When is Jesus coming back do you think? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Pikachu Nah, you got that one wrong too!

@Carazaa

That's what he said. Don't know what to tell you

@Pikachu Well, you could just say that you misunderstood. I would understand.

@Carazaa

lol you're being weird today.
But the language he uses seems pretty clear to me. I think any attempt to interpret these words differently is an ad hoc attempt to rationalize a failed prophecy.

@Pikachu weird? ha ha...Well, I'm confident that Jesus has a few meanings and most just miss the most important meaning and think he is being straightforward but he always has a spiritual meaning for his children. He says his children hear his voice. We hear a different voice in the Bible.

@Carazaa

That's cool. But i guess we'll just have to disagree on the interpretation🙂

@Pikachu Yeah, watch Godspeeds video on Why believe in God when theres science. You're toast now! We can call this war over. God won!

@Carazaa


lol did godspeed hack your account? What's up with you today?

@Pikachu Why wont anyone watch the video 😠

@Pikachu Its surprisingly good, I think you will all convert now! See you in church!

@Carazaa

nah, i'm good😉

@Pikachu Your assumption is that he was talking about His future bodily return, rather than the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

@MrSimons

It certainly is. And i think any interpretation other than that is an ad hoc attempt to justify the failure of the prophecy.

@Pikachu I think a good case can be made for it being purely about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Even those who see a future fulfilment admit that Jesus at least had that partially in mind. The apocalyptic language employed is similar to that found in the Old Testament when speaking of impending judgement. My view is also not just some modern idea. It is well represented throughout Christian history.

@MrSimons

Well it wouldn't be a modern idea, would it? After all, the prophecy failed right out the gate.
I don't think there is a good case for this being a reference to jerusalem and i think the idea that he's referring to the transfiguration is even weaker.

@Pikachu What specifically makes you think He is talking about a future bodily return? That is not a necessary reading the text at all.

@MrSimons

Because he says that they'll see the son returning in his kingdom.
Just before that he says he'll be returning with god's glory and with his angels, clearly referring to the final day of judgement.

What specifically makes you think that he's referring to the fall of Jerusalem?

Yes, that's apocalyptic language. Very commonly employed in the Old Testament to speak of impending doom and judgement.

@MrSimons

Matthew 16:27. "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.
28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

What specifically makes you think that he's referring to the fall of Jerusalem?

@MrSimons

And all together it very clearly refers to the second coming and the final judgement.
So i ask you again, what [i]specifically[/i] makes you think that he's referring to the fall of Jerusalem?

@Pikachu I would say the opening verses set the context for us:

"Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Everyone, regardless of how they view this passage would say that the destruction of the temple during the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 is what is in view here.

To the Jews of that day, "the end of the age" would referred to the end of the age of the law the beginning of the age of the Messiah. It doesn't refer to an end of the world event.

You and I would at least agree that everything Jesus describes in Matthew 24 was supposed to take place during the lifetime of the generation he was addressing. Since, the opening sets the context and the apocalyptic language is in line with similar passages from the Old Testament which talk about God "coming" in judgement without a physical appearing, I would say my view of the passage is the most sensible.

@MrSimons

that's matthew 24. How are those the opening verses of matthew 16?

@Pikachu I think the same thing is in view in both passages.

@MrSimons

Ok so they're not opening passages giving context to those verses because they come after.

[quote]I think the same thing is in view in both passages.[/quote]

why?

What connects jesus saying he'll return in his kingdom with his angels and that passage?

@Pikachu It's clearly talking about the same event, whatever that is, in both passages. Jesus will come in judgement. The question is what form that judgement takes. I referred to Chapter 24 because that is where Jesus lays it all out in detail. He opens with a clear reference to the destruction of the temple and follows on from there.