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

[Subduction Zone]

People trust what the clergy say about the Bible more than what the Bible actually says. I believed in name it and claim it teachings in the past because I trusted what the clergy said more than what the Bible says. Isaiah 9:6 mentions that the Messiah is God incarnated. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

That is better. Thank you for using your own words.

It does not matter for our conversation what clergy says. Or what apologists say. What matters is what one can support. If one reads Isaiah 9 6 in context it does not appear to be a prophesy about Jesus. It has elements that were never fulfilled. The context indicates that it is a present tense event. Not a future one. It is reinterpretation after the fact that Christians use to make it a prophecy about Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

That is better. Thank you for using your own words.

It does not matter for our conversation what clergy says. Or what apologists say. What matters is what one can support. If one reads Isaiah 9 6 in context it does not appear to be a prophesy about Jesus. It has elements that were never fulfilled. The context indicates that it is a present tense event. Not a future one. It is reinterpretation after the fact that Christians use to make it a prophecy about Jesus.

It isn't a present tense event, it's a messianic prophecy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't a present tense event, it's a messianic prophecy.

Why do you say that? The Jews do not count that as a messianic prophecy, they never did. The verbs in the original Hebrew text were written in the past tense. The babe had already been born. This is an example of history written as if it were prophecy. That is a tool that is used in the Bible several times. And I forgot the proper term for that.

Here is a very short video of a Rabbi explaining that particular verse and why the translation that Christians use is wrong:

 

[samtonga43]

"1. See Bold: False assumption"
There you go.

LOL! Comprehension = 0/10

'See Bold' = 'Look at the bolded words in the post to which you are responding'

I'll make it easier for you, SZ
The words in bold (see them now?) encapsulate a false assumption.

Do try to read what is actually written and not what you THINK has been written.

Ten-year-olds can do this, you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! Comprehension = 0/10

'See Bold' = 'Look at the bolded words in the post to which you are responding'

I'll make it easier for you, SZ
The words in bold (see them now?) encapsulate a false assumption.

Do try to read what is actually written and not what you THINK has been written.

Ten-year-olds can do this, you know.

Nope, you dishonestly quote mined and edited a post. You implied a false assumption

Surely someone that thinks that they understand logic can do better than this.

 

[samtonga43]

Are you saying that you openly lied? That would be the only other logical conscusion.

Well, no. The only logical conscusion (sic) is that what appears to YOU to be the case is not necessarily the case. Logic is not your strong point, SZ -- is it?

Massive projection on your part again. You jump to conclusions far too rapidly and this was shown in our past discussion. You failed to show any logical fallacies in the past and you will fail to do so again

.
Only if you stop filling your posts with them.

Aren't you the one that made false claims about me treating all Christians as literalists?

I don't think so, but I am not too insecure to apologize, if you will produce the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, no. The only logical conscusion (sic) is that what appears to YOU to be the case is not necessarily the case. Logic is not your strong point, SZ -- is it?
.
Only if you stop filling your posts with them.

I don't think so, but I am not too insecure to apologize, if you will produce the evidence.

And there you go jumping to false conclusions based upon your inability to understand a post.

You might want to work on that projection problem.

You were insincere when you quoted out of context and edited a post. When a person starts out a conversation in bad faith they are in no position to demand evidence.

 

[samtonga43]

Nope, you dishonestly quote mined and edited a post. You implied a false assumption

Please show me where I dishonestly quote mined and edited a post.
I did not imply a false assumption; I said plainly that you did make a false assumption. And you did.

Surely someone that thinks that they understand logic can do better than this.

I can do little other than hope that you will eventually understand what logic IS.

 

[samtonga43]

Like most Christians you do not appear to understand that verse. (Says SZ)
1. See Bold: False assumption
2. And how do YOU understand this verse, SZ? (Says samtonga)

Above is the post in question. Can't you see where the false assumption lies? Think!

So, how DO you understand this verse, SZ? You say that most Christians do not understand it. Here's your chance - educate us

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please show me where I dishonestly quote mined and edited a post.
I did not imply a false assumption; I said plainly that you did make a false assumption. And you did.

I can do little other than hope that you will eventually understand what logic IS.

Sorry, personal attacks will get you nowhere.

And now you are contradicting yourself. If you understood logic you should also understand the burden of proof. By accusing me of making a false assumption you took on a burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like most Christians you do not appear to understand that verse. (Says SZ)
1. See Bold: False assumption
2. And how do YOU understand this verse, SZ? (Says samtonga)

Above is the post in question. Can't you see where the false assumption lies? Think!

So, how DO you understand this verse, SZ? You say that most Christians do not understand it. Here's your chance - educate us

There is no "false assumption" there. You would need to prove that is false and I sincerely doubt if you can do that.

 

[samtonga43]

There is no "false assumption" there. You would need to prove that is false and I sincerely doubt if you can do that.

No. You made the positive claim. You need to prove that your claim is true. If you can do this I will apologize for making 'a false assumption'
But I am sure you cannot prove that "Most Christians do not understand this verse".
Until you do prove it, you are making a false assumption.
QED
But you still haven't answered my question How do YOU understand this verse? You have said that 'most Christians' do not understand it, which implies that you do understand it. Do tell...?

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry, personal attacks will get you nowhere.
And now you are contradicting yourself. If you understood logic you should also understand the burden of proof. By accusing me of making a false assumption you took on a burden of proof.

You still have not (cannot?) answered my question...
"Please show me where I dishonestly quote mined and edited a post". Otherwise I shall have to show you another false assumption

 

[samtonga43]

A teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun. No one can prove me wrong, and so my claim is a valid one.

 

[samtonga43]

I already explained that. Go back a few posts.

I’m afraid you didn’t, Tb. You explained why you think Jesus used the word ‘hate’. This says nothing about the context in which He used the word ‘hate’. Are you sure you know what Biblical context is? In the ancient world, the word hate did not necessarily carry the negative tone that it does today. So, the context is the word usage of people 2000 years ago.

The KJV is still understandable and valid. I prefer it just as I like the Gleanings style of prose. If I don’t understand the KJV I can look at a more modern translation such as the NIV, and if I don’t understand what Baha’u’llah meant by what He wrote there are other sources I can look at.

It is not valid because it is not a good translation, and is less understandable than, for example. the ESV. Which is readable and literally accurate. The language of any book is deficient if it is not as clearly understood and natural-sounding to the modern reader as the original meaning of the text was to the original readers. I work with college students and have first-hand experience of this fact. The modern reader should be able to see, as directly as possible, the structure and meaning of the original.

They are not superfluous to me because they are far more sophisticated than anything Jesus ever wrote and they contain some new information. That is what happens whenever God sends a new Messenger, that Messenger reveals new information that can be added to what was revealed before, written in a way that is suited to the intellectual capacities of humans living in the age in which it was revealed.

LOL! Wisdom and Love beat ‘sophistication’ any day…
But what is this ‘new information’-- do you have some examples?

Google search: What is the most accurate translation of the Bible in the world? The King James Version is the world's most widely known Bible translation, using early seventeenth-century English. Its powerful, majestic style has made it a literary classic, with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in our language.

Widely known does not mean widely read or widely understood.

They are not superfluous to me because they are far more sophisticated than anything Jesus ever wrote and they contain some new information. That is what happens whenever God sends a new Messenger, that Messenger reveals new information that can be added to what was revealed before, written in a way that is suited to the intellectual capacities of humans living in the age in which it was revealed.

So why is the message written in 17th century English?

That argument will not work either, because other people can understand it and if they don’t understand it they ask me what it means.

I see. You are the interpreter. Right..

Continuing to do that is all for naught, because the Dispensation of Jesus was abrogated by the Dispensation of Baha’u’llah.

There is only One God, Tb. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Did you know that the word ‘abrogate’ can mean ‘to avoid responsibility’. That is very telling.

The following was written by one of the two interpreters that Baha’u’llah appointed, in plain English.
“A Revelation, hailed as the promise and crowning glory of past ages and centuries, as the consummation of all the Dispensations within the Adamic Cycle, inaugurating an era of at least a thousand years’ duration, and a cycle destined to last no less than five thousand centuries, signalizing the end of the Prophetic Era and the beginning of the Era of Fulfillment, unsurpassed alike in the duration of its Author’s ministry and the fecundity and splendor of His mission—such a Revelation was, as already noted, born amidst the darkness of a subterranean dungeon in Tihrán—an abominable pit that had once served as a reservoir of water for one of the public baths of the city.” God Passes By, p. 100

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/gpb-7.html
You call this ‘plain English’, Tb? I’m sorry, but this is tortured prose, dense and badly constructed. I am very surprised you can’t see this.
Who ensured that the interpreters’ writing would not be misconstrued?

To each his or her own. It is much easier to find something in the few pages of the Hidden Words than to go hunting in the Bible hoping I will find what I am looking for, someday.

LOL! You don’t have to ‘go hunting’ for answers, Tb. The treasure is the whole message, Genesis to Revelation, not in little bits and pieces of information. When one looks at a beautiful landscape painting one doesn’t focus on just one tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still have not (cannot?) answered my question...
"Please show me where I dishonestly quote mined and edited a post". Otherwise I shall have to show you another false assumption

You edited my post. That is dishonest. If I recall correctly you also quoted out of context.

By the way, if you could reason logically you would understand that you need a first false assumption before you can find a second one. By claiming " assumption " you took on a burden of proof that you never substantiated. Your claim to understand logic appears to be fatally flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You made the positive claim. You need to prove that your claim is true. If you can do this I will apologize for making 'a false assumption'
But I am sure you cannot prove that "Most Christians do not understand this verse".
Until you do prove it, you are making a false assumption.
QED
But you still haven't answered my question How do YOU understand this verse? You have said that 'most Christians' do not understand it, which implies that you do understand it. Do tell...?

LOL!! Running away. What else would I expect.

It does not work that way. If you disagree with something that I said and did not support to your satisfaction you can ask for evidence. You do not get to make such judgements until after the person that you are responding to failed.

You did not do that. You made a debate error where the burden of proof was upon me and placed it on yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun. No one can prove me wrong, and so my claim is a valid one.

Sorry, that is the sort of error that you alone have made here.

You made a personal attack that you could not substantiate. One that took the burden of proof off of my shoulders and put it on yours.

 

[samtonga43]

You edited my post. That is dishonest. If I recall correctly you also quoted out of context.

You can make accusations all day long, SZ. You appear to be totally unable to show any evidence at all. Until you can, your accusations mean nothing.

By the way, if you could reason logically you would understand that you need a first false assumption before you can find a second one. By claiming " assumption " you took on a burden of proof that you never substantiated. Your claim to understand logic appears to be fatally flawed.

Are you really saying that you have evidence that most Christians do not understand the verse in question?
Really? SZ, surely even you can see that this is an assumption. Unless you can provide evidence. Go on - put your money where your mouth is!
Where is the evidence?

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry, that is the sort of error that you alone have made here.

You made a personal attack that you could not substantiate. One that took the burden of proof off of my shoulders and put it on yours.

Evidence of 'personal attack'?