'The Rapture'

[Alien]

As expected, spin, different translations and context so that it means not what it says but what you want it to mean.

As expected, jakswan won't actually engage with the argument.

[Alien]

...

I thought Jesus was his own father?

Oh, good grief! How long have you been discussing Christianity and still think such stuff?

Tell me this is a wind up, please.

[jakswan]

As expected, spin, different translations and context so that it means not what it says but what you want it to mean.

As expected, jakswan won't actually engage with the argument.

Once again Alien fails to accept criticism.

[Andy]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

[floo]

He gave the impression he would return in the lifetime of his disciples, 'this generation will not pass away', etc.

Unfortunately, Floo, the Greek word that some translators translate as 'generation' in English doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as in English. In Greek, it referred to 'race, family or generation'.

Another EXCUSE, as it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe!

[Alien]

As expected, spin, different translations and context so that it means not what it says but what you want it to mean.

As expected, jakswan won't actually engage with the argument.

Once again Alien fails to accept criticism.

Once again jakswan won't actually engage with the argument.

[Alien]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

[Alien]

He gave the impression he would return in the lifetime of his disciples, 'this generation will not pass away', etc.

Unfortunately, Floo, the Greek word that some translators translate as 'generation' in English doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as in English. In Greek, it referred to 'race, family or generation'.

Another EXCUSE, as it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe!

Once again, Floo fails to engage with the actual argument.

Actually, I disagree with my mate Hope here.

[Andy]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

So much for being god.

[Alien]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

So much for being god.

Sigh. If you want to disagree with what Christianity claims, at least disagree with what it claims.

[Andy]

You all claim different things, Alan. That there is no Christian consensus is not my fault or my problem, but yours. So instead of the brush off, why not explain what you mean.

[Sebastian Toe]

Only that Jesus said he did not know when he would return, that only the Father knew when. Not having any other pointers, I'm only guessing. I see no reason to think that it would be in the next 30 years, so would not like to claim that it will be within 30 years.

That kind of implies that there is something 'missing' which if present might have given you a reason to 'guess'  a shorter time-frame from now.
What kind of pointers if present would possibly give you reason to indicate that it might be in the next 30 years or so?

[Sassy]

Wearing clean underwear would be a bonus, too. Especially if wearing a skirt.

That applies only to Jesus, of course. He's the one you will be staring up at. 

Well, I was thinking of all those people shooting up into the clouds, and the unfortunate view for those left behind...

They will be too busy crying and gritting their teeth to notice. Best buying a gum sheild...

[floo]

 

[jakswan]

Wearing clean underwear would be a bonus, too. Especially if wearing a skirt.

That applies only to Jesus, of course. He's the one you will be staring up at. 

Well, I was thinking of all those people shooting up into the clouds, and the unfortunate view for those left behind...

They will be too busy crying and gritting their teeth to notice. Best buying a gum sheild...

Didn't I hear a Christian call you a heretic, you'll be doing the crying.

[Dicky Underpants]

He gave the impression he would return in the lifetime of his disciples, 'this generation will not pass away', etc.

Unfortunately, Floo, the Greek word that some translators translate as 'generation' in English doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as in English. In Greek, it referred to 'race, family or generation'.

Another EXCUSE, as it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe!

Once again, Floo fails to engage with the actual argument.

Actually, I disagree with my mate Hope here.

Occam's Razor, Alan. Please apply it. Hope needs to apply it even more. He wants the Greek 'genea' to mean something different every time it appears in the NT. You adopt the old Jehovah's Witness tactic (which I saw through when I was fourteen) of thinking the 'generation' in Matt 24 might mean "that generation" rather than "this generation". It's all very silly, and always reveals a degree of desperation in those who employ these tactics. It certainly shows no intellectual integrity whatsoever, but does reveal enormous confirmation bias.
Jeremy's original assertion stands - throughout most of the NT, the second coming is referred to as being imminent. Peter attempts a rescue operation. Paul changes the emphasis of his thought from his early epistle to the Thessalonians, to the more mature idea of "Christ within". But, as can be seen from his late epistle to the Romans, he never fully abandoned the idea of the not-too-distant return of Christ.

I don't expect you to abandon your belief in the eventual return of Christ as a result of anything you read on here. After all, Christians of a certain type have kept predicting the return of Christ with monotonous regularity down the centuries (with a ludicrous increase in the predictions during the last 200 years). Fortunately, a large number of scholars, Christian and otherwise, have been prepared to abandon all the ridiculous attempts to argue away the uncomfortable truth, and accept that in this matter, Jesus and Paul got it wrong.

[Dicky Underpants]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

The foreknowledge he claimed he did not have, referred to "the day and the hour" - not to the period in question, about which he was specific.

[Alien]

He gave the impression he would return in the lifetime of his disciples, 'this generation will not pass away', etc.

Unfortunately, Floo, the Greek word that some translators translate as 'generation' in English doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as in English. In Greek, it referred to 'race, family or generation'.

Another EXCUSE, as it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe!

Once again, Floo fails to engage with the actual argument.

Actually, I disagree with my mate Hope here.

Occam's Razor, Alan. Please apply it. Hope needs to apply it even more. He wants the Greek 'genea' to mean something different every time it appears in the NT. You adopt the old Jehovah's Witness tactic (which I saw through when I was fourteen) of thinking the 'generation' in Matt 24 might mean "that generation" rather than "this generation". It's all very silly, and always reveals a degree of desperation in those who employ these tactics. It certainly shows no intellectual integrity whatsoever, but does reveal enormous confirmation bias.

Hmm. I've not actually laid out my position in any detail yet, so am surprised you feel able to critique it.

Jeremy's original assertion stands - throughout most of the NT, the second coming is referred to as being imminent. Peter attempts a rescue operation. Paul changes the emphasis of his thought from his early epistle to the Thessalonians, to the more mature idea of "Christ within". But, as can be seen from his late epistle to the Romans, he never fully abandoned the idea of the not-too-distant return of Christ.

It would be good if you and Jeremy were to actually tell us the verses you think you are getting your ideas from.

I don't expect you to abandon your belief in the eventual return of Christ as a result of anything you read on here. After all, Christians of a certain type have kept predicting the return of Christ with monotonous regularity down the centuries (with a ludicrous increase in the predictions during the last 200 years). Fortunately, a large number of scholars, Christian and otherwise, have been prepared to abandon all the ridiculous attempts to argue away the uncomfortable truth, and accept that in this matter, Jesus and Paul got it wrong.

So how about discussing what they actually said in a bit of detail if you think they got it wrong?

[Alien]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

The foreknowledge he claimed he did not have, referred to "the day and the hour" - not to the period in question, about which he was specific.

OK, how about you being specific about what you think he claimed? So far all you have done is said that he and Paul got it wrong, but have been very vague.

[Dicky Underpants]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

The foreknowledge he claimed he did not have, referred to "the day and the hour" - not to the period in question, about which he was specific.

OK, how about you being specific about what you think he claimed? So far all you have done is said that he and Paul got it wrong, but have been very vague.

Bloody obvious, isn't it? I've said it often enough on this forum and elsewhere, referring to Schweitzer, Ehrman, Holloway, Armstrong, Cupitt, Spong and numerous other scholars who argue that Jesus and Paul believed that history was about to be wound up, culminating in the appearance of the "Son of Man" (later apparently identified with Jesus himself) within the lifetime of some the people that Jesus was speaking to : "There are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming into his kingdom" "You will not have passed over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come"  i.e. This generation - the generation to whom he was speaking.

As for your quibble about you "not having laid out your position in detail yet" - it's no secret what it's going to be, since if you don't believe - as indicated in your post to Floo - that he wasn't referring to the generation to whom he was speaking, then he must be referring to a generation in the far distant future (necessarily so, since the second coming has apparently not occurred). i.e. you mean "that distant generation" QED. and other waffle, which is certainly going to be a completely different take from Hope's interpretation, who wants the Greek word in question to mean 'race' or something like (another familiar clutching-at-straws)  - as if Jesus would have bothered to suggest that the Jewish people would not disappear off the face of the earth 'until all these things be fulfilled', since the implication of the text is that all peoples destiny would be wound up at the second coming.
Work it out amongst yourselves. The Bible in this instance is quite clear as to what was going on with regard to these prophecies, and it is equally clear that they have not been fulfilled. Still, you've always got 2Peter 3 to clutch on to, but it's all a bit desperate.

[Alien]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

The foreknowledge he claimed he did not have, referred to "the day and the hour" - not to the period in question, about which he was specific.

OK, how about you being specific about what you think he claimed? So far all you have done is said that he and Paul got it wrong, but have been very vague.

Bloody obvious, isn't it? I've said it often enough on this forum and elsewhere, referring to Schweitzer, Ehrman, Holloway, Armstrong, Cupitt, Spong and numerous other scholars who argue that Jesus and Paul believed that history was about to be wound up, culminating in the appearance of the "Son of Man" (later apparently identified with Jesus himself) within the lifetime of some the people that Jesus was speaking to : "There are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming into his kingdom" "You will not have passed over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come"  i.e. This generation - the generation to whom he was speaking.

Yes, I know you are well read. That's not me being sarcastic. I genuinely respect where you are coming from. However, if you want to demonstrate that Jesus and/or Paul were wrong, you need to quote them rather than other people's opinions about them, say where you got Paul's and Jesus' word from from and why you think they were wrong. Running off a list of names does not prove anything.

As for your quibble about you "not having laid out your position in detail yet" - it's no secret what it's going to be, since if you don't believe - as indicated in your post to Floo - that he wasn't referring to the generation to whom he was speaking, then he must be referring to a generation in the far distant future (necessarily so, since the second coming has apparently not occurred). i.e. you mean "that distant generation" QED. and other waffle, which is certainly going to be a completely different take from Hope's interpretation, who wants the Greek word in question to mean 'race' or something like (another familiar clutching-at-straws)  - as if Jesus would have bothered to suggest that the Jewish people would not disappear off the face of the earth 'until all these things be fulfilled', since the implication of the text is that all peoples destiny would be wound up at the second coming.
Work it out amongst yourselves. The Bible in this instance is quite clear as to what was going on with regard to these prophecies, and it is equally clear that they have not been fulfilled. Still, you've always got 2Peter 3 to clutch on to, but it's all a bit desperate.

Then you have indeed misunderstood me. I am not arguing for a far off time (from Jesus' time). I'd be happy to explain my actual position if you like.

[~TW~]

It has been 2000 years or so since he said he would return. He said he did not know when he would return.

His foreknowledge deserted him, did it?

No. Why do you ask?

Ah, so when he said he didn't know, what he meant to say was "I'm not telling you"?

No. You asked if he had foreknowledge (of the event) which deserted him. Jesus did not have that foreknowledge at any point (as far as I can tell), so it could not have deserted him.

The foreknowledge he claimed he did not have, referred to "the day and the hour" - not to the period in question, about which he was specific.

OK, how about you being specific about what you think he claimed? So far all you have done is said that he and Paul got it wrong, but have been very vague.

Bloody obvious, isn't it? I've said it often enough on this forum and elsewhere, referring to Schweitzer, Ehrman, Holloway, Armstrong, Cupitt, Spong and numerous other scholars who argue that Jesus and Paul believed that history was about to be wound up, culminating in the appearance of the "Son of Man" (later apparently identified with Jesus himself) within the lifetime of some the people that Jesus was speaking to : "There are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming into his kingdom" "You will not have passed over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come"  i.e. This generation - the generation to whom he was speaking.

Yes, I know you are well read. That's not me being sarcastic. I genuinely respect where you are coming from. However, if you want to demonstrate that Jesus and/or Paul were wrong, you need to quote them rather than other people's opinions about them, say where you got Paul's and Jesus' word from from and why you think they were wrong. Running off a list of names does not prove anything.

As for your quibble about you "not having laid out your position in detail yet" - it's no secret what it's going to be, since if you don't believe - as indicated in your post to Floo - that he wasn't referring to the generation to whom he was speaking, then he must be referring to a generation in the far distant future (necessarily so, since the second coming has apparently not occurred). i.e. you mean "that distant generation" QED. and other waffle, which is certainly going to be a completely different take from Hope's interpretation, who wants the Greek word in question to mean 'race' or something like (another familiar clutching-at-straws)  - as if Jesus would have bothered to suggest that the Jewish people would not disappear off the face of the earth 'until all these things be fulfilled', since the implication of the text is that all peoples destiny would be wound up at the second coming.
Work it out amongst yourselves. The Bible in this instance is quite clear as to what was going on with regard to these prophecies, and it is equally clear that they have not been fulfilled. Still, you've always got 2Peter 3 to clutch on to, but it's all a bit desperate.

Then you have indeed misunderstood me. I am not arguing for a far off time (from Jesus' time). I'd be happy to explain my actual position if you like.

 Does underpants not know that this=: "There are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming into his kingdom" "You will not have passed over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come"  i.e. This generation - the generation to whom he was speaking.= Has taken place. Maybe Alien you should ask underpants when the kingdom was established and what the kingdom is.It is obvious he does not know.

                 ~TW~

[floo]

You know nothing either TW, that is obvious!

[~TW~]

You know nothing either TW, that is obvious!

    The butchers block is back

[jeremyp]

He gave the impression he would return in the lifetime of his disciples, 'this generation will not pass away', etc.

Unfortunately, Floo, the Greek word that some translators translate as 'generation' in English doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as in English. In Greek, it referred to 'race, family or generation'.

In context, it clearly means "generation". The other meanings are bullshit designed to avoid embarrassment.