/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

To make matters worse, St. Paul also indicates that those days were the last days and the end was imminent:

>“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2)

>“Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11)

>“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)

To the point where Paul thinks you won't even have time to find a woman:

>“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)

And Peter:

>“The end of all things is near…” (1 Peter 4:7)

And still more (without greentext, it weakens bold text):

“For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)

There is no doubt about what Paul means here: he expects to be "raptured" to the Lord within in his own lifetime.

This did not happen, Paul died in Rome, probably by beheading, probably by the Emperor Nero. So what happened here? Was Paul wrong? If so, what else was he wrong about?

I'm upset at myself for not having spotted this before. I also demand an explanation. If anyone is a candidate for true divine inspiration, it is Paul, who claimed God was literally talking to him, so if this doesn't work out, what hope is there that other Scriptures are correct?

I have now read the apologetics' defense on this, a summary of the arguments, and nothing works. I hope you guys have more solid material than what I've found so far.

If all else fails, I'll simply assume Jesus never actually said that and the authors of the texts added them to instill a sense of urgency in people.

That is not such a problem to me, since I don't hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God, but for those who do, most of you I think, I don't know how you'll get out of that one, but I sure want to know how you'll proceed (or have proceeded, if you've encountered this problem before).

As an aside, I wasn't aware that Paul literally described what later authors termed "the rapture".

What's the source of the time between the Rapture and the Second Coming? I think they say it's 7 years, but I don't know where this is from.

Bro, I dont have much time right now since im going out, but let me write a bit on this.

1844 was said by some people to be the year of the Second Coming but Ellen wrote that thats wasnt so, that it was the year whe Jesus Christ moved from the Holy Place to the Holies of Holies to give start to the End of the Days trought the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_judgment

>>5901

I dont believe in the rapture, but aghh dont have time to explain right now.

>>5899

>>5898

Check out my bibles notes on those verses here https://lumina.bible.org/ many are very helpful.

Its the NET Bible.

>video related: a short thing.

Matthew 16:27-28

>For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

the very next sentence

Matthew 17

>And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Peter, James and John were the "some who are standing here". they got a depiction of what Jesus would appear like, coming in his kingdom. the 2 witnesses that come from heaven with Jesus to preach on the earth after the rapture in Revelation 11, are Moses and Elijah.

regarding Matthew 26:64, the KJV reads "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

ye is plural. so he's not talking to the high Priest specifically when referring to coming in the clouds of heaven and sitting on the right hand of power

the reality is everyone will see Jesus sitting on the right hand of power. during the great white throne judgement.

regarding Luke 21, the word "generation" doesn't just mean "people living at the same time", it also means a group of people with a similar character/cause, i.e. believers in Christ. believers will not pass away.

>>5920

> To put it briefly, Pentacost is the day you are looking for

It doesn't work because Scripture clearly says that will be the day God "will reard each person according to what they have done" (Mat. 16:27).

That did not happen on Pentecost Day; this is the day of Judgement and it was supposed to take place within the Apostles' life.

>>5921

You're trying to suggest that it's about the Transfiguration, rather than the Second Coming, but the problem is that the Transfiguration doesn't include judgement, whereas this event is described as a judgement:

Matthew 16: 27, 28:

>For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

>Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

>he will reward each person according to what they have done.

Clearly this did not happen with the Transfiguration, so that's not what it's about.

>ye

Plural or polite, actually. King James' translation is less relevant than the original here, and unless I'm mistaken, the original has it as addressing the high priest alone. Politeness and plural are often the same thing due to the origin of politeness in the dual emperor and simultanous address (talking to both emperors whenever you address one of them, resulting in plural used to show hierarchy).

>generation

In context, it really just means "generation", which fits the other quotes about the Second Coming happening within the audience's lifetime.

Paul further confirms that they all expected the Second Coming to happen within a short time.

Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, everyone expects it to happen within a few years.

I have done some research and still cannot explain this away.

I'd like to hear from everyone on this issue. Personally, this has taken a huge toll on my faith and I am unable to move forward before I have resolved this.

Please don't ignore this thread, and don't ignore Paul's words either. All the attempts at explaining this discrepancy away have failed, so far as I know, and for now, I'm only left with the notion that these particular quotes were added by others, or that both Christ and Paul were in error, which is still a very significant parameter to consider. If they were in error on this, what else might they be in error about?

I'm extremely concerned.

>>5897

>The High Priest never saw this. I thought of arguing that he would see it after he dies, but Christ clearly says "coming on the clouds of heaven", which implies his coming from heaven to earth, on clouds. This isn't a personal vision, Christ is announcing His return within the High Priest's lifetime, and I'm guessing this man is old already

He will see it after he is resurrected.

>4. Christ was somehow wrong about the nature and time of His return

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

>>5898

>To make matters worse, St. Paul also indicates that those days were the last days and the end was imminent:

He thought so, probably.

>>5899

> If anyone is a candidate for true divine inspiration, it is Paul, who claimed God was literally talking to him, so if this doesn't work out, what hope is there that other Scriptures are correct?

It's like with man not allowing to wear long hair, it is his thing and bears no spiritual quality.

>>5921

Possibly.

>>5964

> Personally, this has taken a huge toll on my faith and I am unable to move forward before I have resolved this.

Really? This one? Not sure if I can help you here, just because these verses do not concern me like at all.

>>5963

don't forget the chapter splits aren't divinely inspired.

if you read it straight through from the end of chapter 16 into 17, you would probably perceive it differently. it seems too much of a coincidence that literally the following sentence he mentions: 1. some standing there from the previous few sentences, 2. seeing Christ as he will appear during the 2nd coming… oh, and he just happens to have the 2 witnesses who will be with him at the 2nd coming too

>>5975

>don't forget the chapter splits aren't divinely inspired.

Why?

>>5900

>I have now read the apologetics' defense on this, a summary of the arguments, and nothing works

That's normal. Apologetics also don't like to say they don't know, so they throw out stuff in verbosity and hope you'll look at it like a roscharch ink blot and persuade yourself, or simply trust they know better.

>It's like with man not allowing to wear long hair, it is his thing and bears no spiritual quality

There should be a distinction between the Progressivist teachings of Jesus in the 4 gospels, and everything that Paul (or someone writing as Paul) inserted while piggybacking on his death (new rules, overturning old customs, serving the Gentiles, and the concept of the holy ghost,) which can be taken as the religion of Fundamentalists and the church. The 2 religions are at odds with each other, which is a source of various fissions. I never liked Paul's books or the letters when I was a Christian, they're harder to read and less interesting than the 4 gospels. At the time I treated them as a rehash of everything that mattered, because I thought the 4 gospels came straight from the horse's mouth.

>>5921

For more proof of the rapture… Matthew 27:52

>And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…

Apparently Jesus's resurrection was a rather boring and common event at the time, given there were all these dead people walking up and down the streets. But of course, no one wrote about them except there, so I discredit it. It still makes me wonder as an Atheist if one of those other resurrected people was the real messiah.

>>5988

>That's normal. Apologetics also don't like to say they don't know, so they throw out stuff in verbosity and hope you'll look at it like a roscharch ink blot and persuade yourself, or simply trust they know better.

This makes no sense, either they have an argument that you don't believe, as the second part implies, or they have none, as the first part implies.

Both at the same time is obviously impossible.

>There should be a distinction between the Progressivist teachings of Jesus in the 4 gospels, and everything that Paul (or someone writing as Paul) inserted while piggybacking on his death (new rules, overturning old customs, serving the Gentiles, and the concept of the holy ghost,) which can be taken as the religion of Fundamentalists and the church. The 2 religions are at odds with each other, which is a source of various fissions. I never liked Paul's books or the letters when I was a Christian, they're harder to read and less interesting than the 4 gospels. At the time I treated them as a rehash of everything that mattered, because I thought the 4 gospels came straight from the horse's mouth.

Reminder that this is the kind of "Christianity" that lead you to atheism and posting with a sorceror flag.

This is also why we have to fight Modernism and Protestantism in general, because in the end this is always the result.

>>5992

>Remember that the rapture started as a thing at the 18th century.

s-sure

>those pics

wowowow

That's batshit insane stuff here, you should adress it in the adventist thread.

>>5990

i take "many bodies of the saints" meaning that the souls of those people didn't come back, it was literally just their bodies walking as if alive, for a brief period

>>6009

Hopefully the resurrected do not rott ;^)

>>6001

>That's batshit insane stuff here, you should adress it in the adventist thread.

whats batshit shit?

>>5965

>He will see it after he is resurrected.

Not a personal vision. The same idea is reinforced by the other quotes.

>"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Day and hour, indeed, but this reinforces the idea that the time is near (which is always emphasised in the NT). The day and hour is unknown, but that suggests it'll be less than a year.

>He thought so, probably.

If he was wrong on this, what else might he be wrong about?

>It's like with man not allowing to wear long hair, it is his thing and bears no spiritual quality.

Except he opens with:

>For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,

It's straight from the Lord. This isn't his opinion, so this isn't like the long hair thing.

>>5965

>Really? This one? Not sure if I can help you here, just because these verses do not concern me like at all.

Yes.

>these verses do not concern me like at all.

What? Paul, the thirteenth apostle and messenger to the gentile, gets these things wrong, supposedly directly from God, and it doesn't concern you?

>claims to be a messenger of God

>says God told him a certain thing

>the certain thing was wrong

>"no problem"

It casts a shadow on everything else Paul said. The one thing that was falsifiable - a prediction - turns out to be just like all the predictions since then. It is beyond my understanding how this doesn't matter to you.

It's in plain writing. Dismissing this is like dismissing one of the Ten Commandments just because you think it "doesn't concern" you.

>>5975

Seeing is one thing (even though the original order wasn't this way in Mark, which Matthew used afterwards), but coming in power to judge everyone according to their deed, that is no Transfiguration, that's Judgement Day.

>>5988

>That's normal. Apologetics also don't like to say they don't know, so they throw out stuff in verbosity and hope you'll look at it like a roscharch ink blot and persuade yourself, or simply trust they know better.

I have a more positive view of apologetics in general. But this isn't even theology, this is a failed prediction and it requires an explanation, which I still haven't found.

>Paul claims God told him X

>X is a prediction

>X did not happen

>if Paul was wrong on a falsifiable item, what proves he wasn't wrong on other, unfalsifiable items?

This shit literally stopped me dead in my tracks. It doesn't help that Christ is reported as saying the same.

>>5990

This is another element I never see discussed. If we assume this didn't happen, we must accept that we can't read any of the gospels without some distance. Does anyone assume it happened?

More generally, if the "day" was not within anyone's lifetime, wouldn't it be said? Instead, it is always mentioned as if it could happen tomorrow, in a month, or a few years, but always within the audience's lifetime.

Nobody says, "Don't think about it, it'll take place way after you're dead anyway." No, instead, we get "The end is nigh," whenever it's mentioned.

This is also why Christ asked people to just tag along and made no plans for the future. This is why the NT says nothing of children or family-making. Paul even says not to bother with a wife (and therefore family): because he thinks there won't be that much time.

So here are some questions, answer who may:

- can 2 millennia really be "near"?

- why were Christ and Paul both wrong on this?

- do we have any evidence that passages suggesting this were forged?

- how do you get over the fact that both Our Lord and Paul made a (big) mistake?

If the authors of the NT added this to urge people to convert, what else did they modify to their agenda?

I find this infinitely problematic and I'm surprised it doesn't bother you guys all that much.

>>5992

>Remeber that Paul knew that he was going to died.

We all do. The quote doesn't suggest he predicted his death at Jerusalem, though, which is all for the better because he didn't die in Jerusalem. Paul was always persecuted for his message, it's not anything special or supernatural for him to expect being imprisoned or killed during any of his voyages.

>>6040

>- can 2 millennia really be "near"?

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 peter 3

>>6040

>- do we have any evidence that passages suggesting this were forged?

let me check to see if i find anything.

>- how do you get over the fact that both Our Lord and Paul made a (big) mistake?

first, you still dont know if it was a mistake, ive read some analysis of the verse and some author said that "generation" could mean

1- the people of God

2- the end of times (theres also support for this in the verse "i will shorten the days on those days…"

3- the evil people( this actually its pretty interesting because it says that th group refereing its not the believer but the fedoras)

>>6040

>Paul even says not to bother with a wife (and therefore family): because he thinks there won't be that much time.

Early Christianity was simply a traditional cult - a group of people followed a Charistmatic teacher/guru, lived together, and isolated themselves from the heretical outsiders. They originally had secret beliefs too; Jesus would not tell everyone everything, and kept secrets for his followers, which he revealed over time like a Zen master. Example:

>(when Jesus finished telling the story about wheat sowed on the road, the people were confused and talked to each other about what it could mean. The disciples then came to Jesus to ask him when everyone had left.)

"His disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables." Luke 8:9-10

>>6048

i do believe it.

why is it less believable than God entering his creation in the flesh?

seems strange to point to that part being unbelievable but thinking of, say, the raising of Lazarus, or turning 5 loaves and 2 fishes into being capable of feeding 5000 people, as fine

i take it all as truth.

>>6035

>Day and hour, indeed, but this reinforces the idea that the time is near (which is always emphasised in the NT). The day and hour is unknown, but that suggests it'll be less than a year.

Yes. He probably thought so. So what?

>It's straight from the Lord. This isn't his opinion, so this isn't like the long hair thing.

Soon is a rather subjective amount of time. As adventist bro said.

>>6036

>What? Paul, the thirteenth apostle

hm

>>6040

>More generally, if the "day" was not within anyone's lifetime, wouldn't it be said? Instead, it is always mentioned as if it could happen tomorrow, in a month, or a few years, but always within the audience's lifetime.

We should also fear it and think about it like that.

>If the authors of the NT added this to urge people to convert, what else did they modify to their agenda?

You believe that they literally saw Jesus rise from the dead and all the miracles, like fire striking the earth, and then they thought they need to put lies into the mouth of their God to make the story more fancy? I just think that's unlikely.

>>6047

>Early Christianity was simply a traditional cult - a group of people followed a Charistmatic teacher/guru, lived together, and isolated themselves from the heretical outsiders. They originally had secret beliefs too; Jesus would not tell everyone everything, and kept secrets for his followers, which he revealed over time like a Zen master. Example:

No. What do you even mean by traditional cult? Like they were traditionalists? Not at all.

Like they were as modern cults are traditionally perceived? Even less, no brainwashing, no peer pressure or anything like that.

bump

>>6143

Activity draws further activity. I'm sure the amount of lurkers is still reasonably big. Just start the discussions you'd like to have and bring patience with you.

>>6144

>I certainly do not view them as being zombies as I think some posts here would have it.

Classical horror zombies are soulless creatures while the biblical resurrected are in command of their souls still afaik

>>6144

Thomas Paine has a chapter where he explains the trouble with burying such a large army of resurrected saints miracle in one sentence, and not supporting it.

“It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterward, and who it was that saw them — for he is not hardy enough to say he saw them himself; whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints; or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves.”

-Part II section 15 Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

Considering the effect of all these dead people going about, no one in Jerusalem would have any reason to doubt his ressurection was possible. They would be like the Roman solider in the next sentence, Matthew 27:54.

>Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

When Thomas the sceptic was told Jesus had been resurrected, he should have said, "Sounds legit. I just ran into my great, great, great grandfather on the street this morning. He smelled really bad."

>>6143

welcome brother. try sharing the the word

>>6162

>Activity draws further activity

#tru