If you already have salvation, you must not need God. If you are spiritually dead, you definitely need him. I think that's the point that was being made..

The poster was not referring to the spiritually dead. I am not debating the fact that Jesus gives the spiritually dead the gift salvation.

The poster was most likely referring to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 regarding Jesus

meeting his beloved in the clouds.
---------
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
-----------


God is not the God of the PHYSICALLY dead.

Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

 

[Pericles]

The poster was not referring to the spiritually dead. I am not debating the fact that Jesus gives the spiritually dead the gift salvation.

So what is so much more important that salvation that Jesus will resolve in His Kingdom? Someone here in another thread was saying that if it's all you can drink orange juice, then that's what the Kingdom should be. Carnal expectations of the kingdom are nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Bill Gates can build a city today and pave the streets in solid gold and have orange juice fountains at every corner...but that doesn't make him God.

 

[Justme]

Hi Wills,

How about that Jesus deals with those alive spiritually, dead physically?

John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will LIVE, EVEN THO HE DIES;

Hebrews 9
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Ecclesiastes 12
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

2 Corinthians 5

Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

You remember that just as John is shown the coming on the clouds in his vision he is told this:

13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."

Jesus told Nicodemus that there was really no value in explaining 'heavenly' things to him because Nicodemus didn't even understand the earthly teaching very well.

John 3
12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

The discussion Jesus has with Nicodemus can just as easily be describing living a physical life, physically dying and being 'born again' a spiritual being.

At any rate there are enough verses to create an interesting and lively discussion about the article in the first post.

Justme

 

[Justme]

Hi again Wills,et al;

I realize there is a totally different meaning of many terms used on an eschatology site.

Maybe this bit from an article by a Muslim author will show you the 'other' Christian understanding of eternal life.

Written by Ali Al-Timimi


What about belief in the Last Day, do the Christians believe in the Last Day? No. Why don’t they believe in the Last Day? Because they believe the resurrection will be the resurrection only of the spirits. They don’t believe that this body, this flesh, these bones, and flesh, and blood, and so forth will actually be in Paradise. They think only your soul will be in Paradise. ........................

I'm sorry I can't provide a link to this total article, it has become lost in my file system somewhere.

Justme

 

[Ben_Hur]

@Pericles. If you believe Jesus gave a false prophecy, then you must believe he is a liar. If not, then you are not listening to yourself. Assuming you are listening to yourself, why do you call yourself a Christian (according to the word "Christian" below your avatar)?

 

[Pericles]

@Pericles. If you believe Jesus gave a false prophecy, then you must believe he is a liar. If not, then you are not listening to yourself. Assuming you are listening to yourself, why do you call yourself a Christian (according to the word "Christian" below your avatar)?

Hey now, that's my point! Jesus said He was to come back in the lifetimes of His disciples! I am not the one calling him a liar...I take Him at his word. Dispensationalists are the ones claiming Jesus had no clue, and he was ultimately wrong in his prophecy. Did Jesus keep his word or not?

 

[Ben_Hur]

Hey now, that's my point! Jesus said He was to come back in the lifetimes of His disciples! I am not the one calling him a liar...I take Him at his word. Dispensationalists are the ones claiming Jesus had no clue, and he was ultimately wrong in his prophecy. Did Jesus keep his word or not?

Heh. I'm TOTALLY lost now. What are you saying? If you are taking him at his word, and he said he was coming back about 1900 years ago (according to what appears you believe) and he never did come back 1900 years ago, then you must be trying to say he's a liar, but yet you call yourself a Christian...who believes in what he would argue to be a liar.

???

 

[Pericles]

Heh. I'm TOTALLY lost now. What are you saying? If you are taking him at his word, and he said he was coming back about 1900 years ago (according to what appears you believe) and he never did come back 1900 years ago, then you must be trying to say he's a liar, but yet you call yourself a Christian...who believes in what he would argue to be a liar.

???

I think you forgot to answer my question. Did Jesus keep his word when he promised the disciples to return in their lifetimes?

 

[Justme]

Hi Ben Hur,

I understand Pericles perfectly. No, Pericles is not calling Jesus a liar.

Pericles never said Jesus didn't return in the time of the generation of Jesus' deciples.

There are two choices

1) Jesus didn't return in a way where anyone saw Him or in the way that some teach He returns..

2)Certain verses don't mean what they say.

If certain verses don't mean what they say, where do we extract the truth from this book? Which verses say what they mean and which ones don't.

Example:

What does this verse mean?
Hebrews 9
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Does this verse say that the end of the ages was in the generation of Jesus or what?
Justme

 

[Ben_Hur]

I think you forgot to answer my question. Did Jesus keep his word when he promised the disciples to return in their lifetimes?

I don't claim to fully understand this. Perhaps he returned for each and every one of them at the moment of their death? I don't think we can know about that. But since the other "signs" could not have been present, then it doesn't appear that he meant a literal generation.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Hi Ben Hur,

I understand Pericles perfectly. No, Pericles is not calling Jesus a liar.

Pericles never said Jesus didn't return in the time of the generation of Jesus' deciples.

There are two choices

1) Jesus didn't return in a way where anyone saw Him or in the way that some teach He returns..

2)Certain verses don't mean what they say.

If certain verses don't mean what they say, where do we extract the truth from this book? Which verses say what they mean and which ones don't.

Example:

What does this verse mean?
Hebrews 9
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Does this verse say that the end of the ages was in the generation of Jesus or what?
Justme

I have not studied this. But it appears by just reading it that the "ending age" started 2000 years ago and is still going. I don't know what the definition of an "age" is. And if anyone else does, I would be suspicious.

None of this helps me to understand the apparent contradiction in paracles' words compared with his avatar caption.

 

[Pericles]

I have not studied this. But it appears by just reading it that the "ending age" started 2000 years ago and is still going. I don't know what the definition of an "age" is. And if anyone else does, I would be suspicious.

None of this helps me to understand the apparent contradiction in paracles' words compared with his avatar caption.

Nobody is saying any of this stuff. The "end of the age" (not the ending age) was in the first century. We are now in a different age, an age without end.

Did Jesus keep His word when He said "you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of man comes"?

 

[Justme]

Hi Ben Hur,

I think you are wise to be suspicious, think it all through for yourself.

You wrote:
I have not studied this. But it appears by just reading it that the "ending age" started 2000 years ago and is still going. I don't know what the definition of an "age" is. And if anyone else does, I would be suspicious.
*************************

I agree with you that the verse I pointed out doesn't tell us when the 'age' ends.

I use these verses to determine when the 'age ' ends.

Matthew 24
14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

I should point out here that the Greek word used here for 'world' apparently means the following:

1) the inhabited earth

a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
c) the whole inhabited earth, the world
d) the inhabitants of the earth, men
2) the universe, the world

I found this at the blueletterbible site which has Strong's definitions.

So I assume that the gospel of the kingdom need not be preached to the entire planet, but possibly only to a certain area. That idea is reaffirmed in Matthew 10 where Jesus gives His instructions to those who are going out to proclaim the gospel.
5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Then we find Paul saying that the gospel HAD been preached making it time for the 'end' to come.
Colossians 1
23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

So I put this all together and feel that the end is the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new covenant that starts with the sacrifice on the cross. Hebrews 8 discusses the covenant.

Again I agree with you to be suspicious about such things, I see it that way and I laid out the scriptures that make me think that way, but in a court of law I couldn't prove a word of it.
I guess that is because it is all by faith, I say that someday I will see the second coming of Christ(at my death), but I can't prove it.

Justme

 

[Ben_Hur]

Nobody is saying any of this stuff. The "end of the age" (not the ending age) was in the first century. We are now in a different age, an age without end.

Did Jesus keep His word when He said "you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of man comes"?

I keep saying that it looks like you are calling Jesus a liar yourself. This is the same thing as asking, "do you think Jesus is a liar?" I don't understand why you aren't answering that question. Maybe I missed your answer. This is, in fact, a long thread. (I am not calling Him a liar, by the way).