IslandMix - Soca, Reggae, Zouk and Caribbean Entertainment

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.

Couple key points...you beg to differ...the writers of the Gospel expected him to return in their time. I expected to be a millionaire by now too, hard to understand why that ent happen yet

One thing about apocalyptic writings is, they only concern themselves with the here and now and the "soon to be."

Lol...of course they'll only concern themselves with the "soon to be"...if they concerned themselves with the past it wouldn't be Apocalyptic...it would be History

They are often written in times of great distress and meant to be an encouragement to those who are suffering.

You sure about that? Apocalyptic writings typically deal with doomsday and destruction...who dat suppose tuh encourage?

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.

Of course it would...John was half-starved into delirium when he wrote that...maybe he juss get de timeline mixed up. Entirely possible that it was intended as a warning of destruction in a future time ("beast bound for a thousand years" etc.) but relevant to the contemporary audience because it speaks of people dying before the judgement and before this apocalyptic battle...no? Therefore contemporary audiences clearly would have the understanding that this war wouldn't happen in their current lifetime. Let me know if I'm wrong.

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.

Israel is Gods figurative spiritual kingdom on Earth...not the physical territory that we've come define it as today, the realm as such has imprecise boundaries and continues to evolve, and likely will continue to elude definition. That being the case how can missionaries cover all of this realm already? Clearly the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.

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.

Why is that obvious? In addition to the different reckoning of time as he rightly pointed out...he admonishes them to live right because the end is near, because even if the end of the world as we know it may not have been imminent, in the grander scheme of things their lives are finite and could end at any minute...so they had to live right before they died. Of course once you die you can't return to your previous life to undo any wrongs, right?.

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.

^^^

A slippery slope B. It is not uncommon for apologists to pick and choose what is literal and what is not in the Bible. My argument comes from the general school of thought amongst fundamentalist Christians. You're Catholic, if I recall, so I can understand your position.

The first verse of the Book of Revelation (the supposed words of Christ) says that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which is a declaration of things which must "shortly come to pass." A few times throughout the book from there on Jesus is reputed to say "Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me."

^^^

A slippery slope B. It is not uncommon for apologists to pick and choose what is literal and what is not in the Bible.

Lol...de man dismiss mih as an 'apologist' yes well saddis' all I could tell yuh is that man doh hold all de answers and our understanding is finite and surely the good Lord took that into consideration when he gave us 'His' word. My belief is that there's considerable room for error built into the blueprint, so that even if some interpret literally and others more liberally, we can both still get 'there' at the end. You call it "pick[ing] and choos[ing]", I call it applying common sense.

My argument comes from the general school of thought amongst fundamentalist Christians. You're Catholic, if I recall, so I can understand your position.

You can't 'understand' my position since you're clouding your perspective of what you think I mean by some fantasized outlook of who I am. I haven't been Catholic since Form Four dred...try again. So, how well do you 'understand' my position now.

The first verse of the Book of Revelation (the supposed words of Christ) says that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which is a declaration of things which must "shortly come to pass." A few times throughout the book from there on Jesus is reputed to say "Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me."

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

Define??? How many meanings do you know comes to mind when a person says "I'll be there shortly" or "I'm coming to you as fast as I can (quickly)?" You're expecting the person to be in a relatively and reasonable short period time.

I asked you to define "shortly" and quickly in a temporal (and I don't mean earthly) sense.

You failed to address Matthew 24 in which Jesus addressed his Disciples as the ones who would see the signs which he lays out and that they (and their generation) would be the ones to witness his appearing. What other meaning were they to walk away with?

I didn't fail to address it...I decided to stop with the over-analysis, b/c as I said, you seem insistent on a literal translation. As I said to you, Jesus was speaking to his 12 Disciples, but he was also speaking to a future generation of disciples as well thru them, knowing that the word would be passed down. Additionally, do we know that he wasn't referring to his appearance before them following his crucifixion? He also said "Lo, I will be with you always, even unto the end of the world". Would that not also seem to contradict his 'second coming' talk? If he here wid we all de time, whey he coming back from?

Peter: Hey, you heard what Jesus told us? He told us things are going to get interesting around here. Signs and wonders will fill the heavens, we will hear of wars and rumors of wars and will see a Great Tribulation, but right after that he will burst the skies and come for us.

John: No my boy. He wasn't talking about us. He was talking of some future generation.

Let's not forget the letter to the Thessalonians. The writer tells that church that it was only a matter of time before the dead in christ will rise and then "we who remain shall be caught up..." Any reason why early Christians sold their belongings, lived in a communal setting and that the more esoteric types left Jerusalem and huddled in the desert awaiting the return of their lord?

I called you an apologist simply because you are defending the Christian faith. Nothing wrong with that but that is what an apologist does. As for thinking you were Catholic, I thought I read where you stated that somewhere before. No problem. My bad.

The Christian faith needs no 'defending' least of all from me, one who hardly qualifies. You asked questions and in the spirit of dialogue I indulge you.

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.