Failed NT Prophecies about the Second Coming of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

But you do know how one could properly interpret it so that it is not a failure. You just decide to go with your interpretation even when it is not what the prophecy says.

The only way to do that is to take the future event prediction out of it. As far as predicting the future goes it failed at that in rather epic fashion.

 

[Colt]

Most Christians believe in the Second Coming of Jesus (along with a final "Judgment Day"), yet very few of them seem to be aware that this second coming and judgment was explicitly prophesied by the gospels to occur within the lifetimes of Jesus' disciples. Here are a few of the verses that contain this failed prophecy. After the verses, I will delve a bit deeper into the attempts made by Christian apologists to explain away these verses, and illustrate why these rationalizations clearly fail upon further examination.

Matthew 10:21-23: "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Comments: Christian apologists are fond of making the erroneous claim that verse 23 is a reference to the coming of Jesus after his alleged resurrection as in the later chapters of the gospels. But what they fail to acknowledge is that the references to brothers betraying each other, parents and children betraying each other, and being hated for being followers of Jesus are found in Mark 13, a chapter that is clearly a reference to the "last days," indicating that the prophecy in verse 23 is in fact a reference to the final judgment, or Second Coming of Jesus. In fact, the words used in Matthew 10:21-22 are essentially identical to those found in Mark chapter 13 (a chapter which refers to the final Judgment), removing all doubts that this is in fact a prophecy about Jesus' final return.

Matthew 16:27-28: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Comments: Some Christian apologists make the error of attempting to explain the obviously failed prophecy in verse 28 by claiming that it refers to the "Transfiguration" event described in the following chapter. But, clearly, as can be seen when reading verse 28 in the context of verse 27, this prophecy is a reference to the second coming of Jesus, also known as Judgment Day, as is evident from the reference to "angels" (no angels are mentioned in the transfiguration chapter), and the allusion to judgment where Jesus will "reward each person according to what they have done." So, it's clear that these verses were also a prophecy that the final judgment would occur within Jesus' disciples lifetimes.

Luke 21:29-32: "He told them this parable: Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Comments: Some Christian apologists attempt to argue that "this generation" is a reference to some future generation that is alive at the time of Jesus' return. But, again, when examining the context of the verse, we again learn that this is incorrect. Jesus is speaking to his disciples privately during this conversation, and refers to them using the second person pronoun "you" stating "When you see these things....." Clearly, Jesus is telling his disciples that they will be witnesses to the end times, and that their generation will not pass away until all of the signs have occurred, again mirroring the similar language found in the aforementioned erroneous prophecies.

So, if you are being intellectually honest, you can now clearly see that these are failed prophecies. Even C.S. Lewis, a renowned Christian apologist, referred to these verses as being the most embarrassing verses in the bible, and admitted that they are clearly erroneous prophecies. Most of the time, when discussing these verses with Christians, and explaining the context of them, and why they clearly fail, the typical initial reaction is that of anger toward me, indicating that some degree of cognitive dissonance has set in. I understand it's upsetting to realize that a book you previously thought was infallible clearly contains errors, but it's important to acknowledge this if you honestly care about whether your beliefs are true or not.

The Spirit of truth did come on the day of Pentecost. That was the "son of man" coming into his "spiritual kingdom"

The warnings about the destruction of Jerusalem were for the apostles to get out which they did.

There is no problem with the prophecies that did come to pass as foretold by Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Spirit of truth did come on the day of Pentecost. That was the "son of man" coming into his "spiritual kingdom"

The warnings about the destruction of Jerusalem were for the apostles to get out which they did.

There is no problem with the prophecies that did come to pass as foretold by Jesus.

That does not go with the context of the prophecy. The implication was that at least some, if not most, were to be dead by then.

 

[Colt]

That does not go with the context of the prophecy. The implication was that at least some, if not most, were to be dead by then.

Point me to what you are referring to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Point me to what you are referring to.

Mark 9 1 to start with.

 

[Colt]

Mark 9 1 to start with.

9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

As I pointed out earlier the spirit of truth came at Pentecost.

Acts 2:1–4
​

Coming of the Holy Spirit
2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all 1with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and cit filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them 2divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began eto speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That's settled, what's the next verse that refers to your statement, The implication was that at least some, if not most, were to be dead by then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

As I pointed out earlier the spirit of truth came at Pentecost.

Acts 2:1–4​

​

Coming of the Holy Spirit
2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all 1with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and cit filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them 2divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began eto speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That's settled, what's the next verse that refers to your statement, The implication was that at least some, if not most, were to be dead by then.

Interesting reinterpretation. But no, only one had died by then. There was no reason for any of them to believe that they would have died that soon so it still is not in context with the prophecy. The underlying tone that either time or events would take a a good number of them out before the event. And it appears to have been about the second coming when one takes context into consideration. Not other events that happened very soon after his predictions. The same applies to another version in Mark 13 30.

 

[Colt]

Interesting reinterpretation. But no, only one had died by then. There was no reason for any of them to believe that they would have died that soon so it still is not in context with the prophecy. The underlying tone that either time or events would take a a good number of them out before the event. And it appears to have been about the second coming when one takes context into consideration. Not other events that happened very soon after his predictions. The same applies to another version in Mark 13 30.

There is no reinterpretation, the Kingdom taught by Jesus was always spiritual, a fellowship of believers. The context to the Son of man coming into his kingdom was in refence to the outpouring of the spirit of truth. That occurred on Pentecost.

You must be assuming that Jesus was talking to the 12 only when in fact, if you read the paragraph before 9 1 then you will see Jesus was talking to a crowd of people:

34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life[b] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”


........ some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no reinterpretation, the Kingdom taught by Jesus was always spiritual, a fellowship of believers. The context to the Son of man coming into his kingdom was in refence to the outpouring of the spirit of truth. That occurred on Pentecost.

You must be assuming that Jesus was talking to the 12 only when in fact, if you read the paragraph before 9 1 then you will see Jesus was talking to a crowd of people:

34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life[b] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”


........ some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

No, that may have always been your interpretation. It does not appear to be that of many Christians. Many Christians have a bodily resurrection belief.

And yes, your interpretation is a reinterpretation of what used to be the standard. Next we will here some New True Scotsman fallacies.

Also, even if he was speaking to a crowd rather than only to his disciples it still goes against the context of the prophecy.

 

[Colt]

No, that may have always been your interpretation. It does not appear to be that of many Christians. Many Christians have a bodily resurrection belief.

And yes, your interpretation is a reinterpretation of what used to be the standard. Next we will here some New True Scotsman fallacies.

Also, even if he was speaking to a crowd rather than only to his disciples it still goes against the context of the prophecy.

You said only one person had died, presumably Judas? As if Jesus was only talking to his 12 apostles. I demonstrated that an aditional crowd was hearing him say "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

What do you think is the context of the prophecy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said only one person had died, presumably Judas? As if Jesus was only talking to his 12 apostles. I demonstrated that an aditional crowd was hearing him say "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

What do you think is the context of the prophecy?

The context indicates that a fair number would die before the prophecy was fulfilled. The context indicates that those that survived that long would be the exception. "Some of you". Not all but one of you. Not most of you. But "some of you" That indicates not most.

 

[Colt]

The context indicates that a fair number would die before the prophecy was fulfilled. The context indicates that those that survived that long would be the exception. "Some of you". Not all but one of you. Not most of you. But "some of you" That indicates not most.

Ok, I see what you are saying. You are correct.

 

[Muffled]

Who said you are not indoctrinated?

I say I am not indoctrinated. I listen to evidence. If there were any you would think the adherents would have presented it by now but they have not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I say I am not indoctrinated. I listen to evidence. If there were any you would think the adherents would have presented it by now but they have not.

You listen to evidence, or so you claim. Then you reject the Noah's Ark myth. Right?

 

[Muffled]

Your opinion is almost certainly wrong and worthless. How much education do you have in the science?

And you still have the problem that you are claiming that God is a liar.

I believe my opinion is worth a lot more than most peoples because it comes from God. Other people's opinions come from their own minds which are quite limited in comparison.

I believe I have never claimed that God is a liar.

 

[Muffled]

You listen to evidence, or so you claim. Then you reject the Noah's Ark myth. Right?

No. I respect the evidence that has been presented but do not share the conclusions. God does not lie about the flood. He is telling the truth and there is a secular myth about the flood as well so that is rare since usualy God has information that has not been recorded in history as fact or myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe my opinion is worth a lot more than most peoples because it comes from God. Other people's opinions come from their own minds which are quite limited in comparison.

I believe I have never claimed that God is a liar.

Now you have just contradicted your claim about listening to the evidence.

And if you claim that the Noah's Ark myth is true you have claimed that God is a liar. But you do not understand why. Remember what you said about evidence. You can't have it both ways. You either listen to the evidence or you are indoctrinated. You refuse to listen to the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I respect the evidence that has been presented but do not share the conclusions. God does not lie about the flood. He is telling the truth and there is a secular myth about the flood as well so that is rare since usualy God has information that has not been recorded in history as fact or myth.

Then you are ignoring it. You do not "respect" it. You do not even understand it. You cannot afford to because of indoctrination.

Let's start with the concept of evidence and where and how it is applied. Okay?