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

[Trailblazer]

The Old Testament mentions a compound unity, not a solitary oneness, for the nature of God. Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad

No, Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the the Bible so they do not know what it means.

the New Testament teaches that God exists eternally in three Persons. Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Male and female reflect different aspects of God's image.

No, the New Testament does not teach that. Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the Bible so they do not know what it means..

 

[Skywalker]

No, Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the the Bible so they do not know what it means.

No, the New Testament does not teach that. Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the Bible so they do not know what it means..

Genesis 1:26-27

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 5:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Male is the default gender for language because to mention both pronouns would draw undue attention to gender, but that doesn't mean that male and female don't reflect God's image.

 

[samtonga43]

I tried to have a discussion with you about that but you appeared to run away.

I ran away from your evidence that the Bible fails almost every rational test put to it?

I can't imagine I would run away from this evidence. It sounds very interesting. I've studied theology for many years, and have never come across anything in the many papers I've read (by Christians, atheists and agnostics) to suggest that the
Bible fails almost every rational test put to it.

I am sure that many here would like to see this evidence. How about it, SZ?

 

[samtonga43]

No, Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the the Bible so they do not know what it means.

No, the New Testament does not teach that. Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the Bible so they do not know what it means..

What? ALL Christians? How can you be sure? Or... perhaps this is wishful thinking.

 

[samtonga43]

LOL! Such massive projection.

It's called the Genetic fallacy, SZ. Look it up, and learn why it is fallacious, because this is not the first time you have been irrational in this way.

 

[Trailblazer]

What? ALL Christians? How can you be sure? Or... perhaps this is wishful thinking.

I did not say ALL Christians. Many Christians are rational enough to know that God is one, not three Persons.
Wishful thinking? It does not affect my belief in any way so why would I care?

 

[Skywalker]

I did not say ALL Christians. Many Christians are rational enough to know that God is one, not three Persons.
Wishful thinking? It does not affect my belief in any way so why would I care?

God is one in three and three in one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I ran away from your evidence that the Bible fails almost every rational test put to it?

I can't imagine I would run away from this evidence. It sounds very interesting. I've studied theology for many years, and have never come across anything in the many papers I've read (by Christians, atheists and agnostics) to suggest that the
Bible fails almost every rational test put to it.

I am sure that many here would like to see this evidence. How about it, SZ?

You ran away from the discussion. I asked you a question. You did not answer it, instead you only demonstrated that you do not know how to apply logical fallacies

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called the Genetic fallacy, SZ. Look it up, and learn why it is fallacious, because this is not the first time you have been irrational in this way.

Nope, learn how to apply those properly. You jump into conversations that you have not been following. That leads to errors on the part of the person that jumped in.

 

[Skywalker]

I did not say ALL Christians. Many Christians are rational enough to know that God is one, not three Persons.
Wishful thinking? It does not affect my belief in any way so why would I care?

The Trinity is like an egg having a shell, a white, and a yolk, Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad

1. [*]Elohim vs. El
   

   1. Elohim is plural "gods". El is singular "god".
   2. The God of the bible (YHWH) is referred to in the plural Elohim thousands of times.
   3. "Actually, the fact that God is called ʾelohim (translated as “God” when referring to the Lord and as either “god” or “gods” when referring to idols) is not unusual. In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms. To give you just a few examples, Abraham’s servant speaks of his master in the plural in Genesis 24 (ʾadonim, literally, “lords”), Joseph speaks of his master Potiphar in the plural in Genesis 39, and David the king is spoken of as “lords” in 1 Kings 1:11. In Exodus 21, to translate literally and incorrectly, the law speaks of a slave and his masters (ʾadonim, referring to just one master), in Isaiah 19:4, the prophet tells Israel that God will hand them over to a cruel lord (Hebrew, ʾadonim qasheh, a plural noun with a singular adjective), and Isaiah 1:3 tells us that a donkey knows the feeding crib of its masters (baʾalim, referring to just one person; cf. the first half of the verse in which reference is made to an ox’s owner—in the singular). These examples, which are really very common, show clearly that compound plurals were often used to speak of leaders, owners, masters, or kings. How much more then could similar expressions be used to speak of the Lord, the Master, the King, and the God." (Answering Jewish objections to Jesus: Theological objections, Michael L. Brow, A Jew who converted to Christianity, Vol. 2, p9, 2000 AD)

 

[Skywalker]

I did not say ALL Christians. Many Christians are rational enough to know that God is one, not three Persons.
Wishful thinking? It does not affect my belief in any way so why would I care?

The Old Testament believers didn't believe in a triune God with clarity, but the concept of the Trinity is mentioned in the Old Testament. Did the Old Testament Jews Believe In a Triune God?

I think we need the category of progressive revelation, which states that stage by stage in redemptive history, greater and greater clarity as to the nature and activity of God comes.

And with that category, no, I don't think that Old Testament Jews were clear about the nature of God in the way that we are clear with the incarnation and the teaching about the Holy Spirit that comes with Jesus.

However, having said that, I want to be careful not to deny that they believed in the triune God. Because they believed in the God of Jesus Christ. They believed in the true, living God as he was being revealed in special redemptive history, and that God was the triune God.

So they believed in the God who is the triune God. And there were hints along the way, such as, "Let us create man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). I know there are various ways to take that text—like as a royal plural or something—but it is still interesting. It's going to be provocative of a plurality in God.

And then the Spirit of God was real. And then there began to be a sense that the Messiah who was to come is no ordinary, mere man. There's more to it than that.

This is why Jesus, I think, made Psalm 110:1 his favorite psalm. He referred to it over and over and over again: "Whose son is the Messiah? And whose Lord is the Messiah?" And he drew out that he was more than a mere man.

 

[samtonga43]

I did not say ALL Christians. Many Christians are rational enough to know that God is one, not three Persons.
Wishful thinking? It does not affect my belief in any way so why would I care?

Here's what you said:
"Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the the Bible so they do not know what it means".

You used the word 'they'. To whom does 'they' refer?

 

[Trailblazer]

Here's what you said:
"Christianity teaches that, because they have misinterpreted the the Bible so they do not know what it means".

You used the word 'they'. To whom does 'they' refer?

It refers to Christians.

 

[samtonga43]

It refers to Christians.

So you are saying that every Christian has misinterpreted the Bible and as a result no Christian knows what it means.

Am I correct?

 

[samtonga43]

Nope, learn how to apply those properly. You jump into conversations that you have not been following. That leads to errors on the part of the person that jumped in.

No error here, although I can see how much you would like there to be.
You judged something on the basis of where and who it came from. That is called the Genetic fallacy.
Your modus operandi is to deny and run away, which does not leave a good impression. Try to face facts, SZ.

 

[samtonga43]

God is one in three and three in one.

A person is who someone is and a being is what they are. We are all familiar with persons and beings and can readily make the distinction.

God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.

Why Can’t God Be Just the Greatest Being? | Reasonable Faith

 

[Subduction Zone]

No error here, although I can see how much you would like there to be.
You judged something on the basis of where and who it came from. That is called the Genetic fallacy.
Your modus operandi is to deny and run away, which does not leave a good impression. Try to face facts, SZ.

Nope. You do not appear to understand what a valid source is.

Didn't you claim to have taught people how to write college based papers at one point? How would you react if someone used a source far worse than Wikipedia to back up an argument?

You simply do not appear to understand how to apply logical fallacies when your mythical beliefs are threatened.

And you were the one that ran away. You won't have a proper discussion. All you have are false accusations base on your ignorance due to jumping into the middle of a conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A person is who someone is and a being is what they are. We are all familiar with persons and beings and can readily make the distinction.

God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.

Why Can’t God Be Just the Greatest Being? | Reasonable Faith

Oh my! Irony of ironies. WLC is an apologist, he is not a proper authority. What both you and Skywalker have done are appeal to authority fallacies:

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

Not only is WLC an apologist, he relies on logical fallacies for his arguments. People that understand logic or the actual topics being discussed regularly tear him up in debates. The only assets he has are a glib tongue and unbearable smugness.

One cannot both deny the sciences and rely on the sciences for one's arguments, something that WLC regularly does.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Sorry, if this was already said, but that came true after few days, as told here:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

It boils down to how you interpret what Jesus meant by "coming in his kingdom." It can mean a hundred things. Perhaps Jesus was saying, "You will see me riding into Jerusalem with an army of 100,000 soldiers to overthrow the Romans to set up my kingdom." Why isn't that one as good?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The belief that the prophecies about the second coming of Jesus were fulfilled in AD 70 takes Bible verses out of context. Was the Lord's "Second Coming" in A.D. 70?

You say they were fulfilled in 70 CE. 1213 says it was at his transfiguration. Someone else thinks it is a future fulfillment. Can you see why unbelievers take Christianity seriously? Even Christians don't know the real truth.