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

[Trailblazer]

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

Am I correct?

No, I am not saying that no Christian knows what anything in the Bible means. When I said "that" I was referring to the Trinity belief: #1361 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 2:56 PM

However, I believe that Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible, so they do not know what certain things mean. Some of the primary things Christians have misunderstood are the oneness of God, the nature of Jesus, what the Holy Spirit is and when and how it was sent, and who would be the return of Christ and how the second coming would come about. They also misunderstood the meaning of the soul and what would happen when we die, what kind of body we would get and they also misunderstood the meaning of heaven and hell. The Baha'i Writings explain all these things.

Daniel 12 explains why the Christians would misinterpret and thus misunderstand the Bible.

Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible because they did not have the key to unlock the meaning. Because of the way the Bible was written, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning. Christians disagreed as to what the Bible meant and none of them clearly understood much of what it meant, and that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. That is understandable because it was prophesied by Daniel that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it:

Daniel Chapter 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The early Church fathers interpreted the Bible the way they did because they could not fully understand it. For example, they knew Jesus was more than just a man because that was obvious, but they did not understand His twofold nature so they decided that Jesus must be God incarnate.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself." Gleanings, p. 66

Now, Christians continue to interpret the Bible the way it has always been interpreted...

The "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end, until the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days came. The 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

We do not have to run to and fro anymore. Unsealing the Book means we can now understand the true meaning of the Bible. By reading the Baha’i Writings that explain the true meaning of the Bible, we can understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before (knowledge shall be increased).

I am not saying that Christians did not understand anything in the Bible, I am saying that they did not fully understand the Bible... As Daniel said, we will know more in the future, in 2300 years:

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I just explained why Christians did not know what that meant in this post: #1381 Trailblazer, 3 minutes ago

BTW, welcome back, I missed you and I was getting worried about you.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

God operates with the Son and the Holy Spirit, but God doses not exist as three Persons. God is One.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God, an emanation from God. God is like the sun and the Holy Spirit is like the rays of the sun. God remains in His own high place, and does not ever descend to earth and become a man.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which became visible and evident in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror, but God did not descend into the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the God was visible and manifest in this mirror.

27: THE TRINITY

 

[samtonga43]

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?
Nope. Comprehension fail once more.

How would you react if someone used a source far worse than Wikipedia to back up an argument?

I would examine the source to establish its success or failure at backing up the argument. Then, and only then, would I comment. To dismiss the source without looking at what the source actually said is an example of the Genetic fallacy. You know - what you just did.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 7124287, member: 63191"]You simply do not appear to understand how to apply logical fallacies when your mythical beliefs are threatened.
[/QUOTE]
There's an example of cognitive bias in your sentence above, SZ. Can you find it?
I've just noticed the word 'threatened'.
Please tell me you are not fooling your ego by pretending that your non-arguments could threaten anyone...

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.

Excuses, excuses!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't you claim to have taught people how to write college based papers at one point?
Nope. Comprehension fail once more.

I know that you made some sort of bogus source, You are as I said really not worth the effort. Not remembering all of your fails is not a "Comprehension failure". I would turn down the sense of self importance if I were you.

Try again.

I would examine the source to establish its success or failure at backing up the argument. Then, and only then, would I comment. To dismiss the source without looking at what the source actually said is an example of the Genetic fallacy. You know - what you just did.

Wrong again. What makes you think that I am new to this game. Do you not know how poor your own sources are? Talk about never writing a college level paper. One must be able to find valid sources when one does that. guess what? For a college level paper one needs to be able to find valid sources. Apologists simply do not qualify as sources. They are not scholars. They do not publish peer reviewed papers in history journals. If they did the amazing logical fallacies that they use would cause their papers to be laughed at and rejected in no time.

There's an example of cognitive bias in your sentence above, SZ. Can you find it?
I've just noticed the word 'threatened'.
Please tell me you are not fooling your ego by pretending that your non-arguments could threaten anyone...


Excuses, excuses!

Om y Gawd! Such amazing projection. You ran away from a polite discussion. I did not . That indicates that you are threatened. You also are assuming that I have never debated this before. There is no "cognitive bias, that is your act. You used a poor source. I really do not have time to educate you in all of your errors. Right now I can only point them out and laugh. Do you really thing that anyone but Kool Aid Drinkers take WLC seriously at all? Apologetics only work for those looking for an excuse to believe. They do not convince anyone outside of Christianity. For the same reason that you laugh at Muslim apologists defending Mohammad's trip around the Moon and other stories non believers laugh at your apologists. Try to find actual scholars that support your beliefs. There are some, but I can easily find scholars that disagree.

If you want to try to have a polite discussion I am all for it. I am not the one running away here.

 

[1213]

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?

If it can make hundreds of things, why do you think yours is right? Because it can be used against Jesus? Why are you against Jesus and want to make him a fool?

The army interpretation has nothing to support it and it would also make Jesus contradictory, that is why I think it is not good. I prefer to understand things as the speaker probably wanted him to be understood. I do so with all who speak, also with you, I don’t try to interpret you in a way that would make you look wrong.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

If it can make hundreds of things, why do you think yours is right? Because it can be used against Jesus? Why are you against Jesus and want to make him a fool?

The army interpretation has nothing to support it and it would also make Jesus contradictory, that is why I think it is not good. I prefer to understand things as the speaker probably wanted him to be understood. I do so with all who speak, also with you, I don’t try to interpret you in a way that would make you look wrong.

People are free to believe their interpretation just like you are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People are free to believe their interpretation just like you are.

Which is why there are sooooooooooooooooooooooo many of them.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Which is why there are sooooooooooooooooooooooo many of them.

Exxxxxxxxxxxactly!

 

[samtonga43]

I know that you made some sort of bogus source, You are as I said really not worth the effort. Not remembering all of your fails is not a "Comprehension failure". I would turn down the sense of self importance if I were you.
Try again.

If you don’t remember, don’t make assumptions. Either look it up or say nothing. You read (past tense) something I said about students I have worked with and assumed that it was to do with writing papers. That was, as is usual in your case, a false assumption. What’s more it was not ‘a bogus source’. That is another false assumption (and a comprehension failure).
I'm betting that "You're not worth the effort" will be your exuse for running away once again.

Wrong again. What makes you think that I am new to this game.

It is a false assumption to say that I think you are new to this game, SZ.
Duh! When will you learn?
You say that I am wrong, so please tell us what you think the genetic fallacy is, SZ. Tell me why I’m wrong.
And don't run away.

Om y Gawd! Such amazing projection. You ran away from a polite discussion. I did not .

Although I have asked you several times now to produce your evidence for this statement (bolded by me) you have yet to do so.

That indicates that you are threatened.

LOL! Would you like me to feel threatened, SZ? I'm sorry, but I really
cannot see this happening; you are much too irrational.

You also are assuming that I have never debated this before.

This assumption is a false assumption, SZ. But, if you have debated this before, I hope you did so in a more rational manner than is conveyed here.

There is no "cognitive bias, that is your act. You used a poor source. I really do not have time to educate you in all of your errors. Right now I can only point them out and laugh.

You obviously have not recognized the cognitive bias in the sentence I pointed out. Right over your head it sped. Never mind. You say that you laugh, and therein lies your problem, SZ. I would advise you to stop laughing and learn. (But you're not laughing at all, are you, SZ?)

Do you really thing that anyone but Kool Aid Drinkers take WLC seriously at all?

I certainly do. And the fact that you do not says a great deal more about you than it does about Craig. Have a look at the Reasonable Faith Forums. You wouldn’t last two minutes.
From—
How credible is William Lane Craig in academia?
How credible is William Lane Craig in academia?
"Certainly one gets the impression from his debates that he is very sharp and is able to formulate rather cogent responses on the fly, but they are far from displaying the extent of his knowledge and philosophical acumen. I think if you read his more scholarly works, you'll be tremendously impressed, even if you disagree with most of his conclusions, especially by the diversity of topics on which he can speak.

For instance, his more recent book "God and Abstract Objects: The Coherence of Theism: Aseity", published by Springer, is representative of this. In addition to this written work, he has also given two lectures which I highly recommend, the C.S. Lewis Society Lecture and the Cadbury lectures In these lectures you get better grasp of Craig's philosophical acumen and range of knowledge than in his debates---it is truly astonishing how much this fellow knows".
Eli Bashwinger

(I hope you approve of stack exchange as a source?)

Plenty more scholarly recommendations for Craig's work if you wish. Just say the word! [/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don’t remember, don’t make assumptions. Either look it up or say nothing. You read (past tense) something I said about students I have worked with and assumed that it was to do with writing papers. That was, as is usual in your case, a false assumption. What’s more it was not ‘a bogus source’. That is another false assumption (and a comprehension failure).
I'm betting that "You're not worth the effort" will be your exuse for running away once again.

Once again you failed right off the bat. I made no assumptions. You are engaging in too much self importance again.

It is a false assumption to say that I think you are new to this game, SZ.
Duh! When will you learn?
You say that I am wrong, so please tell us what you think the genetic fallacy is, SZ. Tell me why I’m wrong.
And don't run away.

LOL!! Your posts indicate that you think that. Or worse about you.

You bore me. When you can be polite and post properly I will have a discussion with you. I really do not feel like correcting every single error that you make. I have better things to do.

Just remember, it was you that ran away. Now you are just raising smoke screens.

 

[samtonga43]

Once again you failed right off the bat. I made no assumptions. You are engaging in too much self importance again.

Of course you did. You said that I taught people how to write college based papers.
I do not.
You assumed that I did teach people how to write college based papers.
Your assumption that I did this is wrong.
So ... it follows, as night follows day, that you, my friend made a false assumption.
QED
I do hope you can see the logic in this, SZ. I can see that you can’t take correction of any kind, but for your own sake, don’t continue to deny your weaknesses; we all have them.

LOL!! Your posts indicate that you think that. Or worse about you. You bore me. When you can be polite and post properly I will have a discussion with you. I really do not feel like correcting every single error that you make. I have better things to do. Just remember, it was you that ran away. Now you are just raising smoke screens.

But it is you who cannot tell me where / when / why and from whom I 'ran away'. You have been asked over and over again, but the information on which this accusation depends is nowhere to be seen; I wonder why?
Over and over again you say that I am wrong about something or other, but continually refuse (unable?) to explain why I am wrong. So please tell us, for example, what you think the genetic fallacy is, SZ. Tell me why I’m wrong.

And don't run away.

 

[samtonga43]

God operates with the Son and the Holy Spirit, but God doses not exist as three Persons. God is One.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God, an emanation from God. God is like the sun and the Holy Spirit is like the rays of the sun. God remains in His own high place, and does not ever descend to earth and become a man.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which became visible and evident in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror, but God did not descend into the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the God was visible and manifest in this mirror.

Christ said to Philip:
"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me",
It's hard to interpret this without seeing the Father and the Son as in some sense one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you did. You said that I taught people how to write college based papers.
I do not.
You assumed that I did teach people how to write college based papers.
Your assumption that I did this is wrong.
So ... it follows, as night follows day, that you, my friend made a false assumption.
QED
I do hope you can see the logic in this, SZ. I can see that you can’t take correction of any kind, but for your own sake, don’t continue to deny your weaknesses; we all have them.

But it is you who cannot tell me where / when / why and from whom I 'ran away'. You have been asked over and over again, but the information on which this accusation depends is nowhere to be seen; I wonder why?
Over and over again you say that I am wrong about something or other, but continually refuse (unable?) to explain why I am wrong. So please tell us, for example, what you think the genetic fallacy is, SZ. Tell me why I’m wrong.

And don't run away.

Still posting a wall of nonsense every time that a fail of yours is explained to you.

And I told you when you ran away when you first did it. If you won't go back and check your own fails why should I do so for you. I can tell you the question that I asked you.

If you can answer without posting a wall of nonsense I will ask again.

 

[samtonga43]

Still posting a wall of nonsense every time that a fail of yours is explained to you.

Oh! Too much text in one post? Yes, some people can’t cope with this. I shall try to post in sections, so it shouldn’t be too much for you to read at once.

If you can answer without posting a wall of nonsense I will ask again.

Nonsense to you; common sense to me. I don’t suppose you will be able to tell me what is nonsensical? Go on – surprise me!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh! Too much text in one post? Yes, some people can’t cope with this. I shall try to post in sections, so it shouldn’t be too much for you to read at once.

Nonsense to you; common sense to me. I don’t suppose you will be able to tell me what is nonsensical? Go on – surprise me!

Okay so you cannot post properly and you are runner away once again. This is why you are not worth my time. You apparently lost all of your other debates, which explains your fascination with the logical fallacies that you still don't understand.

When you are tired of running away we may be able to have a discussion, but you I am not getting my hopes up.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christ said to Philip:
"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me",
It's hard to interpret this without seeing the Father and the Son as in some sense one.

Jesus was the Son of God, but the Son is not identical to the Father, even though the Father is in the Son.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jesus was a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings are identical with the Will of God Himself. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God was manifest in the flesh and that is why Jesus said to the Jews:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

 

[samtonga43]

Still posting a wall of nonsense every time that a fail of yours is explained to you.

Nonsense to you because your cognitive bias inhibits your comprehension.

And I told you when you ran away when you first did it. If you won't go back and check your own fails why should I do so for you. I can tell you the question that I asked you.

You want me to 'check fails' that I have not made? You want to convince me that I 'ran away' when I did not? Are you familiar with the term 'gaslighting'?
You say "I told you when you ran away when you first did it".
Your writing lacks clarity, SZ. This sentence makes zero sense. What do you mean? When I first did what?

You are being very vague, you know. I have done something you dislike, called by you a ‘fail’ and you remind me of this ad infinitum, but you appear to be unable to find this ‘something’ Can you give me a clue?

If you can answer without posting a wall of nonsense I will ask again.

Ask? Ask what?

 

[samtonga43]

Okay so you cannot post properly and you are runner away once again. This is why you are not worth my time. You apparently lost all of your other debates, which explains your fascination with the logical fallacies that you still don't understand.

I lost all my other debates? So this will be another false assumption, unless of course, you can put your money where your mouth is. Can you?
(You still have not told us what you think the genetic fallacy states...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense to you because your cognitive bias inhibits your comprehension.

You want me to 'check fails' that I have not made? You want to convince me that I 'ran away' when I did not? Are you familiar with the term 'gaslighting'?
You say "I told you when you ran away when you first did it".
Your writing lacks clarity, SZ. This sentence makes zero sense. What do you mean? When I first did what?

You are being very vague, you know. I have done something you dislike, called by you a ‘fail’ and you remind me of this ad infinitum, but you appear to be unable to find this ‘something’ Can you give me a clue?


Ask? Ask what?

LOL. Projection. Try again.