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

[samtonga43]

This thread. Your refusal to enter into a polite discussion without false accusations that you cannot support.
Be polite. Support your claims, and we can get along.

Will you set an example? I haven't seem much politeness or support for your claims so far. One example would be your words above. You say that I refuse to enter into a polite discussion without false accusations that I cannot support.
And what do you say when I ask for evidence of this?
Your evidence = "This thread".
You are babbling, SZ. Are you surprised that no one knows what you are talking about?

"Silence is not always a sign of wisdom, but babbling is ever a mark of folly".
Benjamin Franklin

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

It is a way of passing time on a slow weekend?

I know the typical defense that will come of this. Excuses always, but never admitting that the Bible does support genocide.

Origen had a novel interpretation to blunt the ugliness of this verse:

When Psalm 137 says happy are those who bash the enemy’s infants against the rocks, he claimed that it meant "to dash your sins against the rocks of reason".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Will you set an example? I haven't seem much politeness or support for your claims so far. One example would be your words above. You say that I refuse to enter into a polite discussion without false accusations that I cannot support.
And what do you say when I ask for evidence of this?
Your evidence = "This thread".
You are babbling, SZ. Are you surprised that no one knows what you are talking about?

"Silence is not always a sign of wisdom, but babbling is ever a mark of folly".
Benjamin Franklin

I have been polite. I have only laughed at your more ridiculous claims, I have not tried to insult you in return. And as I told you before, you disqualify yourself from demanding evidence when you refuse to enter into a polite discussion. I could dig back and find those examples, but as I already told you more than once, you are not that important to me.

If it is a topic that I care about I will support my claims. Getting a person that is likely not honest enough to admit that they ran away is just not worth it.

The time to question an accusation is when it first comes out. Not pages and pages later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Origen had a novel interpretation to blunt the ugliness of this verse:

When Psalm 137 says happy are those who bash the enemy’s infants against the rocks, he claimed that it meant "to dash your sins against the rocks of reason".

Wow! Just Wow! Now that is a prime example of creative reinterpretation.

 

[Trailblazer]

“A God made up of three parts”?
These are the words of someone who is shackled by literalism.

That is essentially what Trinitarian Christians believe.

What is the Trinity Doctrine?

A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every term in this statement (God, exists, as or in, equally divine, Person) has been variously understood. ... Yet the tradition asserts exactly one god.Jul 23, 2009

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The person who says that the Trinity is ‘logical’ and that they have ‘proof’ of this, knows nothing about the Trinity.

The Baha'i Trinity is logical, the Christian Trinity is illogical.

 

[samtonga43]

What an epic failure on God's part.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. ... John 3:16

And yet 2/3's of the world will perish. Jesus should be proud of dad.

Ah! You think that God is a kind of puppet-master in the sky, don't you? We humans have a part to play too, you know.
Anyway, you have no way of knowing that two thirds of the world will perish
***
Who will not perish? Those who believe will not perish.

 

[samtonga43]

How do you interpret
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Psalms 137:9

I thought that no one was ever going to point gleefully to this verse, saying AHA! Got you now, Christian! Look at this sentence; God kills little children in a horrible way! How can anyone believe in a God like this?

Shall we look at context? On second thought you will learn more if you look at the context yourself.
Ask yourself:
What genre (type of writing) is this?
Who is speaking?
Why is he angry?
Who is his anger directed at?
What hugely important event was taking place at this time?
Find out what the Apodictic Law was all about.

After you've done all that, get back to me.

 

[samtonga43]

It is a way of passing time on a slow weekend?

I know the typical defense that will come of this. Excuses always, but never admitting that the Bible does support genocide.

Does God support genocide? If you think He does, please provide evidence. No running away!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does God support genocide? If you think He does, please provide evidence. No running away!!

Let me add a clarifier. If one reads the Bible literally then he supports genocide. Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[John1.12]

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

Paul doesn't say it will be in his lifetime. He's informing them that they haven't missed it .

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I thought that no one was ever going to point gleefully to this verse, saying AHA! Got you now, Christian! Look at this sentence; God kills little children in a horrible way! How can anyone believe in a God like this?

Shall we look at context? On second thought you will learn more if you look at the context yourself.
Ask yourself:
What genre (type of writing) is this?
Who is speaking?
Why is he angry?
Who is his anger directed at?
What hugely important event was taking place at this time?
Find out what the Apodictic Law was all about.

After you've done all that, get back to me.

I don't have to do all that. This is all I need:

Robert Alter, American professor of Hebrew language and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley says, “No moral justification can be offered for this notorious concluding line. All one can do is to recall the background of outraged feeling that triggers the conclusion.”

Psalm 137 7-9 Understanding Violence in the Bible | HuffPost

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul doesn't say it will be in his lifetime.

Did Paul write the Gospels?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Paul doesn't say it will be in his lifetime. He's informing them that they haven't missed it .

 

[samtonga43]

You either have a reading comprehension fail or an ability to debate honestly. By the rules of debate that some creationists use the Bible can even disprove the existence of God. At least 12 different times.

It's fun debating with young-earth creationists isn't it. It's very easy of course; one does have to think too deeply when debating literalists. I expect you're speaking of ...
"Look! The Bible says there is no God!" Got you!
Easily refuted of course. A child could do it.
(In fact, I've seen a child do it).

And I have never seen the subject of slavery examined out of context. It is very clear that the Bible does support it. It is the interpretation that it is against it that takes quite the stretch.

To which interpretation do you refer?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Ah! You think that God is a kind of puppet-master in the sky, don't you? We humans have a part to play too, you know.
Anyway, you have no way of knowing that two thirds of the world will perish
***
Who will not perish? Those who believe will not perish.

That's 2/3's of the world---at least.

 

[John1.12]

Could you quote the verse please then where Paul says it WILL be during his lifetime?

 

[John1.12]

Did Paul write the Gospels?

nope ,obviously.

 

[samtonga43]

I don't have to do all that. This is all I need:

Robert Alter, American professor of Hebrew language and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley says, “No moral justification can be offered for this notorious concluding line. All one can do is to recall the background of outraged feeling that triggers the conclusion.”

You got it.

 

[John1.12]

That is essentially what Trinitarian Christians believe.

What is the Trinity Doctrine?

A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every term in this statement (God, exists, as or in, equally divine, Person) has been variously understood. ... Yet the tradition asserts exactly one god.Jul 23, 2009

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Baha'i Trinity is logical, the Christian Trinity is illogical.

The God head is as it is revealed. God cannot be just so that we understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's fun debating with young-earth creationists isn't it. It's very easy of course; one does have to think too deeply when debating literalists. I expect you're speaking of ...
"Look! The Bible says there is no God!" Got you!
Easily refuted of course. A child could do it.
(In fact, I've seen a child do it).

And that earns a big "whoosh". That point sailed way over your head. Of course a child could do it. You should have asked why by creationist standards that the Bible refutes God. Once again you jumped too soon to a conclusion. It looks as if you thought that I was being serious. What I was doing is pointing out the flawed reasoning of another. I am betting that you do not even know what creationists do to merit such a point.

To which interpretation do you refer?

I have seen quite a few. Why don't you give it your best shot? I am not going to give any specific one's because they are not apt to be yours and if I tried to claim that they are all of them you could rightfully claim "strawman".