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

[samtonga43]

That is my point exactly. As I pointed out you respond to what you want people to have said instead of what they actually say.

Here is what you actually said:

"The story in the Bible, like the Garden of Eden story, portray your God as evil and incompetent".

You are just -- well-- wrong. The story in the Bible does not portray God as evil and incompetent.

 

[samtonga43]

I know what the Bible says. I am not impressed by it at all The Jesus is God claims come almost exclusively from the Gospel of John. Stories tend to grow with the telling. And the last Gospel written has the biggest stories in it. That what is most likely the least accurate gospel is the one that teaches Jesus is God should give you pause.

You may know what the Bible says. But you know only the literal expression of the meaning behind the words. It is the meaning that is important, SZ.

I was once just like you, and I do understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is what you actually said:

"The story in the Bible, like the Garden of Eden story, portray your God as evil and incompetent".

You are just -- well-- wrong. The story in the Bible does not portray God as evil and incompetent.

I see, you do not understand the myth of the Garden of Eden. Let's set some basics first. Is God omnipotent? Is God omniscient?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may know what the Bible says. But you know only the literal expression of the meaning behind the words. It is the meaning that is important, SZ.

I was once just like you, and I do understand.

I don't think that you understand the meaning. You are too afraid of what the Bible actually says.

Now you do have a bit of a get out of jail free card if you admit that Genesis is merely allegory. A morality tale with the flaws that morality tales usually have.

 

[samtonga43]

LOL! It is you who is afraid, SZ. Fear permeates your posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! It is you who is afraid, SZ. Fear permeates your posts.

I don't think so. I do not need to constantly rely on less than honest debating techniques. Why did you continually use improper techniques such as quoting out of context? That is the act of a man that is afraid.

 

[samtonga43]

Now you do have a bit of a get out of jail free card if you admit that Genesis is merely allegory. A morality tale with the flaws that morality tales usually have.

When you read Genesis, SZ, what type of literature are you reading?

 

[samtonga43]

I don't think so. I do not need to constantly rely on less than honest debating techniques. Why did you continually use improper techniques such as quoting out of context? That is the act of a man that is afraid.

Sweet irony! You accuse me of quoting out of context because you don't know what context is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you read Genesis, SZ, what type of literature are you reading?

I really do not care. What I care about is how you view it.

It is obviously not historical since the characters and events are fictional. Once again, how do you view it?

You do not seem to understand that I only use a literal viewpoint when I argue with literalists. If you are a literalist then a literal interpretation shows how silly the beliefs are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sweet irony! You accuse me of quoting out of context because you don't know what context is.

Oh my, oh my, oh my. There go a whole slew of irony meters.

I explained to you countless times how you were quoting out of context and you continued to do that. smh!

 

[samtonga43]

Oh my, oh my, oh my. There go a whole slew of irony meters.

I explained to you countless times how you were quoting out of context and you continued to do that. smh!

And I explained why you were mistaken. I even quoted your silly comments within their context and you still didn't get it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I explained why you were mistaken. I even quoted your silly comments within their context and you still didn't get it.

No, you just made the same silly mistakes again and again. Quoting out of context is all that you have. At least in our debates.

Did you know that ducking questions is tacitly admitting that one is wrong?

 

[samtonga43]

I really do not care. What I care about is how you view it.

I read it as narrative prose combined with some poetry.

And you? How do you read it?

You do not seem to understand that I only use a literal viewpoint when I argue with literalists. If you are a literalist then a literal interpretation shows how silly the beliefs are.

Oh, I understand what you're trying to do, SZ. However, I have to tell you that it's not working.

Is there anyone here who (apart from you) reads Scripture literally?

 

[samtonga43]

Did you know that ducking questions is tacitly admitting that one is wrong?

Another logical fallacy. Can you work out which one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read it as narrative prose combined with some poetry.

And you? How do you read it?

As an atheist I can see that at one time people really believed that. Now I read it as the writings of a primitive tribe.

Oh, I understand what you're trying to do, SZ. However, I have to tell you that it's not working.

Is there anyone here who (apart from you) reads Scripture literally?

Now you are just projecting. You think that you know what you are doing, but since you have formed such a convoluted argument you really have no clue. And yes, though you may not read it literally your partner here clearly believes the Noah's Ark myth.

The sad thing is that I pointed out to you that it is litreaists that I have a problem with a long time ago and if you had asked, which was the proper thing to do when your errors were explained to you instead of insisting on your own false narrative you would have known how and why I use a literal approach at times. You have only yourself to blame for embarrassing yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another logical fallacy. Can you work out which one?

Not really. I did not offer it as "proof". Once again you do not know how to apply logical fallacies properly.

That is not a logical fallacy since it is a more than reasonable conclusion when a person constantly runs away from reasonable questions. You are constantly guilty of black and white fallacies and do not realize that there is often a spectrum of where responses fall on. They ae usually not absolutely true not absolutely false.

But keep trying. You will get one correct one of these days.

 

[eldritchsleep]

Here is what you actually said:

"The story in the Bible, like the Garden of Eden story, portray your God as evil and incompetent".

You are just -- well-- wrong. The story in the Bible does not portray God as evil and incompetent.

I will second the claim that Yahweh is an evil god. First off, he claims this himself (Isaiah 45:7). But more importantly, there are numerous immoral laws set up by god.

As far as addressing the issue of the Garden of Eden - if god is omnipotent and omniscient then he could create a universe without evil that also have free will and all of the other things that Christians give as excuses for the Problem of Evil. Creating humans with the innate desire to touch things that are forbidden or to do the thing asked of them not to do then intentionally putting the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil within their reach then going "Dont eat this!!" is evil, especially since he did it to people who were so innocent and oblivious that they literally do not know better. It is literally god's fault that humans are sinful according to the story of the Garden of Eden. Did he know that the snake would trick them? Yes? Then why put the tree there and also the snake? Nonsense.

But back to god being evil on his own accord via his laws:

• Permits slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11)
  
• Permits rape (Judges 21:10-2, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Judges 5:30, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Zechariah 14:1-2)
  
• Punishes rape victims instead of the rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
• Permits murdering children (2 Kings 2:23-24, 2 Kings 2:23-24, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Isaiah 13:15-18)

And obviously, the Problem of Evil points out that god permits evil in the world anyways. If god is all powerful and does not stop the evils of the world, he is at fault. If god is all knowing and does not prevent the evils of the world, he is at fault. He created this world as is and thus is at fault. He created Satan knowing that Satan would be evil and therefore is at fault. At least, if you believe they exist at all.

 

[Brian2]

I know what the Bible says. I am not impressed by it at all The Jesus is God claims come almost exclusively from the Gospel of John. Stories tend to grow with the telling. And the last Gospel written has the biggest stories in it. That what is most likely the least accurate gospel is the one that teaches Jesus is God should give you pause.

It gives me pause to wonder why you think it would be the least accurate gospel.
The writer whose name is attached is the apostle John was known by the Apostolic Fathers of the day and so that would be why his name is attached. That is why the gospel was accepted so fast as being authentic.
The author would have read the other gospels and decided to add things that they had not spoken of.
But the epistles and other gospels and OT also tell us that Jesus is God. So no, the things about Jesus being God do not come almost exclusively from the gospel of John.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

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.

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:

“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"

...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)

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)

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

I think you have misunderstood, many of these verses are aimed at the final generation before Armageddon.

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.

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:

“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"

...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)

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)

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

Jesus said: “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Paul and the other disciples were confused when Jesus said, "Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is mine and disclose it to you. In a little while you will see me no more and then in a little while you will see me." Then some of his disciples asked one another, “Why is he telling us, ‘In a little while you will not see me, and then after a little while you will see me’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?"…
Jesus meant they will see him in heaven.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I think you have misunderstood, many of these verses are aimed at the final generation before Armageddon.

Jesus said: “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Paul and the other disciples were confused when Jesus said, "Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is mine and disclose it to you. In a little while you will see me no more and then in a little while you will see me." Then some of his disciples asked one another, “Why is he telling us, ‘In a little while you will not see me, and then after a little while you will see me’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?"…
Jesus meant they will see him in heaven.

>>>>>>>>I think you have misunderstood, many of these verses are aimed at the final generation before Armageddon.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you repeating something others have told you? How do you know they are right and Jesus' words don't really mean what they say? Did Jesus say anywhere in those verses that his his words are not for the ones listening to him but for a future generation? Where is Armageddon even mentioned anywhere in those verses? Wouldn't Jesus have said, "A long time into the future you will see me coming in the clouds with great power and glory" instead of "Some of you standing right here and now...."?

You are repeating propaganda that has been fed to you. Christian leaders don't like that Jesus said he would return in a few years and never did. That makes him into a false teacher and a liar. So they invented the idea that all these are unfulfilled prophecies, that way it makes Jesus not look like a failed prophet. Remember, the trick when someone confronts you with failed prophecies is to obfuscate with one of two excuses: 1. it a yet to be fulfilled prophecy that will happen sometime in the future, or 2. Jesus is speaking symbolically.

Always fall back on those excuses when someone corners you with the truth and you will always have something to argue back with.