How do Christians deal with these verses? [moved form Christian Scriptures]

[freemike]

Matthew 26:64 (King James Version)
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 14:62 (King James Version)
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

These two verses are taking place at the trial of jesus after the high priest asked him if he was the Christ. Then jesus prophecies that he will see him sitting on the right side of the of power, COMING in the clouds of heaven. These two verses indicate that Jesus is rather late.
----------------

Luke 9:27 (King James Version)
27But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

This verse says that some people that stood before jesus would clearly not die.
---------------------------

I just can't understand how people can read these verses (and others that I didn't throw in for sake of time) and NOT comprehend that the book is full of FATAL flaws. The greatest tool against the Christian religion is the bible. I know some Christians accept the fact that the bible isn't "perfect" but these verses in my opinion are more than a few minor unimportant mistakes. These are flaws that literally tear down the second coming of jesus. How do you Christians still believe that jesus is coming when he is almost 2000 years late? I'm sorry if I am coming off as a jerk, but this is just blatant to me.

 

[wayseer]

I just can't understand how people can read these verses (and others that I didn't throw in for sake of time) and NOT comprehend that the book is full of FATAL flaws. The greatest tool against the Christian religion is the bible. I know some Christians accept the fact that the bible isn't "perfect" but these verses in my opinion are more than a few minor unimportant mistakes. These are flaws that literally tear down the second coming of jesus. How do you Christians still believe that jesus is coming when he is almost 2000 years late? I'm sorry if I am coming off as a jerk, but this is just blatant to me.

First - if you insist on using the KJV you will get all sorts of problems.

Second - 'fatal'? In what way are the 'flaws' fatal? Interesting choice of words.

Third - If you believe in literal interpretation of the Bible you will arrive at the conclusion you have reached.

 

[freemike]

First I never said that, but Luke 9:27 pretty much says the same thing in all versions. Have your pick. Though seems like a perfect god would have got the book right the first time. I mean think about all those people that had to be saved by only using the KJV as the rule book. Do those people that lived when all they had was the KJV to go by get to slip into heaven thanks to a loophole. I'm sure Jesus is going to say well you can slide in since you only had the KJV. Sorry about that inconvenience.

Second. That people standing in front of Jesus wouldn't die before him coming on the clouds. Those people have died, he still hasn't reigned in on any clouds that anyone has seen, much less those standing in front of him. That seems to me to be detrimental to the second coming of the lord as told by his account. So, if he doesn't come back, sortve make this whole devil/jesus fight over souls inept.

Third. I would love for you to enlighten me. Which parts are supposed to be tooken literal and which parts are not? How would you "interpret" those verses? I get that you don't actually believe that the antichrist is a "beast". Though these verses seem very straight forward and not using any kind of hyperboles, symbolism, numerology, similies, or metaphors.

 

[wayseer]

You ask a question and I provided an answer.

If you think you won't like the answers - don't ask the questions.

 

[wayseer]

Atheists asking tricky type theological questions on a Christian only board are generally looking for some entertainment - not serious discussion.

If the OP was genuine he would answer in a way that promoted open discussion.

 

[marktheblake]

I just can't understand how people can read these verses

]

I cant understand why an atheist would want to spend so much time on the question, particularly when he just joined the forum to post this.

How many years have you been struggling with this question?

 

[Ih8s8n]

How do Christians deal with these verses?
Matthew 26:64 (King James Version)
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 14:62 (King James Version)
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

These two verses are taking place at the trial of jesus after the high priest asked him if he was the Christ. Then jesus prophecies that he will see him sitting on the right side of the of power, COMING in the clouds of heaven. These two verses indicate that Jesus is rather late.

freemike: These two verses don't "indicate that Jesus is rather late" at all. In fact, ironically, in the process of asking this question, you actually provided your own answer. You said:

"These two verses are taking place at the trial of Jesus AFTER THE HIGH PRIEST ASKED HIM IF HE WAS THE CHRIST."

The capitalized part of your statement adequately provides the answer which you apparently seek. In other words, in an attempt to prove to His questioners that He was indeed "the Christ", Jesus referred His hearers back to some Old Testament prophecies concerning "the Christ" that they ought to have been familiar with. First, let's look at one such prophecy concerning Christ's seating at the right hand of God.

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1)

Prior to the discourse that you're describing, Jesus had ALREADY discussed such a verse with the religious leaders of His day. Here's the discourse:

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." (Matthew 22:41-46)

Jesus informed the Pharisees that "the Christ" was far greater than simply being David's son. To prove His point, He took His hearers backed to the words of David himself, in which David called the Christ "Lord". In other words, when we read how "The LORD said unto my Lord", the first "LORD" is God the Father and the second "Lord" is Jesus Christ. Since David referred to "the Christ" as "my Lord", it is obvious that "the Christ" is far more than just David's son. Anyhow, my point is this:

Jesus was asked if He was "the Christ". He then referred His questioners back to a prophecy concerning "the Christ". A prophecy that, IF PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, clearly shows that Christ would need to suffer FIRST in order to be seated at the right hand of the Father UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE HIS FOOTSTOOL. We can also see how Christ would need to suffer FIRST before returning to the Father's right hand in another prophetic psalm of David. In Psalm 16, we read:

"I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy: at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." (Psalm 16:8-11)

Here is what Peter had to say in regards to these two (Psalm 110 and Psalm 16) prophetic psalms on the day of Pentecost:

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being determined by the predeterminate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:22-36)

As with Jesus, Peter took His Jewish hearers back to their very own scriptures (the same Psalm 110 and Psalm 16) to prove that "the Christ" needed to suffer FIRST and then be exalted to the right hand of the Father. Jesus also referred His questioners back to another prophetic utterance concerning "the Christ" in order to answer their question regarding His Messiahship. This time, He referred them back to the book of Daniel, where we read:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

Once again, in attempting to prove that He was indeed "the Christ" FROM SCRIPTURE, Jesus referred His questioners back to prophetic passages from their own scriptures to let them know that there would be TWO COMINGS of "the Christ". He would be rejected by His own at His first coming and would consequently return at a later time "with the clouds of heaven" AFTER His enemies (all of them...not just unbelieving Jews) were made His footstool. In other words, the Pharisees beliefs regarding "the Christ" weren't in line with what had already been written about/prophesied of Him. Sad to say, in misapplying the scriptures, they actually fulfilled them by their participation in Christ's rejection and consequential crucifixion.

I hope that this helps.

Take care.

 

[marktheblake]

I hope that this helps.

Very good answer, he aint going to like that. Classic Jesus responses though, always referring back to scriptures, and that hit them hard, because they knew what he meant.

 

[Ih8s8n]

P.S.

freemike: In regards to how Jesus' hearers would "see" this, there are at least two different applications. First of all, they would "see" this in the exact manner that Peter described on the day of Pentecost. Again, Peter said:

"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

David, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, had prophesied certain "promises" regarding Jesus Christ. One such promise, as we've been discussing, was that "the Christ" would be resurrected from the dead and consequently seated at the right hand of the Father. Peter told his hearers that the gift of the Holy Ghost that had been poured out from on high on the day of Pentecost was actually "shed forth" by the exalted Jesus Christ and it was something that they had all both SEEN and heard. In other words, they SAW visible evidence of the resurrection and exaltation of the then invisible Christ. That is one form of "seeing". Secondly, there are scriptures which indicate that the actually PHYSICAL "seeing" of the resurrected Christ returning "in the clouds" would be a FUTURE fulfillment. One such example is found in the following prophetic passage from the prophet Zechariah, where we read:

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon." (Zechariah 12:9-11)

The prophet Zechariah informs his hearers (those with "ears to hear", that is) that they shall LOOK UPON HIM WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED "in that day". In what "day"? Well, there are certainly some indicators that show that this is a FUTURE DAY. For example, this "day" will be when God seeks to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. I would heartily suggest to you that this is referring SPECIFICALLY to the FUTURE "battle of Armegeddon" or to the day of the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. Why do I suggest such? Well, when you read how there will be great mourning IN THAT DAY "in the valley of Megiddon", you need to recognize that "the valley of Megiddon" and "Armaggedon" (Revelation 16:16) are the same exact place. Anyhow, this is clearly a FUTURE event. At that time, "EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM":

"Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." (Revelation 1:7)

When John says, "and they also which pierced him", he is clearly referring his hearers back to the prophetic passage from Zechariah that I already cited that says:

"...and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced..." (Zechariah 12:10)

Once again, this "looking upon" is FUTURE. With these things in mind, or with a proper understanding of the scriptures and of what Jesus was attempting to relay to His hearers, NO, Jesus is NOT "late" at all. They will certainly see Him coming in the clouds IN THAT DAY. The only "flaw", therefore, is in your apparent ignorance regarding the proper application of scripture. I'm NOT trying to be insulting in the least...we're ALL initially ignorant of MANY things. Ignorance, in and of itself isn't necessarily "fatal". It does, however, become "fatal" when it progresses to "willful ignorance" or to a willful rejection of Jesus Christ. I sincerely hope that this won't be your final end.

Take care.

 

[Ih8s8n]

P.P.S.

First - if you insist on using the KJV you will get all sorts of problems.

freemike: Pay no regard to this garbage. As you can hopefully see, there is an adequate answer to your question from the KJV. This was simply a dodge by someone who had no adequate answer of his own to provide.

Take care.

 

[Ih8s8n]

There ought to be a way to smooth the problem here but I am not sure I know what it is.

icedbun: Actually, there is no "problem" to smooth. The only "problem" comes when people misunderstand exactly what Jesus was saying. Let's briefly look at ALL of the places in the Bible that speak of either "tasting death" or "not tasting death", shall we?

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9)

Here, we read how Jesus "tasted death for every man". To me, this "tasting" immediately brings to mind "the cup" that Jesus three times prayed (Matthew 26:39-44) might "pass from Him" while He was in the garden of Gethsemane. Well, this "cup" never "passed from Him" and He ultimately "tasted death for every man". In other words, Christ, through His vicarious work, offers salvation to all who receive His substitutionary sacrifice in their place. Those who do receive Him and His sacrifice on their behalf will NEVER "taste death":

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." (John 8:51-52)

Obviously, most of those who have kept/will keep Christ's word will suffer physical death. In fact, in context, we see mention of several who already have...Abraham and the prophets. In other words, this "tasting death" does NOT apply to simple physical death. No, rather, it apparently applies to what the Bible calls "the second death" or the consequences that THOSE WHO HAVE REJECTED CHRIST will suffer at His second coming. I fully submit to you, therefore, that those of whom Jesus was speaking in the comparable verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke who will not "taste death" until the kingdom of God comes are NOT the righteous (as the OP apparently wrongly assumes), but the UNrighteous. Here is but one of the three parallel accounts:

"And when he had called the people unto him with this disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 8:34-9:1)

Again, IN CONTEXT, this "tasting of death" is NOT for the righteous who will "NEVER taste death", but, rather, for the UNrighteous or for those who have/are:

1. Lost their soul because they refused to lose their lives to find them.
2. Ashamed of Christ.
3. Adulterous and sinful.

For these UNrighteous souls, they truly "shall not taste of death until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power" or they shall not experience what the Bible calls "the second death" until Christ returns. In other words, the "problem" only exists when one mistakenly applies this "tasting of death" to the wrong party of people. I'm presently strapped for time, so I won't bother typing out the only other two places in scripture where "tasting death" is spoken of. You can, however, read them for yourself in Matthew 16:24-28 and Luke 9:23-27. In both instances, IN CONTEXT, I trust that you will find that it is the UNrighteous who will "taste death" at Christ's return.

Once again, I hope that this helps.

Take care.

 

[freemike]

Atheists asking tricky type theological questions on a Christian only board are generally looking for some entertainment - not serious discussion.

If the OP was genuine he would answer in a way that promoted open discussion.

I asked you to enlighten me and it doesn't get much more open than that. I'm here because I am interested in how people that remain believers can make these passages fit their beliefs. I guess it is somewhat entertaining. I mean I've been told I was looking in the wrong book. I've been told that you have to twist the meanings of the words. You have to know if he was talking about the righteous or unrighteous when he refers to them as some. Some is kind of non specific, would it really kill the omniscient one to be specific. I could have a bag of red and green jelly beans, tell you that I'm giving you some. I don't think anyone would assume they are getting all the red ones because those are my least favorite. Just to let you know why I chose the KJV is simply because historically it was the most widespread bible. Though in recent history the NIV has taken the number one spot. Though you would think God could give us one true version being all powerful and such.

]

I cant understand why an atheist would want to spend so much time on the question, particularly when he just joined the forum to post this.

How many years have you been struggling with this question?

Like I said I just really came to see how people wrap these verses into their belief system. I haven't stuggled with these verses since freeing my mind from the bonds of religious dogma. Though before that, I struggled with them everytime I came across them.

Ih8s8n: You do realize the first two verses said nothing of death. Well you did a fine job of clearing up that death thing and we will take some as meaning the unrighteous in the bunch. So are you saying that those people are not tasting death now and are in some kind of purgatory waiting for the taste of death in hell, but the others that didn't even get the benefit of standing there are tasting death in hell right now. If you refer to rich man of luke, he died and lifted his eyes in hell. The definition of hell is being without god correct, also meaning the second death. I hardly find it believable that Jesus didn't mean a literal death. Afterall, he does have a record of prophecying a quick return.

Luke 21:25-33 (King James Version)



25And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
29And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

It says this generation shall not pass away. Let me guess, he was talking about a future generation. Though if I was telling about a future generation and such. Would I say this generation, no I would use that generation. And curiously enough he keeps saying the word ye and telling them what to do when these things start happening. This doesn't sound like instructions for a future generation but a present generation.

Matthew 10:23 (King James Version)


23But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.



Now I'm pretty sure the gospel has spread throughout all the cities of Israel in the last two thousand years. I'm pretty sure that his disciples are not still trying to spread the word. Yet, here we have verse saying that he would be coming before they was even done spreading the word to Israel.

 

[wayseer]

P.P.S.



freemike: Pay no regard to this garbage. As you can hopefully see, there is an adequate answer to your question from the KJV. This was simply a dodge by someone who had no adequate answer of his own to provide.

Take care.

If you wish to engage in a theological discussion the best place to start is with a recognized translation that is not a few hundred years old.

As the biblical texts are a series of symbols it is best to start with at least knowing that we are talking about the same thing.

 

[wayseer]

I'm here because I am interested in how people that remain believers can make these passages fit their beliefs.

And therein lies your problem - the biblical texts are a series of symbols that transcend everyday logical. If you don't believe you don't know what the symbols mean.

 

[Ih8s8n]

Ih8s8n: You do realize the first two verses said nothing of death.

freemike: I realize no such thing. In fact, it's your ignorance that causes you to make such a claim, as I've already begun to address. Jesus repeatedly took His hearers back to Old Testament scriptures to make His points...especially the corrupt religious leaders of His day. Your ignorance of this fact only makes you ignorant of this fact.

Well you did a fine job of clearing up that death thing and we will take some as meaning the unrighteous in the bunch. So are you saying that those people are not tasting death now and are in some kind of purgatory waiting for the taste of death in hell, but the others that didn't even get the benefit of standing there are tasting death in hell right now. If you refer to rich man of luke, he died and lifted his eyes in hell. The definition of hell is being without god correct, also meaning the second death.

There are three different Greek words that are translated as "hell" in the New Testament, "hades", "gehenna" and "tartarus" (only once). The "hell" that is spoken of in scripture as "the second death" is "gehenna" or what is also called at times "the lake of fire". This "second death", according to scripture, does not begin until AFTER the Millennial (1000 year) Reign of Christ which won't begin until Christ returns. We can discuss this at length from scripture, if you'd like to. For now, I'm trying to stick to the topic of this thread...which seems to be your vain attempt to show that the Bible is in error when, in fact, it is YOU who are repeatedly in error.

I hardly find it believable that Jesus didn't mean a literal death.

Why is that? I already showed you the following:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." (John 8:51-52)

Jesus clearly warned His disciples that they would face PHYSICAL DEATH on many different occasions. The death that He spoke of here was clearly more than just PHYSICAL DEATH. "Clearly" to those who understand Jesus' teachings, that is. Perhaps this will help:

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:25-26)

Once again, Jesus could speak of those who would "never die" WHEN He was referring to the righteous. The righteous, although faced with PHYSICAL DEATH, will ultimately be part of the first resurrection and reign forever with Christ. The UNrighteous? Well, I think that we both know what their final lot will be, don't we?

Afterall, he does have a record of prophecying a quick return.

Luke 21:25-33 (King James Version)

25And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
29And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

It says this generation shall not pass away. Let me guess, he was talking about a future generation. Though if I was telling about a future generation and such. Would I say this generation, no I would use that generation. And curiously enough he keeps saying the word ye and telling them what to do when these things start happening. This doesn't sound like instructions for a future generation but a present generation.

Actually, it is YOU who "has a habit" of foolishly cherry-picking verses OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT in a vain attempt to pass off your deceit as truth. It's almost humorous that you start your "quote" of Jesus with the word "And". In other words, you deliberately omitted part of what Jesus said in order to pass off your nonsense as "truth". Let's back up your "quote" just a little bit (the context was THE END OF THE WORLD, but I won't go into the full discourse right now...we can discuss this as well, at length, if you'd like to), okay?

"In your patience possess ye your souls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written might be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And..."
(Luke 21:19-25)

I stopped my "quote" with your introductory "And". Without going into too much detail right now (I'll gladly discuss this with you at length in the future, if you'd like to), you ought to notice that Jesus said such things as:

"...that all things which are written might be fulfilled."

And:

"...until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

In other words, as per His normal "modus operandi", Jesus was referring His hearers BACK TO OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES...OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES which, if properly understood, give us the actual timeline that Jesus was describing. Your ignorance of these prophecies and their corresponding timelines only makes you ignorant of these prophecies and their corresponding timelines. It does NOT make Jesus' words "fatally flawed", nor does it make Jesus a "Prophesier of a quick return" as you erroneously assert. These events that Jesus spoke of are yet FUTURE. With such being the case (which is precisely why Jesus said such things as "when", "then" and "in those days"), the "this generation" that He spoke of who will witness these things is FUTURE as well.

Matthew 10:23 (King James Version)

23But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Now I'm pretty sure the gospel has spread throughout all the cities of Israel in the last two thousand years. I'm pretty sure that his disciples are not still trying to spread the word. Yet, here we have verse saying that he would be coming before they was even done spreading the word to Israel.

Question...why do you assume that this "coming" is Christ's second coming? The text, IF FULLY EXAMINED, would certainly seem to say otherwise. For example, who was Jesus talking to? There's no need to guess:

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." (Matthew 10:5)

Oh, my. You've got some problems, don't you? Let me briefly explain. For starters, JUDAS ISCARIOT was one of "these twelve". That's right...you can see his name mentioned in the previous verse:

"Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him." (Matthew 10:4)

Do you suppose that Jesus thought that Judas Iscariot was looking forward to His "second coming"? Judas didn't ultimately fare too well, in case you haven't heard. In fact, Jesus said that it was better for him if he had never been born. Also, did you notice where Jesus instructed "these twelve" NOT to preach to the Gentiles? That presents a bit of a problem with your thesis, doesn't it? In other words, if this was Jesus' "second coming" that was being referenced, then that would mean that there's no place for Gentiles in the kingdom of God. Anyhow, as usual, your exegesis (read "cherry-picking" or "quote mining") is shaky, at best.

Take care.

 

[wayseer]

Wayseer,

Isn't this idea of non-believers not undderstanding the symbols precisely the best way to argue if one is to keep ono-believers out of belief? I mean, if one makes the religion like a secret society and tell outsiders that they don't understand, what will make them want to understand - to want to believe.

Don't let the cat out of the bag - everyone will want to be a Christian thinking they are joining a secret society.

The OP is an atheist on a Christians only theology board saying he want to be enlighten using KJV. He has a few hurdles don't you think?

I mean, take Freemike as an example. Here we have an atheist asking questions - questions that are regarded as more for entertainment by some - yet he gives us the opportunity to tell him about the Gospel and to lead him into faith, if only we present things in an inclusive way, a welcoming way, that can bring him in. Sure the biblical language is symbolic in places and one needs quite a lot of knowledge to understand it all, yet many people in the pews are told about the meanings and are happy to accept this and believe. Can we come up with something that will help Freemike into the fold rather than send him away?

If the OP was really interested he would join a church. Oh, but he's an atheist.

The thing is, he presents us with some verses which are clearly hard to understand and which appear to suggest Jesus expecting to come back within his generation. Yes, there are some theological explanations - plenty on the Internet with a quick search - but the fact that there are a variety of explantions does not maek any of them as believable.

If he wants to find out about Christianity there is board devoted to that issue where there are lots of really nice Christians ready to offer all the advice he wants. This is part of general theology.

If the OP was really genuine he would not come up with a deep theological question which any answer would immediately demand a belief in God.
You cannot explain a belief system unless your listener is capable of responding to that which is beyond the everyday - the transcendent. Atheists have made a decision that nothing exists beyond this world so it is useless talking to them about things which they have already rejected.

 

[Ih8s8n]

The thing is, he presents us with some verses which are clearly hard to understand and which appear to suggest Jesus expecting to come back within his generation. Yes, there are some theological explanations - plenty on the Internet with a quick search - but the fact that there are a variety of explantions does not maek any of them as believable.

Icedbun: As I've suggested (well, I've more than "suggested" it...it's fact) to freemike on a few occasions already, the main problem with a lack of understanding of Jesus' words is that some people fail to realize how Jesus always went back to the Old Testament scriptures (which is what His hearers were familiar with) to make His points. In other words, unless one has an accurate working knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures and their prophecies, how can one accurately understand Jesus' words or His ultimate fulfilling of such prophecies? For example, just look at the very first of the New Testament:

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew 1:1)

It is of extreme significance that the New Testament opens with Jesus being referred to as both "the son of David" and "the son (or "the seed") of Abraham". In other words, if one doesn't properly understand the prophetic utterances that were given to this "son of David" and this "son" or "seed of Abraham" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, then how can one possibly properly understand their ultimate fulfillment in the New Testament? My point, for now, is simply this:

Jesus CONSISTENTLY referred His hearers back to Old Testament prophecies in His dialogues with them. CONSISTENTLY.

With such being the case (and it is the case), then it behooves us to better study/understand the Old Testament scriptures to which He consistently referred.

I've got a busy day ahead of me. I'll check back later.

Take care.

 

[Ih8s8n]

freemike: Let me level with you about something...

I really didn't want to answer the last part (the Matthew 10:23 part) of your post earlier today. Because of a house-related (mold) problem at my end, my family and I have been forced to move about 12 times in the last 2 1/2 months as we seek permanent residency. One of those moves was earlier today and I was really strapped for time when I posted my response to you and I rushed the last part of it. Although the objections that I listed are considered by some to be real objections, I honestly feel that they can easily be explained and therefore overcome. For example, the part about Judas is easily overcome when one considers that in this discourse Jesus spoke of those who had to "endure to the end". Since Judas didn't "endure to the end", he can pretty much be removed from the equation. Also, the part about the Gentiles being ignored during this particular commission need not offer a problem either. By that, I mean to say that this particular aspect of this particular commission might actually prove that when Jesus spoke about "till the Son of man be come", He was indeed referring to His second coming, which is what I actually believe. Since this forum only allows so many characters per post, I'm going to post a link to a site that pretty much (although not entirely) gives the explanation to this passage that I'm the most comfortable with. After giving the link, I'll then offer my own commentary on a portion of what that website states to further substantiate my own personal beliefs in this regard. First of all, here's the link:

The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002

If you read the entire article (it's not too long), then you should notice where the author speaks about the Greek word "telew" that is translated as "gone over" in Matthew 10:23. As the author states, this word does give the connotation of an assignment or task being COMPLETED. In fact, this same Greek word "telew" is translated thusly in other places in the New Testament:

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities." (Matthew 11:1)

"And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence." (Matthew 13:53)

"But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50)

In each instance, the underlined words are English translations from the Greek word "telew". As you can see, the word does give the meaning of "ending", "finishing" or "accomplishing" something. In fact, when Jesus said, from the cross, "It is finished", it is this same Greek word that is translated as "finished". You can see every instance where this Greek word appears in the New Testament at the following link, if you'd like to:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Anyhow, when reading Matthew 10:23, this idea of "finishing" or "accomplishing" a specific task can easily be lost by the translation of "gone over". By this, I mean to say that "gone over" might erroneously give the impression of simply being "passed through". Anyhow, my point/question is ultimately this:

Did "these twelve", the twelve apostles to whom Jesus was actually speaking, EVER accomplish, finish or end their appointed task of preaching the gospel of the kingdom (which included healing the sick, cleansing lepers, raising the dead and casting out devils) to ALL the cities of Israel?

Personally, I see nothing that suggests that they did. In fact, IN CONTEXT, Jesus repeatedly warned them of the persecutions that they would (and apparently did) face in attempting to do so. So fierce would be/were some persecutions that He actually instructed His disciples to flee certain cities and to move on to others. Well, if they fled certain cities, how then could they have accomplished their intended task? I'm asking. Anyhow, THIS POST is much closer to what I personally believe. I'm not saying that my previous response was in any way deceitful. I'm merely saying that the objections that I raised in my last post can be overcome and I personally haven't found any objections to what I'm suggesting to you now. If you have any or know of any, then please feel free to share them. Thanks.

Take care.

 

[wayseer]

Wayseer,

Isn't this idea of non-believers not undderstanding the symbols precisely the best way to argue if one is to keep ono-believers out of belief? I mean, if one makes the religion like a secret society and tell outsiders that they don't understand, what will make them want to understand - to want to believe.

I mean, take Freemike as an example. Here we have an atheist asking questions - questions that are regarded as more for entertainment by some - yet he gives us the opportunity to tell him about the Gospel and to lead him into faith, if only we present things in an inclusive way, a welcoming way, that can bring him in. Sure the biblical language is symbolic in places and one needs quite a lot of knowledge to understand it all, yet many people in the pews are told about the meanings and are happy to accept this and believe. Can we come up with something that will help Freemike into the fold rather than send him away?

The thing is, he presents us with some verses which are clearly hard to understand and which appear to suggest Jesus expecting to come back within his generation. Yes, there are some theological explanations - plenty on the Internet with a quick search - but the fact that there are a variety of explantions does not maek any of them as believable.

You rely on logic to explain that which is illogical to an atheist. As a Christian I talk about a Being that transcends this mundane and ordinary existence. An atheist is a person who has already decided that nothing transcends this world so we can never get to the same page.

So while your theological (Godtalk) might be quite sound there will have no resonance with an atheist. As Jesus said, many are called but few are chosen. There are some, unfortunately, who will never be capable of understanding God no matter how well you argue your points.

Remember, Jesus did not entertain atheists saying cast not peals before swine.

 

[Knee V]

Matthew 26:64 (King James Version)
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 14:62 (King James Version)
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

These two verses are taking place at the trial of jesus after the high priest asked him if he was the Christ. Then jesus prophecies that he will see him sitting on the right side of the of power, COMING in the clouds of heaven. These two verses indicate that Jesus is rather late.
----------------

Luke 9:27 (King James Version)
27But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

This verse says that some people that stood before jesus would clearly not die.
---------------------------

I just can't understand how people can read these verses (and others that I didn't throw in for sake of time) and NOT comprehend that the book is full of FATAL flaws. The greatest tool against the Christian religion is the bible. I know some Christians accept the fact that the bible isn't "perfect" but these verses in my opinion are more than a few minor unimportant mistakes. These are flaws that literally tear down the second coming of jesus. How do you Christians still believe that jesus is coming when he is almost 2000 years late? I'm sorry if I am coming off as a jerk, but this is just blatant to me.

Mt 26:64 and Mk 14:62 both have Christ quoting Dan 7:13. In Dan 7, Daniel is given a vision of 4 great beasts. After the 4 beasts there arises the "Son of Man" (meaning "human being", as opposed to one of the beasts), and we're also given a vision of the "Ancient of Days". In verse 13 we read, "I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him."

In Dan 7 the Son of Man is coming to the Ancient of Days. Christ is quoting this verse, and He is NOT referring to a return to earth. Rather, it is a reference to His ascension, His coming to the Ancient of Days, not from Him.

Lk 9:27
As you may or may not know, the chapter, verse and paragraph divisions that we find in modern bibles did not exist when the same writings were first penned. In many translations this verse is the last sentence of a paragraph, and verse 28 starts the next paragraph. But in the Orthodox tradition that is not how we see it. Rather, verses 28-36 are part of the same thought. Immediately after verse 27 we have the account of the Transfiguration, where those three disciples were given a glimpse of what the Kingdom of God is. So there were some standing there who, eight days later, witnessed the Kingdom of God. The account of the Transfiguration was not placed after that verse haphazardly or accidentally. Rather, it was placed there because that is the fulfillment of verse 27 and it is what verse 27 means.

I hope you find that helpful.