Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

And doesn't the gospel also claim that there would be a second coming in generations - hmm - don't think that happened. By your own argument that would make the gospels dishonest reports. And further the honesty of a report of someone making a prophecy is surely whether it accurately reports that prophecy, not whether the prophecy actually came to pass.

It would help if you could specify which verse(s) you think claim this?

[Enki]

It would help if you could specify which verse(s) you think claim this?

I touched upon the same thing in post 39. However here are some of the references:

Matthew 16:28

Luke 9::27

Mark 9:1

Clearly Jesus was talking to the people standing there, not future generations.

Again:

Matthew 10:23

Matthew 24:29-34

Mark 13:29-33

Luke 21:31-34

Clearly Paul(or whoever wrote the Philippians, Hebrews and Thessalonians) thought that Jesus would make his second coming within their lifetimes, as suggested by:

Philippians 4:1-5

Hebrews 1:1-3

Thessalonians 4:15-18

Thessalonians 2:1-2


Other references from John, from Peter, from James all resonate that Jesus's second coming and the end of the world were soon to be here.

No doubt it was because of the failure of those prophesies to hold water that later generations tried to subtly alter the significance of references to Daniel, tried to alter the meaning of 'generation' to 'age' and basically tried to modify the original message so that it would stand the test of time.

[Owlswing]

I touched upon the same thing in post 39. However, here are some of the references:

Matthew 16:28

Luke 9::27

Mark 9:1

Clearly Jesus was talking to the people standing there, not future generations.

Again:

Matthew 10:23

Matthew 24:29-34

Mark 13:29-33

Luke 21:31-34

Clearly Paul(or whoever wrote the Philippians, Hebrews and Thessalonians) thought that Jesus would make his second coming within their lifetimes, as suggested by:

Philippians 4:1-5

Hebrews 1:1-3

Thessalonians 4:15-18

Thessalonians 2:1-2


Other references from John, from Peter, from James all resonate that Jesus's second coming and the end of the world were soon to be here.

No doubt it was because of the failure of those prophesies to hold water that later generations tried to subtly alter the significance of references to Daniel, tried to alter the meaning of 'generation' to 'age' and basically tried to modify the original message so that it would stand the test of time.

Nice one!

[Spud]

And doesn't the gospel also claim that there would be a second coming in generations - hmm - don't think that happened.

Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".

Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.

Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).

By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.

So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).

We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).

[Enki]

Spud,
You are doing exactly what I intimated in my last paragraph. Nothing could be plainer than 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.' His prophesy failed and has led to the rather  unseemly attempt at watering down which you seem(quite naturally of course given your faith) to favour.

[Roses]

Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".

Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.

Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).

By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.

So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).

We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).

The very human, Jesus, had no more idea about the so called 'end times' than anyone else, he thought it would happen in the lifetime of his supporters. Our planet might be destroyed one day, possibly  due to some cosmic event, but no one knows when that is likely to occur.

[Gordon]

Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".

Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.

Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).

By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.

So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).

We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).

This ramble is nothing more than a mishmash of self-referential bollocks with the intention, no doubt, of trying to make the mishmash of self-referential bollocks that is 'scripture' and/or 'theology' (take you pick) somehow seem obvious, reasonable and rational: in that, it fails.

[Owlswing]

Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".

Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.

Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfilment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfilment of Psalm 110).

By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.

So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the Son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).

We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).

All this proves is that you are a far worse example of the brainwashed churchgoer, since infancy in all probability, than even I was willing to suggest previously.

You are a truly hopeless case of the totally and irrevocably indoctrinated.

[ippy]

I've Australian family members just as far gone on religion as Spud and they're always clutching at the very smallest of straws too. 

[Roses]

The other day I had a lecture from an extreme Biblical literalist, a member of my extended family. I was told as I wasn't getting any younger, I should consider my death and get right with god, otherwise I would burn in hell. When I told them I had my asbestos coated clothing ready for such an eventuality, it didn't go down too well.

[Owlswing]

The other day I had a lecture from an extreme Biblical literalist, a member of my extended family. I was told as I wasn't getting any younger, I should consider my death and get right with God, otherwise, I would burn in hell. When I told them I had my asbestos coated clothing ready for such an eventuality, it didn't go down too well.

Score one for the non-Christians!

A non-christian friend of mine told me of a Pagan who died and arrived at the Gates of Heaven to be met by St Peter who was wearing a disgruntled scowl as he informed the man that he had been sent to Heaven in error and, as a non-Christian, he was meant to be in Hell! He pointed to the left of the gates to a path that obviously led downward and told him to follow the path and that he would find his rightful place in Hell.

He walked down the path for what seemed like hours and came to a set of gates that looked exactly like those he had just been prevented from entering except for the fact that they were wide open and led to a landscape of trees, flowers, sunshine. He walked in and along the path for more than an hour before he saw, coming from behind a tree a plume of what smelled like cigar smoke. He walked over to the tree and found a man with horns and a forked tail smoking the cigar, who, as soon as he saw the man, jumped to his feet, held out his hand and said, "Welcome to Hell, let me show you around."

He was shown swimming pools, snooker halls, football pitches, in fact, he was shown just about everything that he could ever have had a wish to find in Heaven! The Devil, for his guide admitted that he was Satan, explained that the whole idea of Hell . . .  at this point there was a huge crash of thunder and forks of lightning and the sky opened, and below that an opening the ground appeared and flames rose out of the hole, and then a body, that of a screaming man, dropped through the hole in the sky, dropped into the firey hole in the ground which, along with the hole in the sky, closed up and peace reigned again.

"What was that?" asked the man.

With a grin, Satan said, "Oh, that's just for the Christians, they wouldn't have it any other way!"

[ippy]

The other day I had a lecture from an extreme Biblical literalist, a member of my extended family. I was told as I wasn't getting any younger, I should consider my death and get right with god, otherwise I would burn in hell. When I told them I had my asbestos coated clothing ready for such an eventuality, it didn't go down too well.

Like it L R, try the next time you meet them by asking them 'have you heard the bad news' I'll bet that'll go down a bundle.

I find these kinds of religionists so patronising that they deserve, in fact earn any retort of the appropriate kind you had to offer well done.
 

[Spud]

Spud,
You are doing exactly what I intimated in my last paragraph. Nothing could be plainer than 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.' His prophesy failed and has led to the rather  unseemly attempt at watering down which you seem(quite naturally of course given your faith) to favour.

Sorry enki, but you are assuming a worldwide judgment all at once 'in that generation', but this doesn't agree with Psalm 110:1. Matthew 23:36 is clear that Jerusalem's fall was immanent, but the overall picture is of the ongoing process, starting with Israel, of all nations being brought under Christ's rule. Then, as per 1 Cor. 15, will come the last judgment. "All these things" relates to the destruction of the temple, and the events preceding it.

[Enki]

Sorry enki, but you are assuming a worldwide judgment all at once 'in that generation', but this doesn't agree with Psalm 110:1. Matthew 23:36 is clear that Jerusalem's fall would was immanent, but the overall picture is of the ongoing process, starting with Israel, of all nations being brought under Christ's rule. Then, as per 1 Cor. 15, will come the last judgment. "All these things" relates to the destruction of the temple, and the events preceding it.

No need to be sorry, Spud. I'm not assuming anything. You asked for verses from the Gospels which claimed a second coming. I gave you plenty. His prophesy failed. Live with it.

Incidentally, in your Post 153, you refer to non gospel sources, such as Revelations. I'm afraid my view of Revelations is more in line with that of Thomas Jefferson, Robert Ingersoll and George Bernard Shaw(who considered it as "a peculiar record of the visions of a drug addict"), but even so it abounds with references to God's judgement 'coming quickly' and the 'time being at hand'.

E.g.

Revelations:

1:1 2:5 2:16 3:3 22:6-7 22:18-21

Such warnings were clearly meant for those living at the time I suggest rather than for the inhabitants of the entire world nowadays.

You also, by using phrases such as 'Thus we can see that..." and "We can see..." assume by the definition of 'we' that the reader of your post is in agreement with you. This, of course, doesn't necessarily follow. so perhaps you may bear that in mind  in future posts.

[SteveH]

You also, by using phrases such as 'Thus we can see that..." and "We can see..." assume by the definition of 'we' that the reader of your post is in agreement with you. This, of course, doesn't necessarily follow. so perhaps you may bear that in mind  in future posts.

"Thus we can see..." and similar phrases are a common way of introducing a conclusion to an argument, and assumes nothing of the sort. It depends who is meant by "we". It could be considered, anyway, to be inviting the reader to agree, rather than assuming that they do. There is also the pluralis modestiae to consider.
Adding a sneer about the poster's literary style detracts from the force of your main argument. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.

[Dicky Underpants]

"Thus we can see..." and similar phrases are a common way of introducing a conclusion to an argument, and assumes nothing of the sort. It depends who is meant by "we". It could be considered, anyway, to be inviting the reader to agree, rather than assuming that they do. There is also the pluralis modestiae to consider.
Adding a sneer about the poster's literary style detracts from the force of your main argument. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.

Except that Spud had already introduced the conclusion of his argument at the beginning of his 5th paragraph with the words "So it is clear that..."
Somehow I don't think Spud's argument is all that clear. Whereas Enki's argument, which is basically Schweitzer's and that of any honest biblical critic ever since, is a model of clarity.

[Enki]

"Thus we can see..." and similar phrases are a common way of introducing a conclusion to an argument, and assumes nothing of the sort. It depends who is meant by "we". It could be considered, anyway, to be inviting the reader to agree, rather than assuming that they do. There is also the pluralis modestiae to consider.
Adding a sneer about the poster's literary style detracts from the force of your main argument. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.

Using the first person makes an argument clearer and is much more appropriate than the way in which Spud used 'we' in post 153, where the 'we' looked as if it was used merely for rhetorical emphasis, as it had no clear defining group and therefore tended to assume that the person reading agreed with his position.

In my view you also need to examine your own assumptions as no sneering was intended. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.

Therefore, after considering your criticism, I reject it and will continue to  criticise the word 'we' when I consider that it is an inappropriate word to use.

[Spud]

No need to be sorry, Spud. I'm not assuming anything. You asked for verses from the Gospels which claimed a second coming. I gave you plenty. His prophesy failed. Live with it.

Incidentally, in your Post 153, you refer to non gospel sources, such as Revelations. I'm afraid my view of Revelations is more in line with that of Thomas Jefferson, Robert Ingersoll and George Bernard Shaw(who considered it as "a peculiar record of the visions of a drug addict"), but even so it abounds with references to God's judgement 'coming quickly' and the 'time being at hand'.

E.g.

Revelations:

1:1 2:5 2:16 3:3 22:6-7 22:18-21

Such warnings were clearly meant for those living at the time I suggest rather than for the inhabitants of the entire world nowadays.

You also, by using phrases such as 'Thus we can see that..." and "We can see..." assume by the definition of 'we' that the reader of your post is in agreement with you. This, of course, doesn't necessarily follow. so perhaps you may bear that in mind  in future posts.

Hi enki,
Two of the verses you quoted, Revelation 2:5, 3:3 illustrate the point I've been making in that in both, Jesus says he will soon come and judge, but I think it's clear that this doesn't involve him coming in bodily form.
The fact that I've assumed that you agree with me illustrates the OP; a lot of what I wrote in #153 was stolen from a talk I listened to to get some ideas. In copying I've written it in a way that doesn't work and comes across as a mishmash of ideas as Gordon puts it, a bit like what Mark sometimes does in copying from Matthew and Luke.
I've just listened to the first 10 minutes again and stopped it because he notes the following: in the olivet discourse at Matthew 24:30, the coming of Christ involves him receiving a kingdom. This must I think be what is in view when it says, "they (the nation's of the earth) will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." The language here is reminiscent of Daniel 7:13-14, in which the son of man comes on the clouds to the ancient of days and is given authority, glory and power.
In 1 Corinthians 15:24 it says that at his coming, those who belong to him will be made alive (resurrected as Christ was). Then at the end, after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power, Christ will hand the kingdom back to the Father. So this chap is saying that there appears to be a period of time implied between the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31.
This is the sermon, it's free to download. (Note what he says at 9.50).
 https://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=30327

[Roses]

Revelation is the craziest book in the Bible, it is sad anyone takes it seriously.

[jeremyp]

the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".

That happened.

No second coming.

[ProfessorDavey]

Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".

Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.

Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).

By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.

So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).

We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).

Spud - anyone making an unbiased appraisal of the various versions of the olivet discourse will reasonably conclude that the authors believed (and stated) that the second coming would be imminent:

"this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." (Mark 13:30)

Not just some of these things, but all of these things including the second coming.

Now I understand that prophecy failed to come to pass and that christians feel the need to tie themselves up in knots to reinterpret what is frankly a simply and obvious claim of the imminence of the prophecy. But that is only because they are clearly biased in not being able to accept that a clear prophesy of a second coming expected during the generation around at the time of writing did not, in fact, happen.

[Roses]

They don't like to admit Jesus got it wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

They don't like to admit Jesus got it wrong.

We've no idea whether Jesus got it wrong (as we cannot know whether he actually made the claim) - all we know is that the gospel writers from decades later got it wrong.

It is all classic cult playbook - make a series of prophetic claims supposedly made by a person decades previously, the first of which happened and you likely know it happened as you are writing after that event. Hook into those prophetic claims one which means that unless you join the cult you will be judged in the second coming and guess what that's happening any time soon so you and your family better get on board right now.

Cult leaders have been using the same "imminent apocalypse which only cult followers will survive" mantra throughout history.

[Roses]

We've no idea whether Jesus got it wrong (as we cannot know whether he actually made the claim) - all we know is that the gospel writers from decades later got it wrong.

It is all classic cult playbook - make a series of prophetic claims supposedly made by a person decades previously, the first of which happened and you likely know it happened as you are writing after that event. Hook into those prophetic claims one which means that unless you join the cult you will be judged in the second coming and guess what that's happening any time soon so you and your family better get on board right now.

Cult leaders have been using the same "imminent apocalypse which only cult followers will survive" mantra throughout history.

I agree. I was just going with the assumption made by Christians that Jesus had made the statements stated by the gospel writers. We will never know for sure how much was factual, and how much was concocted.

[jeremyp]

We've no idea whether Jesus got it wrong (as we cannot know whether he actually made the claim) - all we know is that the gospel writers from decades later got it wrong.

Actually they got bits of it right. The destruction of Jerusalem happened as "predicted". That's one of the reasons why we think the gospels were written decades later. It's a little bit like the prophecies of Daniel. We can date that book fairly precisely by examining when his prophecies started going wrong (in the 160's BCE)