Has the 2nd coming of Christ already occurred?

[Confused]

Most here know that I tend to follow St. Augustines line of thinking in regards to the anti-Christ not being a literal figure, but a figure of speech referring to the anti-Christ that can be found in all man that can turn them away from God.

I also tend to think (radically, I know) that the 2nd coming of Christ occurred the moment He was resurrected. With Revelations being so cryptic, not to mention based on a supposed dream in which it was revealed, I tend to question the validity of it in that it seems to me that it is a great scare tactic the Catholic church could have used to maintain their power.

So, open for debate:

Is it possible that the 2nd coming of Christ has already occurred? Is there any validity to the thought that Christ will come again and usher in an apocalyptic event? What would be the point of the event, what is stood to gain at the end for mankind?

[dunsapy]

You are incorrect.
Jesus is not God's first creation.
Where do you get that from?
Jesus is the firstborn.
He was not created.
He is eternal
without beginning of days or end of life.
Were we not made in God's image?
We look like him.
God is a man.

The scriptures are in complete harmony
but you lack understanding of them.
The scriptures are about Jesus
but you are denying him.

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.� In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation�? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born� here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,� it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of� occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel� is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh� is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast� are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him�? The Greek word here rendered “all things� is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other�; JB reads “any other�; NE says “anyone else.� (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.� Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
 
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.� (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.�

John 1:1, 2:
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.� (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.�—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.�—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.�—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L

The Trinity is not found in the bible ,it is a pagan teaching. Which started in Christianity around the 4 th century.

If you don't believe me, believe what Jesus himself says.

John 20: 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’�
If you believe in the Trinity, then the bible is full of contradictions.

[InTheFlesh]

The bible does not contradict itself
nor have you proved any contradiction thus far.

How can Jesus be created
if he created all things
and there was nothing created without him?
Jesus has no beginning.
He is eternal.
How can someone eternal
have been created?

[kayky]

The bible does not contradict itself
nor have you proved any contradiction thus far.

How can Jesus be created
if he created all things
and there was nothing created without him?
Jesus has no beginning.
He is eternal.
How can someone eternal
have been created?

Of course the Bible contains contradictions. How can this be denied?

[dunsapy]

Of course the Bible contains contradictions. How can this be denied?

Like what?

[kayky]

There are so many. Here's one: What color was the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? Matthew says it was scarlet. John says it was purple.

[dunsapy]

The color of the cloak with which Jesus Christ was clothed on the day of his execution has caused some persons to argue that a discrepancy exists in the Bible record with reference to this garment. Matthew said that the soldiers “draped him with a scarlet cloak� (Mt 27:28), while Mark and John say that it was purple. (Mr 15:17; Joh 19:2) However, instead of being a discrepancy, such a variation in describing the garment’s color merely gives evidence of the individuality of the Gospel writers and the fact that they were not in collusion. Matthew described the cloak as it appeared to him, that is, according to his evaluation of color, and he emphasized the garment’s red hue. John and Mark subdued the red tint, calling it purple. “Purple� can be applied to any color having components of both blue and red. So, Mark and John agree with Matthew that the garment was red to some extent. Of course, background and light reflection could have given it different casts. A body of water varies in color at different times, depending upon the particular color of the sky and the reflection of light at a given time. So, when such factors are considered, it is seen that the Gospel writers were not in conflict in describing the color of the cloak that mocking Roman soldiers clothed Christ with on the last day of his human

People do this all the time to day. My wife buys some shoes and I say they are blue, but she comes back at me and says they no they are Lavendar.
I am an artists and get colors like that mixed up all the time, that are close.

[kayky]

It seems to me that all you are doing here is making an excuse for the inconsistency. The inconsistency still exists. You are simply admitting that the Bible is prone to human error.

[dunsapy]

It seems to me that all you are doing here is making an excuse for the inconsistency. The inconsistency still exists. You are simply admitting that the Bible is prone to human error.

Well... I guess your right. The bibles not perfect after all.

[byofrcs]

There are so many. Here's one: What color was the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? Matthew says it was scarlet. John says it was purple.

You would have to look at the original source to compare the colours but I wouldn't hold up much hope on interpreting this as being meaningful. Purple is used to describe a wide range of colours from blue to red or magenta to violet or violet to red depending up the scheme used to represent the colour.

In a work I can write that the picture was violet and then if it was subsequently burnt without an independent contemporaneous record of the event no one can say if I am right or wrong.

To verify something you do not compare it internally (good fiction should by default be internally consistent within its own canonical works - nothing new is gained if it isn't) but you compare it to external references that are independent of the work. If a 3rd party described the cloak as Green then there is an error but we have no one else describing pretty much anything of the critical events. In this respect the Bible cannot be verified at all. I will leave it to the reader to imply how this impacts the verisimilitude of the Bible because we are forbidden by the forum from voicing this logical conclusion here.

[dunsapy]

You would have to look at the original source to compare the colours but I wouldn't hold up much hope on interpreting this as being meaningful. Purple is used to describe a wide range of colours from blue to red or magenta to violet or violet to red depending up the scheme used to represent the colour.

In a work I can write that the picture was violet and then if it was subsequently burnt without an independent contemporaneous record of the event no one can say if I am right or wrong.

To verify something you do not compare it internally (good fiction should by default be internally consistent within its own canonical works - nothing new is gained if it isn't) but you compare it to external references that are independent of the work. If a 3rd party described the cloak as Green then there is an error but we have no one else describing pretty much anything of the critical events. In this respect the Bible cannot be verified at all. I will leave it to the reader to imply how this impacts the verisimilitude of the Bible because we are forbidden by the forum from voicing this logical conclusion here.

Who's to say what the color actually was. If three people see car going by, they could each say it was a different color. All the answers could be around the real color, that doesn't mean any of them are wrong. My car color looks very different in different light.
If 5 people see a crime and then are asked questions to what they saw, you get 5 slightly different answers. But none of them is wrong, it's just that people bring out different evidence. The bible is like this as well, you will get different points of view from different writers, one writer may bring in information that the other didn't. That doesn't make the information wrong . What it does, is give a more complete answer.
I don't pretend to know everything about the bible , there is lots that I don't know, but I think there is enough known that there is no other choice.

To be serious about this, there isn't anything here that would cast doubt on the bible's reliability, or accuracy.

I know there is many so called contradictions that are on the net, and people use those to attack the bibles creditability. Over the last couple of years , I have answered a lot of those.