Jesus' Four Failed Prophecies About Him Returning In The Lifetimes Of His Apostles

[Subduction Zone]

It appears so to you because you don't realize that your posts are full of logical fallacies.

I doubt it. You probably could not find a proper one. I have seen this tactic done before and it almost always fails. One warning, you must remember the context of the conversation. Go for it.

 

[Brian2]

Here is something most Christians don't know:

Jesus promised no less than FOUR times in the gospels that he would return to earth and his apostles would live to see it, yet he never showed up.

Where is the 4th prophecy? It's cheating to take the same prophecy from a couple of the gospels and call it 2 prophecies.

Paul believed fervently that Jesus would return in his lifetime:

"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: Then WE who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." 1 Thessolonians 4:16-17

Now Paul may have put this idea into the heads of the gospel writers when they started writing the gospels. They had Jesus make these four prophesies that he would return before the apostles died:

You can't have it both ways, either the gospels were not written by people who did not know Jesus or the gospels were written by people who knew Him and what He said. If the second, then they did not need Paul to tell them anything. If the first then those people already knew that Jesus did not return during the life of the apostles.
Paul just teaches the same thing that the other apostles teach.

“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)

For me, this is the one that cannot be excused away with rationalizations like "Jesus was referring to the future generation", or "Jesus was referring to God's time which could be thousands of years in the future". We have Jesus referring directly to the people listening to him when he made that failed prophecy "some of you standing here will not taste death until you see me return"

If you read the prophecy as stated it does not say that the Son of Man would return, so why does this guy say that it says this? I guess he is misreading what it said.
Also this same prophecy appears in all the synoptic gospels and it is at a time when the apostles did not even know that Jesus was going to die and go and then return.
Also after each of these times in the gospels there is the Transfiguration, which is the fulfilment of the prophecy, which is not about the return of Jesus.

...

they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“

(Mark 13:26-30)

The above prophecy is saying that the generation that sees all those thing that Jesus mentioned would not pass away till they it all happens, iows all those events would happen within one generation.

Here in Chap 10 Jesus is giving his apostles instructions on how they should conduct themselves when he sends them out to do God's work

Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10:23)

Matt 10:23 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.

When we look at the whole verse we can see that Jesus said that they will not be persecuted and flee from one place to another as many as the town of Israel. There were hundreds if not thousands of these towns.

Naturally Jesus never showed up. Why? Because we can assume he never said he would return--this was all invention by the gospel writers probably based on Paul's belief Jesus would return and Paul would live to see it. There are five rationalizations Christians have come up with for Jesus' no-show. All are patently ridiculous but you can read them in the link below:

Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return

The reason Jesus did not show up is because the prophecies are not about Jesus returning in the lives of the apostles.

 

[rational experiences]

Prophecies are false as they are maths science human conscious theoried predicted.

Exactly how it was taught.

Jesus died life, as the son of the light of God the light constant owned by SPIRIT GAS only was sucked out of the sacrifice of spirit, and the day went dark. How it was taught.

Son of God was not son of man.

Son of man was a male baby human. No argument.

O God was the mass of the planet, who as an entity, mass created its own stone heavenly gas spirit with the womb of space Immaculate status. The sun sacrificed the immaculate gas a second time. Historic God owned naturally hot alight gases from its body sacrificed and burning. Then the womb magically changed that law. Then the Sun changed the law again. Nuclear conversion.

How and why the teaching said O God earth stone mass owned the light of its own heavens no matter what the Sun did to it. The Sun mass radiation never owned the reason why a gas was alight and burning. The vacuum did.a

LAW Mother of God.

Natural owned all reasons why life was sacrificed yet science forced natural laws to change. So a human using memory and thinking quotes God did it.

Hence the light constant was never Jesus. As the son of God was the son of God not named. Heavens or mass or mess is one descriptive analogy.

So burning natural light a constant cannot return for it never went anywhere.

What did return 1000 years later from the vacuum was a Satanic event. Reason 1000 was given both to the Christ thesis and Satan thesis as a return. Sacrifice of life was a Satanic thesis, not a christ thesis as Christ was natural in mass also.

Owned naturally by space and the God heavens. So it cannot return for it never left either.

Yet if you quote you burnt extra mass of gases in a ufo radiation condition, then you did.....a Satanic return.

So Jesus never returned, the Satanic Shroud of Turin event returned all by itself. As the vacuum can only cool and maintain cooling for a period of time before a smaller body of radiation get released as the vacuum shuts its motion of sucking activation. One moment caused. Then cause and effect takes over itself.

How could Jesus come back when the theme Jesus man on the cross in the clouds is already witnessed as images in the cloud?

If however you began to re witness the images appearing you would logically look at human life and ask self is life being sacrificed again? Ebola one of the evidences a type of stigmata, and all forms of cancers suffered today other evidence.

So when science promised never to give God a name again and said by 2012 the vacuum would have removed the UFO Satanic return sacrificing life....we looked forward to the opportunity to heal, and regain our lost sacrificed human DNA and suffering and ill health and illogical thinking, and bad immoral human behaviour would have been relinquished.

Instead they gave it back to Satan and the great Deep pit.

A female singer sings a song that said it..

.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Where is the 4th prophecy? It's cheating to take the same prophecy from a couple of the gospels and call it 2 prophecies.



You can't have it both ways, either the gospels were not written by people who did not know Jesus or the gospels were written by people who knew Him and what He said. If the second, then they did not need Paul to tell them anything. If the first then those people already knew that Jesus did not return during the life of the apostles.
Paul just teaches the same thing that the other apostles teach.



If you read the prophecy as stated it does not say that the Son of Man would return, so why does this guy say that it says this? I guess he is misreading what it said.
Also this same prophecy appears in all the synoptic gospels and it is at a time when the apostles did not even know that Jesus was going to die and go and then return.
Also after each of these times in the gospels there is the Transfiguration, which is the fulfilment of the prophecy, which is not about the return of Jesus.


The above prophecy is saying that the generation that sees all those thing that Jesus mentioned would not pass away till they it all happens, iows all those events would happen within one generation.



Matt 10:23 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.

When we look at the whole verse we can see that Jesus said that they will not be persecuted and flee from one place to another as many as the town of Israel. There were hundreds if not thousands of these towns.



The reason Jesus did not show up is because the prophecies are not about Jesus returning in the lives of the apostles.

Once again, it is Christians' figurative interpretation of pretty clear language against non-Christians' literal interpretation of pretty clear language. Nobody wins a battle like that, as usual.

 

[samtonga43]

Once again, it is Christians' figurative interpretation of pretty clear language against non-Christians' literal interpretation of pretty clear language. Nobody wins a battle like that, as usual.

Figurative language (metaphor simile idiom etc.) get to the truth of the matter much more effectively than crude literalism.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Figurative language (metaphor simile idiom etc.) get to the truth of the matter much more effectively than crude literalism.

Figurative interpretation opens the Bible up to endless different interpretations. Which is correct? For example how do you figuratively interpret John 14:6? I interpret it as Jesus saying that if a person hear his message then they don't have to actually believe in him, they have been saved merely by hearing his words.

 

[Brian2]

Once again, it is Christians' figurative interpretation of pretty clear language against non-Christians' literal interpretation of pretty clear language. Nobody wins a battle like that, as usual.

I think I am the one who was using the literal approach against reading things into the passages which are not there.
And prophecies about Jesus return before the death of the apostles would not be there if the gospels were written in the second century after the death of the apostles anyway.
As I said, you have to choose whether you want the gospels written in the second century or you want the false prophecy charges to be true. They both cannot be true.
It is good to have consistency in your what you end up with as your justification for rejecting the gospels.

 

[Brian2]

Figurative interpretation opens the Bible up to endless different interpretations. Which is correct? For example how do you figuratively interpret John 14:6? I interpret it as Jesus saying that if a person hear his message then they don't have to actually believe in him, they have been saved merely by hearing his words.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Really? How do you get that from the verse?

 

[samtonga43]

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Really? How do you get that from the verse?

Yes, I didn't understand this either...

 

[thomas t]

Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

Hi SAT, nice to meet you again!
In my opinion, @KenS did make a very good job here. Bible never said that prayers by unbelievers to heal sickness would even be considered.
The Bible points out that there is a difference between prayers issued by believers and the rest.
It's really just as Ken said, I think.

Let me add a few points: In my opinion, many many Christians would opt for not participating in such a study. For the following reasons:

* Bible says there is evidence for the Creator. Romans 1:20.
So why ask for a second bit of evidence? A survey that would find out that prayers to God work... would constitute a second bit of evidence.

* the survey puts God under pressure.
If it doesn't work out, some atheists might feel tempted to mock and potentially also say "no evidence".
Some Christians, as I see it, do have issues with setting God under pressure instead of giving him honor.
Other Christians say setting God under pressure is ok, though. They compare it to demanding something from a loving father.

* why unite with atheists in prayer? Some might ask. Many Christians believe that their own conversion is what atheists need most.... instead of prayer success concerning minor issues. Minor in comparison to salvation.

* a successful study would constitute a sign from God.
There is scripture against demanding such thing as a sign: Matthew 16:4.
Yet Gideon also demanded a sign and it was ok.
So, sometimes signs are ok, sometimes demanding a sign is not.
Let's assume 50% of all Christians assume the latter when asked to participate in such a study... declining the demand.

* Many Christians, such as myself, don't love people they never met or heard anything from. So, why pray for a person you don't love? It would be dishonest, at least in my case

* if I remember right, there are cases in the Bible in which illness served as punishment.
If God punishes, some Christians might not be wanting to interfere.
Others might ask themselves: why mess with situations you have nothing to do with.. and opt out

* in my opinion, useful illness does exist, I know of elderly people who do not want to hear well, even if they could. Some do want to, others don't.

Long story short, reasons for Christians not to partake in such a study are numerous.
If you don't have believers participating, there is no Biblical reason to believe that prayers (concerning a matter other than declaring Jesus as Lord) actually work.

However, it was good to see your thoughts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just cherry picked a few quotes since there is so much wrong with this post.

* Bible says there is evidence for the Creator. Romans 1:20.
So way ask for a second bit of evidence? A survey that would find out that prayers to God work... would constitute a second bit of evidence.

Because the first is not evidence. It is only a claim of evidence. And a survey that found prayers to God work could be a first bit of evidence. But only if it was a proper study. There does not seem to be any such study out there.

* the survey puts God under pressure.

Now it appears that you are saying that like an old man in the bedroom God does not work well under pressure.

But seriously how is testing the claims of the Bible putting "God under pressure"?

If it doesn't work out, some atheists might feel tempted to mock and potentially also say "no evidence".

Now now, it is not mocking to point out a lack of evidence. You do not seem to understand why this sort of testing needs to be done. Christians all too often claim to "know" that their God is real. Knowledge is demonstrable. That means one needs to be able to support such claims with evidence. It is the prideful acts of Christians that lead to demands for evidence. If Christians merely said "I believe, even though I have no evidence" then the criticism would not be so harsh.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Hi SAT, nice to meet you again!
In my opinion, @KenS did make a very good job here. Bible never said that prayers by unbelievers to heal sickness would even be considered.
The Bible points out that there is a difference between prayers issued by believers and the rest.
It's really just as Ken said, I think.

Let me add a few points: In my opinion, many many Christians would opt for not participating in such a study. For the following reasons:

* Bible says there is evidence for the Creator. Romans 1:20.
So why ask for a second bit of evidence? A survey that would find out that prayers to God work... would constitute a second bit of evidence.

* the survey puts God under pressure.
If it doesn't work out, some atheists might feel tempted to mock and potentially also say "no evidence".
Some Christians, as I see it, do have issues with setting God under pressure instead of giving him honor.
Other Christians say setting God under pressure is ok, though. They compare it to demanding something from a loving father.

* why unite with atheists in prayer? Some might ask. Many Christians believe that their own conversion is what atheists need most.... instead of prayer success concerning minor issues. Minor in comparison to salvation.

* a successful study would constitute a sign from God.
There is scripture against demanding such thing as a sign: Matthew 16:4.
Yet Gideon also demanded a sign and it was ok.
So, sometimes signs are ok, sometimes demanding a sign is not.
Let's assume 50% of all Christians assume the latter when asked to participate in such a study... declining the demand.

* Many Christians, such as myself, don't love people they never met or heard anything from. So, why pray for a person you don't love? It would be dishonest, at least in my case

* if I remember right, there are cases in the Bible in which illness served as punishment.
If God punishes, some Christians might not be wanting to interfere.
Others might ask themselves: why mess with situations you have nothing to do with.. and opt out

* in my opinion, useful illness does exist, I know of elderly people who do not want to hear well, even if they could. Some do want to, others don't.

Long story short, reasons for Christians not to partake in such a study are numerous.
If you don't have believers participating, there is no Biblical reason to believe that prayers (concerning a matter other than declaring Jesus as Lord) actually work.

However, it was good to see your thoughts.

Hi Thomas. Couple of thoughts:
Atheists don't pray so there would have been no atheists participating in the study, only Christians because Christians presumably pray. I assume other faiths participated as well--Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, etc
Obviously Christians did participate otherwise the study couldn't have issued any results.
I seriously doubt 99 out of 100 Christians even know what Romans 1:20 says
Who knows if heart disease, which is often terminal, is a punishment or not. No living person has that info. You just pray for the person--the Bible says "pray without ceasing"--and hope God responds
Final outcome setting aside all the considerations: prayer regardless of religion had no effect on a person's outcome. logical conclusion: prayer doesn't help a person get well.

 

[samtonga43]

#389, SAT? Can you explain?

 

[samtonga43]

Because the first is not evidence. It is only a claim of evidence. And a survey that found prayers to God work could be a first bit of evidence. But only if it was a proper study. There does not seem to be any such study out there.

Are you sure you are not confusing evidence with proof?

 

[samtonga43]

Christians all too often claim to "know" that their God is real.

Is it your opinion that 'to know' always means to believe something that can be proved?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you sure you are not confusing evidence with proof?

No. Proof is a term that is often misused by those that do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it your opinion that 'to know' always means to believe something that can be proved?

No. See my previous post.

 

[thomas t]

Hi Thomas. Couple of thoughts:
Atheists don't pray so there would have been no atheists participating in the study, only Christians because Christians presumably pray. I assume other faiths participated as well--Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, etc
Obviously Christians did participate otherwise the study couldn't have issued any results.
I seriously doubt 99 out of 100 Christians even know what Romans 1:20 says
Who knows if heart disease, which is often terminal, is a punishment or not. No living person has that info. You just pray for the person--the Bible says "pray without ceasing"--and hope God responds
Final outcome setting aside all the considerations: prayer regardless of religion had no effect on a person's outcome. logical conclusion: prayer doesn't help a person get well.

Why do you say that atheists don't pray?
They want to see if there is evidence or not.
For the sake of finding that out many atheists might pray. Just for the sake of the study,
praying doesn't cost you anything.

A close contact of mine is also atheist. When she had a real big problem - she prayed.
She didn't want to leave this untried.

Yes God says pray without ceasing.
This does not mean you should pray no matter what.
Actually Bible teaches that in order for a pryer to be effective you need to be 1) a Christian, and 2) believe that prayer works. Before the prayer works.

That means even if there are Christians they sometimes don't meet 2) as a requirement.

I'm still convinced: prayer works if you meet 1) and 2).

Thomas

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say that atheists don't pray?
They want to see if there is evidence or not.
For the sake of finding that out many atheists might pray. Just for the sake of the study,
praying doesn't cost you anything.

A close contact of mine is also atheist. When she had a real big problem - she prayed.
She didn't want to leave this untried.

Yes God says pray without ceasing.
This does not mean you should pray no matter what.
Actually Bible teaches that in order for a pryer to be effective you need to be 1) a Christian, and 2) believe that prayer works. Before the prayer works.

That means even if there are Christians they sometimes don't meet 2) as a requirement.

I'm still convinced: prayer works if you meet 1) and 2).

Thomas

Then it should be demonstrable.

Do you realize that some of the studies would have clearly have met your criteria and yet there is no sign that prayer worked.

 

[samtonga43]

No. See my previous post.

Thanks. So what would you say is the difference between belief and knowledge?