IslandMix

what happened? He should have been here a very long time ago, right?

well if he came back that would just preachers(middle men) out of bidnezz
so they would probably try and kill him again
maybe if they used an electric chair this time; future christians can wear little gold ones around they necks

anyhow if the brat prince was here to clear things up
it would entirely fuck up sunday/saturday/friday worship service

also can you imagine all the people who scrwed up and went on the wrong day

jesus or christ?

__________________
"Self-Realization is the knowing in all parts of body, mind, and soul that you are now in possession of the kingdom of God; that you do not have to pray that it come to you; that God’s omnipresence is your omnipresence; and that all that you need to do is improve your knowing.”

He can come anytime after carnival...

I understand you're not religious and all ah dat, but is all this 'brat prince' talk and profanity in this particular forum really necessary? There's such a thing as being irreverent and then there's making an ass of yourself...apparently you've yet to learn the difference.

by whose Calendar?

The one in the Bible B. The so-called prophetic calendar.

Both

Really...what dates did God write down in de bible? What time was the ETA...he flying een first or business class? Yuh know ah baller like Jesus ent flying Coach.

Well aside from the "no man knows the day nor the hour" escape clause, it is made more than clear in the bible the authors of the New Testament and those who [I would say] placed words in Jesus' mouth expected his return in their day and age. An example is in first Peter where the author writes to his audience and tells them they were living in the "last days" only to find [perhaps] the same author backtracking in his next book.

In the book of Mark as Jesus stands in front of the High Priest, he is asked by said High Priest if he (Jesus) was the one. Jesus tells him [allegedly] that he [the High priest] would be alive to see him come back in glory with his angels. That High priest is dead 2,000 years over now.

is it ever necessary in any forum on this site?

You could continue to play schupid, since it's a role you're naturally qualified for...but I'm sure even you with your compromised understanding would understand the issue of impropriety. Being that most in this forum probably choose to come here, specifically to encounter more cerebral conversation devoid of the usual banter found in other forums one would hope that posters here would indulge them. One would hope.

I really don't think you have a case on any account:

Assuming that the story of Lazarus is correct, then it's quite possible that the high priest can be brought back to life therefore fulfilling the prophecy/promise.

Your interpretation of the passage in I Peter was a literal one...is that how the speaker meant it to his audience? Are we privy to the conversation, sufficient to say that they could not have interpreted his statements in a more figurative light?

Whom do you indict for this 'broken promise' of Christ not returning on time? Do you indict Christ himself? How? He never gave a specific date and hour did he?

Do you indict those that tell the story second-hand? How do we know that (again) they were being literal when they gave their dates...or that they were accurate in their counts...I mean they were men after all...men aren't infallible, are they?

Say nothing of the differences in how we measure time now, relative to then...we mighta get throw off somewhey in de counting

Some have presented the argument that Jesus was not referring to the high priest seeing him soon in his first go around at life, but rather, during some future resurrection. I beg to differ based on a conclusion drawn from other passages that clearly indicate the writers of the Gospels and other New Testament books expected Jesus to return in their time.

One thing about apocalyptic writings is, they only concern themselves with the here and now and the "soon to be." They are often written in times of great distress and meant to be an encouragement to those who are suffering. As with the book of Revelation, it would make no sense whatsoever to write a book or letter, present it to a contemporary audience but intend for the message to be for a generation millenniums away into a distant future.

In one account found in Matthew 10, Jesus sends out his Disciples to preach throughout Israel starting at verse 16. Reading from verse 16, Jesus [allegedly] informs his Disciples he is sending them out amongst wolves where they will be persecuted. They are not to worry he tells them because they would not make it throughout Israel before he (Jesus) comes back. He certainly was not speaking to some distant generation. These words of encouragement were meant for his disciples as is clearly indicated. If he meant some much later date, missionaries have been all over Israel many times over and there still has been no sight of this Jesus.

In the book of First Peter, the writer tells his audience to cheer up and live right because he was certain they were living in the last time(s). In the second book that bears his name we find him having to explain himself. It was clear that critics were stepping forward, maybe even within his own ranks, asking, "Hey, where's the promise of this second coming? Our father's have died and he's still not here yet." The writer then employs a spin that is signature of much of Christian apologetics. He come up with this grand explanation based on a Psalm that says that one day to God is as one thousand years and one thousand years as one day. The implication is that God does not reckon time as we do so in other words, "who's counting?" He then goes on to say that the apparent delay is a result of God's desire that all men come to salvation. He obviously assumes the position to think and speak for God to erase the obvious - there was no returning Jesus.

The most telling evidence is from the mouth of Jesus himself, if we are to believe he said any such things. Then again, "sons of god," "saviors," and gods" do say some wild things. They always do as they form their cults. In Matthew 24, he gives a great sermon to his Disciples highlighted by the recurrent use of the word "YOU." He tells them over and over again that "ye shall..." He tells them the end was near "even at their doors." They were the ones to see the signs, the wonders, the second coming. Their generation would NOT past until they see him return AND on another occasion he tells them that there were some standing in his midst that would "not taste death before they see the son of man coming in glory." Considering what was on the horizon (war with Rome) and the tension of the times leading to that great war, the persecution of the Christian sect by Nero and Domitian, it is no wonder there was so much talk of enduring the suffering because Jesus was soon to come back, vanquish the wicked, reward the righteous who endured to the end and set up a new kingdom in which they would be co-rulers with him.