Jesus was "supposed" to return very soon

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:34 pm

In the NT we see a few mentions of the return of Jesus' being very soon and when I ask the question I usually get the same ole answer, "a day to god is like a thousand years". This doesn't mean anything to me and I feel is intellectually dishonest because the verses that promote a quick return are in direct contradiction to this one verse that people cling to in order to digest the fact that it has been 2000 years and there is no sign of Jesus. People take this one verse and disregard the many other verses that contradict it. How can people pick and choose?

With that said, I would like to bring the verses forth and analyze them against 2 Peter 3:8

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Note that this is talking about the Judgement which is the return of the Christ.

First verse in opposition to this:

1 Thessalonians 4:13

"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 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. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words."

In this verse, the fallen asleep are dead, but with the mentality that they are waiting for resurrection. Now we see this part, "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord". This is a statement that what they are about to hear is from god. Then we read, "that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord", followed by later "we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together". We see the preaching of the supposed author Paul telling this congregation that they who are still alive at the coming of Christ will not precede those who have already died. This congregation was supposed to see Jesus' return according to Paul.

Just one more and I will hand over the floor to whoever wants to comment.

Mark 13:30

Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Now I want people to know that Mark is the most accurate account we have because it is the earliest gospel. It is the simplest and straight to the point.

In this verse Jesus just finished a discourse about the end and the return of himself saying he knows not the time but only his father. Ok, thats fine, but he says this generation or age meaning in Greek this group of people living now when rendered with the word "houtos" meaning this, now, as in visibly present. There is no way around this contradiction because the book of Mark is the most accurate gospel we have and most authentic with the least amount of years of oral tampering before its publication. Jesus according to Mark is saying that the generation back then would see his return. [/b]

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:35 pm

I only picked up one question, and I think it was rhetorical.
Is there a question for debate?

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:45 pm

Sorry, I guess I didn't make my intentions clear. Was Jesus supposed to return soon as in back then or in an indefinite time reaching far into the future? Also why do people use the one verse I quoted and cling to it when there are many more that contradict it?

If Jesus was supposed to return back then as I have evidenced, we are looking at a false faith and religion. If he is supposed to return at a later date then please explain in light of the two scriptures I posted contradicting that assumption. Note that there are many more that I will use to back up my understanding that Christ never came when he said he would.

Skyangel · Post by **Skyangel** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:48 pm

Nickman wrote:Sorry, I guess I didn't make my intentions clear. Was Jesus supposed to return soon as in back then or in an indefinite time reaching far into the future? Also why do people use the one verse I quoted and cling to it when there are many more that contradict it?

If Jesus was supposed to return back then as I have evidenced, we are looking at a false faith and religion. If he is supposed to return at a later date then please explain in light of the two scriptures I posted contradicting that assumption. Note that there are many more that I will use to back up my understanding that Christ never came when he said he would.

Jesus also said he would NEVER leave them. IF he told the truth and never left them, why would he need to return in the first place? If you have a friend who never leaves your side but is always with you, why would they need to return if they have not gone any place?

Hebrews 13:5 [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:51 pm

Does a return not necessitate an absence, though?

Skyangel · Post by **Skyangel** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:03 pm

AkiThePirate wrote:Does a return not necessitate an absence, though?

Yes, logically it does.

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:16 pm

So how can one return having never left?

Skyangel · Post by **Skyangel** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:27 pm

AkiThePirate wrote:So how can one return having never left?

By creating an illusion of leaving. By "disappearing" while still being present but unseen.

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:28 pm

So when the Bible makes two contradicting statements, one of them was not meant literally?

Skyangel · Post by **Skyangel** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:48 pm

AkiThePirate wrote:So when the Bible makes two contradicting statements, one of them was not meant literally?

In my opinion and perception, when the Bible makes two contradicting statements, neither of the statements are meant literally because when they are taken/interpreted literally they obviously appear to contradict each other but when taken/interpreted metaphorically as a concept they don't contradict each other but make sense. At least they do to me.