The Second Coming of Christ

[Riaan]

A question to Christians who still believe that Christ will return to judge the world and so forth.

Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive (e.g. Matthew 16:28 and 24:34):

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

How do you reconcile this undertaking by Christ with the fact that he had failed to do so?

There is, of course, a perfectly natural explanation for his failure to return as promised. As Josephus’ ‘Egyptian’ (which was the epithet the Jews knew him by), Christ’s intention was to return after his staged crucifixion with a rebel force capable of overthrowing the Romans and establish himself as the new king of Judea. However, Felix got wind of the looming rebellion and defeated the Egyptian’s rebel force, thereby thwarting the Second Coming of Christ (details here).

Can you offer any other realistic explanation for Christ’s failed promise?

[+and-then]

A question to Christians who still believe that Christ will return to judge the world and so forth.

Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive (e.g. Matthew 16:28 and 24:34):

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

How do you reconcile this undertaking by Christ with the fact that he had failed to do so?

There is, of course, a perfectly natural explanation for his failure to return as promised. As Josephus’ ‘Egyptian’ (which was the epithet the Jews knew him by), Christ’s intention was to return after his staged crucifixion with a rebel force capable of overthrowing the Romans and establish himself as the new king of Judea. However, Felix got wind of the looming rebellion and defeated the Egyptian’s rebel force, thereby thwarting the Second Coming of Christ (details here).

Can you offer any other realistic explanation for Christ’s failed promise?

None that you'd accept. That verse has been used many times to cast doubt on His truth. The commonly accepted (among Christians) explanation is the transfiguration - Matt 17:1-9 Peter, James and John ('some of those with him') indeed saw him as he will be in his kingdom. The Mount Olivet discourse could be taken from the daily news today and all those signs - every one - are increasing in severity and frequency. Those who call on him will be saved, those who rely on themselves, science, money and yes, arrogance will find another fate. We all have to believe something in our core spirit. THIS is my belief. And it harms no one. Those it annoys might try being truthful with themselves as to why on earth another's choice in such an area should bother them at all.

eta: BTW, after reading that I realized I might have come across as a smart alec - it was not my intent. I just meant that non believers tend to be unable to accept the explanations since they too, are based on faith. The bible even explains that the word of God seems as foolishness to them. They just aren't capable of accepting. No harm, no foul.

Edited September 3, 2015 by and then

[Riaan]

None that you'd accept. That verse has been used many times to cast doubt on His truth. The commonly accepted (among Christians) explanation is the transfiguration - Matt 17:1-9 Peter, James and John ('some of those with him') indeed saw him as he will be in his kingdom. The Mount Olivet discourse could be taken from the daily news today and all those signs - every one - are increasing in severity and frequency. Those who call on him will be saved, those who rely on themselves, science, money and yes, arrogance will find another fate. We all have to believe something in our core spirit. THIS is my belief. And it harms no one. Those it annoys might try being truthful with themselves as to why on earth another's choice in such an area should bother them at all.

You are absolutely right - it is your privilege to believe whatever you want to believe. My interest is only in the historicity of Christ and my conclusions about who he really was are likewise none that you would accept.

[freetoroam]

Can you offer any other realistic explanation for Christ’s failed promise?

He died on a cross.

[Riaan]

He died on a cross.

A logical conclusion, but he had also promised that he would die on the cross and would rise from the grave three days later. That implies that he intended not to actually die on the cross, and that he would 'return' a considerable time (couple of decades?) later.

[freetoroam]

A logical conclusion, but he had also promised that he would die on the cross and would rise from the grave three days later. That implies that he intended not to actually die on the cross, and that he would 'return' a considerable time (couple of decades?) later.

Correct, he had promised this, but death put a stop to it.

I would like to know if he did return (all purely hypothetical) decades later, how much of our world would he actually know about. would he know how to use a mobile phone? would he know we have cars and no longer travel on donkeys? would he know we have toilet paper, fast food shops and remote controls for t.v`s which is the cause for many a row in the household?

[Astral Hillbilly]

Your interpretation of this passage is flawed. Which isn't really a surprise to me, because Christ said that the Bible can't be interpreted by non believers in the same way as believers. It's not going to mean the same thing to an unbeliever as it is by a saved Christian. Plus, Satan is a master of deceit. He doesn't want you to believe that Jesus gave his own blood on the cross to pay for all our sins and allow us to enter Heaven.

I pray that God opens your heart and your mind to the truth before it's too late.

[Riaan]

Correct, he had promised this, but death put a stop to it.

I would like to know if he did return (all purely hypothetical) decades later, how much of our world would he actually know about. would he know how to use a mobile phone? would he know we have cars and no longer travel on donkeys? would he know we have toilet paper, fast food shops and remote controls for t.v`s which is the cause for many a row in the household?

I think you are confusing 'decades' with centuries or millenia. A couple of decades means 20 to 30 years later.

[Riaan]

I pray that God opens your heart and your mind to the truth before it's too late.

Alas, I have a mother and friends who are also praying for me, but someday it will be 'too late' Nevertheless, thank you - to me this is characteristic of a devout and true Christian - to be commended!

[ellapenella]

A question to Christians who still believe that Christ will return to judge the world and so forth.

Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive (e.g. Matthew 16:28 and 24:34):

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

How do you reconcile this undertaking by Christ with the fact that he had failed to do so?

There is, of course, a perfectly natural explanation for his failure to return as promised. As Josephus’ ‘Egyptian’ (which was the epithet the Jews knew him by), Christ’s intention was to return after his staged crucifixion with a rebel force capable of overthrowing the Romans and establish himself as the new king of Judea. However, Felix got wind of the looming rebellion and defeated the Egyptian’s rebel force, thereby thwarting the Second Coming of Christ (details here).

Can you offer any other realistic explanation for Christ’s failed promise?

I dunno.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Ellapennella

[Jack Skellington]

A question to Christians who still believe that Christ will return to judge the world and so forth.

Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive (e.g. Matthew 16:28 and 24:34):

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

How do you reconcile this undertaking by Christ with the fact that he had failed to do so?

There is, of course, a perfectly natural explanation for his failure to return as promised. As Josephus’ ‘Egyptian’ (which was the epithet the Jews knew him by), Christ’s intention was to return after his staged crucifixion with a rebel force capable of overthrowing the Romans and establish himself as the new king of Judea. However, Felix got wind of the looming rebellion and defeated the Egyptian’s rebel force, thereby thwarting the Second Coming of Christ (details here).

Can you offer any other realistic explanation for Christ’s failed promise?

Your article takes quite the leap-- insisting that Christ was actually Simon Magus who then adopted the alias (the apostle) Paul. Leaving that giant leap aside, I think that Astral Hillbilly is essentially right in thinking that the perceived problem is at it's core because of misinterpretation and consequently a misunderstanding of the text itself.

The account has no conflict, if you can understand it.

First of all the whole idea of "a second coming" is an idea that has been mistakenly put forth. Forget for a moment all the times that it was recorded in the old testament of the appearance of the Angel (spirit) of the Lord -- who some consider equivalency to "Christ" but let's say that his first appearance was at the birth of Jesus. His second coming would have been after his crucifixion at the tomb-- and he then appeared a third, fourth, fifth and many more times to different people in different places. He would appear in other forms (bodies) that people didn't recognize at first (by sight) and only afterwards would they realize that it had been him because of something he did or said or something that later came to mind. The last record of him prior to leaving stated that he would come back in this same way that he had appeared. Does that mean that he would return again as a baby? -a common man born among common people? --Probably. But recall that at the time of the birth of Christ, the people were anticipating the coming of a savior, but they were expecting something quite different than what they got. They were expecting another Moses-- they got Jesus.

Secondly, just as people then didn't know that what they were expecting was wrong-- I think that the return of Christ in this age will be quite different than what modern Christians have come to expect. They anticipate Jesus coming on the clouds from the air, or catching them up in the air or some such rubbish, and then they think that he will establish a physical kingdom on earth for a thousand years-- all misguided concepts spawned from misinterpretations themselves spawned from a ridiculous attempt to apply the text in a literal sense, which it was never meant to be.

Your quoted verses speak of those present at that time "not tasting death" and of "that generation not passing away" before the return of Christ. These seem on their face to have been wrong in that assertion since certainly all of those folks who were eye witnesses surely died. You can say--- ''oops! The passage was completely wrong, -it's now been 2000 years and still no Jesus."

Or-- you could step back and ask yourself if he might have meant something else entirely. IF-- for example he meant "this generation" as "an age" instead of one generation of people (20, 40, or 70 years)-- the passage then takes on a whole new understanding.

When you read the Creation account in Genesis it begins with the story of a man and a woman in a garden-- and so on. That age continued until it became so corrupt and lost that God chose to wipe it all out and start again. This is either a real example or it is not. If it's a real example then we should pay attention to it, and to similar stories and parables that speak of the end of an age, the last days, etc. The point is that a generation doesn't have to be limited to our understanding of what a generation is... what if Christ was speaking of those standing there not passing away in a spiritual sense? That, though their body dies, their spirit lives on and is re-generated again and again--- like a seed, or a tree, or any number of symbols given. LIFE goes on until the end of an age.

Just some thoughts. Most Christians will outright reject the idea of rebirth-- despite not having any good reason to do so.

[freetoroam]

I think you are confusing 'decades' with centuries or millenia. A couple of decades means 20 to 30 years later.

Sorry, you mentioned decades so I followed suit, but i thought you meant the second coming meant more recent times,

So in fact we are not even talking about him coming back today, but "a couple of decades" back then from his death...before the new testament was even written?

20 30 years after his death could mean that someone could have even claimed they were him as he could still have been at an age of being alive if he had not been crucified......wonder why no one did?

Please could you explain when you think he should have come back.....

A logical conclusion, but he had also promised that he would die on the cross and would rise from the grave three days later. That implies that he intended not to actually die on the cross, and that he would 'return' a considerable time (couple of decades?) later.

did you mean a couple of decades later?

[docyabut2]

A question to Christians who still believe that Christ will return to judge the world and so forth.

Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive (e.g. Matthew 16:28 and 24:34):

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

How do you reconcile this undertaking by Christ with the fact that he had failed to do so?

There is, of course, a perfectly natural explanation for his failure to return as promised. As Josephus’ ‘Egyptian’ (which was the epithet the Jews knew him by), Christ’s intention was to return after his staged crucifixion with a rebel force capable of overthrowing the Romans and establish himself as the new king of Judea. However, Felix got wind of the looming rebellion and defeated the Egyptian’s rebel force, thereby thwarting the Second Coming of Christ (details here).

Can you offer any other realistic explanation for Christ’s failed promise?

He also said he existed before Abraham was born, meaning his disciples would be with him in spirit in the last days, I believe Jesus was physic he knew of his own death and knew of the future days where all mankind might be destroyed.

Edited September 4, 2015 by docyabut2

[+Liquid Gardens]

The point is that a generation doesn't have to be limited to our understanding of what a generation is... what if Christ was speaking of those standing there not passing away in a spiritual sense?

'What if' though can make all seemingly incorrect statements correct. It seems like if we're going to take that tack it'd be easier to 'what if' the phrases 'son of man', 'his kingdom', or 'death', those are much vaguer concepts. I don't think your argument here agrees well with your earlier statement, 'the account has no conflict if you can understand it'; 'understand' seems to assume a correct interpretation but the use of 'what if' suggests more than one possibility.

[Meditation and Prayer]

Hi Riaan, I want to start by thanking you for your question. It means so much that someone is seeking answers or understanding.

The belief that Jesus will return to judge the world is the majority belief held in Christianity.

The scripture that you quote is dialogue between Jesus and the disciples. If all 12 disciples were there and only the disciples which of them tasted death? Which ones died for the name of Jesus? “38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it (Matthew 10: 38,39)” My best answer is that Judas was present and Jesus is speaking about eternal death. Judas is the only disciple that betrayed Jesus. The others became apostles and were murdered. What we consider to be death in this world is only rest/sleep to Jesus. Having to live eternally in hell is the true death.

“His Kingdom”

Although Jesus was born King of the Jews, he came to spread the message of his kingdom in heaven. His kingdom has never been established on Earth but this is something that is still yet to come.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

The question of this scripture is how long is a generation in the eyes of God? Man is going to tell you that you have generation x, y, z but Jesus has reveled that a generation in spiritual terms is marked by prophetic events occurring. Two entirely different definitions! We are still within the same generation that Jesus speaks of Spiritually.

Remember that the a persons’ soul is at rest when their bodies become inanimate. So the saying should be R.I.J (rest in Jesus).

If there is any other questions you may have please email reezeyreal@yahoo.com

[Habitat]

Is it possible that the second coming was meant generically, not specifically the "same" individual. After all there can only be one of us, as "individuals"

[Riaan]

did you mean a couple of decades later?

Yes, I meant (as did Christ) while some of those he was addressing were still alive. As he was in his late 40s when he was crucified (see points 11-14 here), it could have been any time between the age of fifty to probably seventy.

[freetoroam]

Yes, I meant (as did Christ) while some of those he was addressing were still alive. As he was in his late 40s when he was crucified (see points 11-14 here), it could have been any time between the age of fifty to probably seventy.

Ah ok, so he is not due back any time after that? That's it then? he did not come back when he had his chance so no chance of him coming back at all now, especially as now he would be in his 2015ish.

[Jack Skellington]

'What if' though can make all seemingly incorrect statements correct. It seems like if we're going to take that tack it'd be easier to 'what if' the phrases 'son of man', 'his kingdom', or 'death', those are much vaguer concepts. I don't think your argument here agrees well with your earlier statement, 'the account has no conflict if you can understand it'; 'understand' seems to assume a correct interpretation but the use of 'what if' suggests more than one possibility.

The premise of the thread states that "Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive." My contention is that there is an unfounded assumption in that statement and that Jesus didn't mean that at all. The premise itself is incorrect, so rather than "what if" -- it's more like-- "if that, then this."

Of course there is more than one possibility. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance, but it doesn't stop some people from insisting that it means only one thing.

[Jack Skellington]

Is it possible that the second coming was meant generically, not specifically the "same" individual. After all there can only be one of us, as "individuals"

Of course this is possible. Prior to the coming of Christ and the birth of Jesus, there was the birth of John. The people at that time firmly held to the belief that Elijah would first return, ahead of the Messiah. They were sure of it and so certain, that they entirely missed and dismissed the idea that John (the Baptist) was in fact the "Elijah" they were waiting on. It wasn't the same individual at all and this could be the case with "the return" of Christ at any time.

Imagine for a moment that all return after death-- a new life as a new person with no recollection of any previous incarnation. This is by design and part of a cycle that continues until "the end of an age" -- until this generation passes away.

[Riaan]

Ah ok, so he is not due back any time after that? That's it then? he did not come back when he had his chance so no chance of him coming back at all now, especially as now he would be in his 2015ish.

Yes, that is the point.

[Riaan]

The premise of the thread states that "Christ made it absolutely clear that he intended returning from heaven while many of those around him were still alive." My contention is that there is an unfounded assumption in that statement and that Jesus didn't mean that at all. The premise itself is incorrect, so rather than "what if" -- it's more like-- "if that, then this."

This is exactly what Christ stated - "while some of you that are standing here ...". If this is not what he meant, the text of the New Testament is wrong. Would that be an option?

[Habitat]

It occurs to me that if Christ really did appear to some of his followers following his death, that would satisfy the prediction of the "second coming".

[+Paranoid Android]

The third coming of the Son of Man distinguished in the New Testament is his coming on the clouds of heaven. It is a coming which takes place within the lifetime of Jesus’ hearers and will be recognized by them as having taken place. Jesus predicted “They shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory…. Verily I say unto you this generation shall not pass away until all these things are accomplished”. (Matt 24:30, 34). It is plain from these passages that Jesus expected with absolute certainty that the Son of Man would come on the clouds during the lifetime of his hearers. The imagery of the Son of Man coming on the clouds is drawn directly from Daniel 7:13, where the son of man comes with the clouds into the presence of the Ancient of Days and receives the Kingdom.

This coming of the Son of Man is neither a coming into the world at Bethlehem nor the coming or parousia in judgement at Jerusalem but is a coming to the Father. As Jesus said in his prayer before his death “I come to thee” (John 17:11). He comes to the Father to receive the everlasting kingdom, to be crowned with glory and honour through his death, to sit on God’s right hand, asking reigning and waiting for every enemy to be subject to him. The “coming on the clouds” is a synonym for “sitting at the right hand of God”, and both stand for receiving and the exercising of dominion and sovereignty. In recording the words of the Saviour, Matthew uses both images: “henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64). Strictly speaking the images are incompatible, but they both stand for the same truth, that through his death Christ has been raised to the Father’s right hand where he now reigns.

~ Excerpt from The Doctrine of God, Volume 1 - Matthias Media, 2000, a collection of essays by the eminent theologian DB Knox.

This sufficiently answers the question of the OP, in my opinion.

[Shibolet]

It occurs to me that if Christ really did appear to some of his followers following his death, that would satisfy the prediction of the "second coming".

Well Habitat, you could very well be saying some thing worthy verifying. I could add John 21:22 as a quote to your statement to justify the so-fast return of Jesus.