Why hasn't Jesus come back yet?

[razeontherock]

It was Drich who stated that the flood was designed to do away with the Nephilim. I hope he reads these comments because his literal view of the flood and its cause (as he believes it) is clearly wrong. The Nephilim survived according to the Bible, as per the verses you quoted earlier.

I don't believe in a literal flood (or any flood as described in Genesis for that matter) so I have no problem with this contradiction other than it being a clear discrepancy in the Bible. How did the Nephilim survive the flood anyway?

You've got 2 drastically errant items here:

1) Assuming this story MUST be literal. And that it must be literal in every sense. All that's doing is keeping you from seeing the point. (No, I'm not trying to convince anyone it's not historical either; it's just that that debate simply distracts from what Scripture says)

2) The Nephilim didn't survive the flood. And there is no discrepancy. The problem here is that if they "sprang up" before, what is to keep them from doing it again? And again, what is God trying to tell us with this?

 

[razeontherock]

Bible inerrancy is actually becoming a minority view now in Christianity.

The irony here is truly epic! When did the idea of "Biblical inerrancy" even get fabricated? We know it's not ancient, cuz it sure ain't in the text. Who came up with it first? (I think it's important to define what is meant too, because different people will indeed mean different things with those same 2 words)

for an in depth look at pseudoepigraphy (forgery) in the New Testament read Bart Ehrman's Forged (he's also written several other good books on the NT).

You do realize how ridiculous this argument is, right? Just because a specific individual didn't actually write something down, has no bearing on whether they taught it or not. Your "forgery" claim is a red herring.

I understand that, however the Bible is not inerrant as it was written by fallible humans. Could you write a divinely inspired inerrant Epistle? What makes you think an illiterate fisherman from Galilee could?

More with the epic irony! You really need me to pick this apart? Take a closer look at what you're saying here ...

At some point Bible literalists are going to have to take their heads out of the sand and accept that their nice leather KJVs are just wrong about a lot of things.

Your conclusions are unbelievably sloppy. How 'bout instead, coming to understand what it's actually talking about?

 

[razeontherock]

Inspired does not mean inerrant. Anyway, I'm not really interested in debating Bible inerrancy in this thread. I'm satisfied that I've done all I can to research Biblical inerrancy, and I have yet to find anything that could convince the Bible is the literal and inerrant words of God.

You're looking in the wrong place. First you'd need to cipher which portions of Scripture even purport to be "the Words of G-d."

 

[razeontherock]

Science works and is far more reliable in predicting events than ancient scriptures.

Then you are completely oblivious to the Bible laying out the entire course of human history. And yet you draw all these conclusions - imagine that!

As I've said, 2000 years is still a long time. Jesus said he would return shortly (in Revelation). He strongly suggested he would be back within his own disciple's lifetime.

You are fabricating that, and you're doing it for your own purposes. This is what is known as, "disingenuous."

 

[razeontherock]

If Jesus is God, the Jesus is the Father, so therefore Jesus knows the time of his own return. I guess it's stuff like this that make people struggle with the concept of the trinity. How is it possible, if Jesus is God, for God to hide knowledge from himself?

This is exactly why we have the concept of Trinity. It sorts it out!

Jesus was still 100% human. And that comes with limitations.

 

[athenken]

None is really necessary, unless you feel compelled to do so. I appreciate your concern, and I know you position very well. The problem I had with it is it always seemed lacking. Basically it has always been taught as God is some how all three people but at the same time magically just one at with no explanation given. Or it has been explained as you have, in that God has a multiple personality disorder. (United states of Tara.) where one being takes on several different personalities.

When you look at it the creed and what is actually written in the bible neither of the two explanations really represent what is said in either the creed or the bible. At the most simple basic (A child's understanding) is that God is one Job or A title held by A Father, A Son, and The Holy Spirit.

We know the Son Prays to the Father that denotes the separation of two individuals. (Unless there is indeed a personality disorder going on here) and we know the Holy Spirit Descended on Christ after His Baptism.
Denoting a second separation. So we Have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all occupying the same time in one event. This points to Three distinct and separate individuals all operating under one authority. That Authority is known as God. This is known as the trinity Three incarnations of God, but only one God.

Again just like we have three branches of government but the US only has one governing body. How is this possible you ask?? The word Government much like the word God is being used as a phrase that encompasses and describes the individual powers held within this collective organization.

So that would mean God is not a name. God is a title. This means (logically and factually) that there is only one God, and I believe in that God, Which is made up of the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead. I also believe in the Holy Spirit being the third incarnation of God, the holy Church Body, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

The only thing that changes, is your personal understanding of How God is three distinct personalities and yet remains one Deity. I personally believe in only accepting and teaching doctrine that is grounded in the bible 1st and reality 2nd. That means if a Doctrine is not found in scripture, like God the Son and God the Holy Spirit being the actual literal names of God. Then I will not teach it as such.

That is why I asked that you to scripturally show the proof for your assertion. I know what the creed says, but I also know what the bible says, and in the way you chose to represent the creed it was not being supported by the bible. No personal offense intended, but your explanation never made any sense to me either. Why would God represent Himself as multiple personalities, and then create or allow for the creation of humans with these characteristics be seen in a negative light? When a person displays multiple personalities it is generally seen as a disorder, not as an attribute or defining characteristic of God. Why would we be allowed to view such a holy state as something that needs to be suppressed by medication or in the old days as one having multiple demons?

The Explanation that God is a title and not a name cures all of the problems created by your preferred explanation of the creed. Again the Creed Does not change only your understanding of it does. So one more time, unless you can show me scripturally where I am wrong, there is absolutely nothing that needs to be said, unless you simply want to say something.

Also note I gave you some high ground to bow out on when I quoted Hannibal Lecter.

Let me shed some light for you. Or better yet, ask you one additional question. Were we ever meant to completely understand God? Of course not. But let me add this, God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and is everywhere all the time (omnipresent); therefore, do you not think it possible that God would be able to be three distinct persons and still be one God all at the same time, without the possibility of having a personality "disorder?"

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Then you are completely oblivious to the Bible laying out the entire course of human history.

This is a huge exaggeration. Come back to me on this if Jesus ever comes back. Until then, you're speculation is based on ancient literature. Nothing more.

EDIT: Just before you start on about the efficacy of Bible prophecy; I've actually looked into many of the prophecies of the OT and have debated them on this forum in other threads. The Bible, at best, can only be described as "partly accurate" on many prophecies. For example, in Ezekiel God said places like Tyre and Egypt would be destroyed utterly - they weren't. In fact, the prophecy regarding Tyre was an utter failure (Tyre is still a thriving city today).

Also, regarding the prophecies of Jesus in the OT, speak to any religious Jew and they'll give you plenty of good reasons why the OT prophecies do not apply to Jesus. Many of the prophecies regarding Jesus were pulled entirely out of context and some of the prophecies were actually "fulfilled" in later passages of scripture (eg, the "virgin" birth is actually a "young woman" and was fulfilled by Isaiah in the following chapter, and Jesus was never called Immanuel anyway).

You are fabricating that, and you're doing it for your own purposes. This is what is known as, "disingenuous."

Nope. Two NT scholars I've read who wrote books on the historical Jesus (Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders) understood Jesus' prediction of his second coming to refer to the immediate future; i.e., during his disciples lifetime within his current generation. Also, two Christian authors (both Preterists) I've read conclude the same (Gary DeMar and Hank Hanegraff; not sure about Hanegraff's spelling). Just for balance, I've read books by Hal Lindsey, the Left Behind authors and a few others regarding End Times prophecy (I became obsessed with Eschatology several years ago).

I've had this debate before and I really do not want to do it again. It's a waste of words. If Jesus comes back during my lifetime, then I'm wrong, plain and simple (and so are Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders and the Preterists). But I think it is safe to assume, for now, that Jesus made a duff predication that did not come about.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Be careful, what you are stating here borders on polytheism.

Let us take a quick perusal of the Nicene Creed, shall we.



And take a gander at this pic:

It clearly indicates that The Father is God, The Son (Jesus) is God, and The Holy Spirit is God. But, The Father is not the Son, The Father is not The Holy Spirit, and The Son is not The Holy Spirit.

This is the doctrine of One God in Three Persons.

This picture is quite mind boggling actually. I've stared at it for a while now and still can't wrap my head around the concept of the Trinity. When I was a Christian I just accepted it I guess, without really thinking about it. But now that I'm faced with it in picture form, it's like trying to solve a Rubix Cube made of water.

 

[drich0150]

Let me shed some light for you. Or better yet, ask you one additional question. Were we ever meant to completely understand God? Of course not.

Maybe you should ask, are were meant to understand what has been reveled? Of course we are! So then why mire down things that have been reveled like the Creed with explanation and reasoning that is contradictory to the nature of creation, and is not supported by scripture?

How is God served if we create doctrine around solid revelation like the creed and yet confuse it with explanation that does not consider with the scriptures in which the revelation was given nor does it make any logical sense? And for what reason? Tradition? Aren't we old to Question ALL Things and to hold on to what is Good in 1Thess 5? This means question all that you know even the foundational things you believe in, not just the borderline.

But let me add this, God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and is everywhere all the time (omnipresent); therefore, do you not think it possible that God would be able to be three distinct persons and still be one God all at the same time, without the possibility of having a personality "disorder?"

Faith based logic aside, bottom line do you have scripture to support a personality disorder God? If you do run with it. If you do not and that is what you believe then again run with it. You like me will either find grace and mercy for our limited ability to understand what has been reveled or we will find righteous wrath. It all depends on where our hearts are. The doctrine in of itself is not The key to salvation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I just took the time to fill in the gaps. God is a title and the names or incarnations of God are a kin the branches of the US government. Each is distinct and separate yet the US only has one governing body.

Incarnation is from the Latin and literally means the condition of being in carnem, in flesh. Incarnation is en-flesh-ment.

The word you might be looking for is hypostasis/hypostases (singular/plural).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[athenken]

Maybe you should ask, are were meant to understand what has been reveled? Of course we are! So then why mire down things that have been reveled like the Creed with explanation and reasoning that is contradictory to the nature of creation, and is not supported by scripture?

How is God served if we create doctrine around solid revelation like the creed and yet confuse it with explanation that does not consider with the scriptures in which the revelation was given nor does it make any logical sense? And for what reason? Tradition? Aren't we old to Question ALL Things and to hold on to what is Good in 1Thess 5? This means question all that you know even the foundational things you believe in, not just the borderline.


Faith based logic aside, bottom line do you have scripture to support a personality disorder God? If you do run with it. If you do not and that is what you believe then again run with it. You like me will either find grace and mercy for our limited ability to understand what has been reveled or we will find righteous wrath. It all depends on where our hearts are. The doctrine in of itself is not The key to salvation.

First, I was not making argument about God having a personality disorder, I was merely responding to someone else who was making that assertion.

Second, the creeds have scriptural support for everything that is stated in them. If you have an issue with something that is stated within a creed all you need to do is look to the scripture that is being used to support it. One example of people questioning something that is in a creed is the assertion in the Apostle's Creed that states that Jesus went to Hell. This, of course, has scriptural references tied to it, but there are those that feel the scriptures being used may be taken out of context, or are twisted to support the argument.

The point being, yes we are to question every point being made by another human, especially if they are using scripture as a basis for their argument.

 

[GrayAngel]

This picture is quite mind boggling actually. I've stared at it for a while now and still can't wrap my head around the concept of the Trinity. When I was a Christian I just accepted it I guess, without really thinking about it. But now that I'm faced with it in picture form, it's like trying to solve a Rubix Cube made of water.

Replace "God" with "dog", then replace each of the Trinity with a breed of dog. A Scottish Terrier is a dog, but it is not a Chocolate Labrador, and neither of those are Beagles.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one God, manifested in multiple ways that are dissimilar from one another.

 

[athenken]

Replace "God" with "dog", then replace each of the Trinity with a breed of dog. A Scottish Terrier is a dog, but it is not a Chocolate Labrador, and neither of those are Beagles.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one God, manifested in multiple ways that are dissimilar from one another.

Your example isn't even close.

It would be more akin to a man who has three roles. Father, Husband, and Son. Those three persons are completely different within the same human being, yet they are one human being.

 

[GrayAngel]

Your example isn't even close.

It would be more akin to a man who has three roles. Father, Husband, and Son. Those three persons are completely different within the same human being, yet they are one human being.

I don't understand your example or what you have against my explanation.

We have one single God. The Father is the infinite creator and sustainer of all that exists. The Son is the same God in human form. The Holy Spirit is God working in us, as an interceder between us and the Father. All three are dissimilar (not the same) manifestations of the single God.

 

[athenken]

I don't understand your example or what you have against my explanation.

We have one single God. The Father is the infinite creator and sustainer of all that exists. The Son is the same God in human form. The Holy Spirit is God working in us, as an interceder between us and the Father. All three are dissimilar (not the same) manifestations of the single God.

Right, and a man has multiple dissimilar manifestations of himself. In my example I only chose three, but there are more. Being a father is completely different from being a son, as it is completely different from being a husband, etc...

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

You've got 2 drastically errant items here:

1) Assuming this story MUST be literal. And that it must be literal in every sense. All that's doing is keeping you from seeing the point. (No, I'm not trying to convince anyone it's not historical either; it's just that that debate simply distracts from what Scripture says)

2) The Nephilim didn't survive the flood. And there is no discrepancy. The problem here is that if they "sprang up" before, what is to keep them from doing it again? And again, what is God trying to tell us with this?

I think for once we're finally agreeing on something. I don't see the Flood story as describing a literal historical event. I was just commenting on it from Drich's perspective because of his belief that the Nephilim were destroyed (or were supposed to be destroyed).

As for your second point, I think I've said already that, for me, the point of the Noah story seems to be that the Flood didn't destroy sin. Other than that, I can only assume the author of the flood story in Genesis was trying to cobble together a Hebrew version of the various flood myths that were in circulation. The Hebrew religion was heavily influenced by the religions around them (El was originally the Canaanite High God, married to Asherah, with Ba'al as the Storm God and possibly El and Asherah's son) so it stands to reason that the authors of the Hebrew scriptures would want to write their own versions of the myths around them.

EDIT: It's nice to see a parallel argument on the nature of the Trinity going on in here. Perhaps I should mention this in my "Christianity as a personal revelation" thread because it outlines my point that Christians just can't seem to agree on basic doctrines.

 

[juvenissun]

During the time I was a Christian, I heard several reasons for Jesus tarrying.

1. Paul mentions somewhere about the time of the Gentiles needing to be fulfilled (in Romans I think).
2. Jesus said the Gospel must be preached all over the world.
3. The church must be unified.
4. Some stuff about Israel reforming as a nation and being attacked by everyone.

Regarding the first point, hasn't there been enough time for the Gentiles? Points 1 & 4 are usually related and Christians ascribe Jesus' little parable about the fig tree to indicate Israel. But seeing as Israel is now quite well established it's odd that Jesus hasn't returned by now.

Regarding point 2, Christianity expanded rapidly during its early years, and in the Middle Ages almost everyone was a Catholic. So why didn't Jesus come back then?

Most Christians I knew at church, and heard on TV, believed the church would one day be united before the rapture (something to do with something Paul said in Ephesians I think). However, the Church was united, for a long time, under Catholicism. Why did Jesus not come back them?

As for point 4, Jesus' parable about the fig tree does not really point to Israel. There are bits of scripture in the OT that suggest the Jews will one day return to their land, but that was speaking about the return from exile. As a matter of fact, Jews have had communities in other nations for over 2000 years, so the "prophecy" of all Jews needing to be returned to Israel before the second coming seems invalid. So again, why hasn't Jesus returned yet? What's he waiting for?

I did not read the whole thread. But my understanding is this:

God is waiting so that a certain number of Christians in the Heaven will be fulfilled. At this time, it is not filled yet. When it is filled, then He will come back. In other words, there will be a fixed number of Christians in the Heaven in the eternity. I don't know how many. But it shouldn't be many when compared to the world population today.

 

[razeontherock]

the prophecy regarding Tyre was an utter failure (Tyre is still a thriving city today).

And this assertion got shredded to bits in all your other threads. I can't believe you're still clinging to this pile of stinking garbage!

Also, regarding the prophecies of Jesus in the OT, speak to any religious Jew and they'll give you plenty of good reasons why the OT prophecies do not apply to Jesus.

Tautology much?

I think it is safe to assume, for now, that Jesus made a duff predication that did not come about.

If you're in agreement with "Bible scholars" on this point, what further evidence is needed that these people are apostate, and almost certainly reprobate, and therefore to be conisered entirely erroneous on any and every single Biblical point?

 

[razeontherock]

Ifor me, the point of the Noah story seems to be that the Flood didn't destroy sin.

Ok, let's run with that. What does this tell you about G-d's Covenant with man? It must not be based on sinlessness, right? Why does He tell us He "Baptized the world" via the flood?

So whatever He's up to, we need to recognize it's not about just following a list of rules.

It's nice to see a parallel argument on the nature of the Trinity going on in here. Perhaps I should mention this in my "Christianity as a personal revelation" thread because it outlines my point that Christians just can't seem to agree on basic doctrines.

Again, the various points of view you see on the subject here doesn't AT ALL equate to any "basic doctrine." At the level its being discussed, this is quite advanced. Everyone here professes Trinity; that is basic. You look at the diagram and get all befuddled; well don't feel bad, that is NOT basic!

Basically, G-d can reveal Himself to us in any way He chooses We might not "get" that, and others are even less likely to, but He tells us we are all in this together ...

 

[drich0150]

First, I was not making argument about God having a personality disorder, I was merely responding to someone else who was making that assertion.

Second, the creeds have scriptural support for everything that is stated in them. If you have an issue with something that is stated within a creed all you need to do is look to the scripture that is being used to support it. One example of people questioning something that is in a creed is the assertion in the Apostle's Creed that states that Jesus went to Hell. This, of course, has scriptural references tied to it, but there are those that feel the scriptures being used may be taken out of context, or are twisted to support the argument.

The point being, yes we are to question every point being made by another human, especially if they are using scripture as a basis for their argument.

Again the Creed's scriptural bases is not what I am saying does not have a scriptural backing. The creed is sound enough for the sake of this argument. Now put that aside. What I am saying is your understanding of the creed is what does not have a scriptural backing.