Jesus's timing

panda100

To me Jesus timing on coming to earth seems to really suck. Why didnt Jesus wait to come to earth now,in the 21st century when religon and morals are at an all time low and evil,murder and depravity are at an all time high? The world today seems to need Jesus much more then BC Jerusalem did?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

religion and morals are at an all time low?

umm.. slavery? genocide? female opression? homosexual opression? the inquisition? book burnings? trying to destroy science (although that hasn't stopped).

we in the west are far better off socially, economically, morally and just about every possibly -y there is than we were 100, 200, 1000 years ago.

you have no reason to be so scared.

Zombrex

panda100 wrote:

To me Jesus timing on coming to earth seems to really suck. Why didnt Jesus wait to come to earth now,in the 21st century when religon and morals are at an all time low and evil,murder and depravity are at an all time high?

Er, as Mordeth points out religion might be at an all time low but morality is at an all time high. I'm not saying those facts are connected btw, but I am at a bit of a loss as to why you would think morality is at an all time low. A simple study of history of things like crime rates, civil liberities or the evolution of the legal system in the west demonstrates this.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I am

JimiTime

panda100 wrote:

To me Jesus timing on coming to earth seems to really suck. Why didnt Jesus wait to come to earth now,in the 21st century when religon and morals are at an all time low and evil,murder and depravity are at an all time high? The world today seems to need Jesus much more then BC Jerusalem did?

If he came now as he did then, what good would it do? The people of the day put him to death, what chance would he stand now?
He'll be back, but next time as our King with the sword of Judgement:) Read the Gospel accounts and see what he says are signs of his coming.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that's a frightening place to put a smiley face

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The people of the day put him to death, what chance would he stand now?

Probably a quite good one since we don't put people to death for their religious beliefs any more

JimiTime wrote:

Read the Gospel accounts and see what he says are signs of his coming.

Shouldn't he have already been here according to the gospels?

JimiTime

Mordeth wrote:

that's a frightening place to put a smiley face

Why?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

just seems to me christians should never be happy about killing or war.

that's how it was explained to me anyway, I've seen bugger all christians who actually follow that idealogy though.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Probably a quite good one since we don't put people to death for their religious beliefs any more

Depends where you are.

Shouldn't he have already been here according to the gospels?

Ah wicknight my old nemesis:) Quite simply, No! He has been appointed King in heaven, but as for his return on the day of Judgement he does not say, as he told his apostles that only the Father knows. And just in case you say anything about him being God. He is not God, adn don't believe in the trinity:)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you don't believe in the trinity?

are their any other bits of your elective faith that you've decided to leave out?

JimiTime

Mordeth wrote:

just seems to me christians should never be happy about killing or war.

that's how it was explained to me anyway, I've seen bugger all christians who actually follow that idealogy though.

Maybe you haven't witnessed 'christians' being obedient. As for Armageddon, its not about being happy with killing or war, Its about Christ being in his rightful place and ruling his people directly. No longer bound by the futility of man without God, that is why I'll be happy. For after Armageddon we have been promised 'exquisite delight'.

JimiTime

Mordeth wrote:

you don't believe in the trinity?

are their any other bits of your elective faith that you've decided to leave out?

Your Ignorance Reeks from your words! What 'Faith' have you decided to apply to me?

Dades

JimiTime wrote:

If he came now as he did then, what good would it do? The people of the day put him to death, what chance would he stand now?

I'm sure there are plenty of people around now, who claim to be the messiah.
No doubt most of them are locked up - and rightly so.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well I won't mention where your ignorance 'reeks from', but I have labelled you christian.

my question, phrased a little better, was 'how do you justify to yourself which parts of the christian faith you do believe and do not'

why is the trinity not applicable, but the resurection and bodily assumption into heaven is (is assumption the right word?). I take it you also don't buy the wine/bread blood/flesh deal also? what's your opinion then on lazarus? padre pio?
do you stone homosexuals and disobedient children? and if not, why not? it's right there in the bible.

Killaqueen!!!

Wicknight wrote:

Probably a quite good one since we don't put people to death for their religious beliefs any more

Jesus might have already come and gone again. Random (probably crazy) people claim to be Jesus all the time. What would be different about the real One? They'd probably think Jesus was just another nutter.

robindch

> I'm sure there are plenty of people around now, who claim to be the messiah.

Sai Baba in India claims to be one. And -- surprise, surprise! -- he claims that his mother is a virgin. He can also do miracles and he's well known for his words of timeless wisdom.

Unfortunately, his miracles evaporate when caught on camera, and he's also suspected of a wide range of, er, activities with young boys. See here and here. He hasn't been locked up, though. His supporters claim that he's a god, that he's being attacked by "evil" and the poorly-paid local police agree with him (wholeheartedly).

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Depends where you are.

Well I think the number of places where he would be excuted are a little smaller than the number of places where he wouldn't. Paris for example, or Rio.

JimiTime wrote:

Ah wicknight my old nemesis:) Quite simply, No! He has been appointed King in heaven, but as for his return on the day of Judgement he does not say

Is that not what he is saying here?

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Matthew 24:34

Jesus does say that the exact day or hour is not known to anyone except the Father (that would take all the fun out of it surely), but he is quite clear that it will happen within the lifetime of the generation listening to him (this is repeated word for word in Mark)

BrianCalgary

panda100 wrote:

To me Jesus timing on coming to earth seems to really suck. Why didnt Jesus wait to come to earth now,in the 21st century when religon and morals are at an all time low and evil,murder and depravity are at an all time high? The world today seems to need Jesus much more then BC Jerusalem did?

This is a question that can only be answered by God.

A friend once said to me that man's sin and depravity have always been there only our technology for commiting them are more advanced. The depravity in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah is just as bad now.

I agree that the world today needs Jesus, but the people would reject Him now just as they did then. The church was able to grow after Jesus resurection and there are certain places in the world today where the church is experiencing rapid growth and other areas where I think it is about to grow.

It grows where people are prepared to concentrate on the growth of His kingdom on Earth and do here as it is done in Heaven.

I hope that makes sense. I think I got to rambling.

Capt'n Midnight

panda100 wrote:

To me Jesus timing on coming to earth seems to really suck. Why didnt Jesus wait to come to earth now,in the 21st century when religon and morals are at an all time low and evil,murder and depravity are at an all time high? The world today seems to need Jesus much more then BC Jerusalem did?

:rolleyes:
what makes you think you'd benefit ?
you don't live in Israel - or you could wait another couple of centuries for christanity to get here
even if you did, would you be one of the apostles , would you convert from your religion ?
even if you did, would you be prosecutated ?

TBH you live in a time of unparalled religious freedom.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

If Jesus didn't come down to earth 2006 years ago, then you wouldn't have the religion you do today i.e. Roman Catholicism. It's completely pointless speculating on what might have been, because no-boy actually knows. It might be a nice thought to re-assure yourself that some god figure might be able to come down and whip us all into shape, but I'll put money on it never happening.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Is that not what he is saying here?

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Matthew 24:34

Jesus does say that the exact day or hour is not known to anyone except the Father (that would take all the fun out of it surely), but he is quite clear that it will happen within the lifetime of the generation listening to him (this is repeated word for word in Mark)

"this generation" refers to the generation that will exist at the end time spoken of. That is when all the stuff begins to happen, that generation will experience the whole works.

The term does not point to thegeneration or the people that Jesus is actually speaking to.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

BrianCalgary wrote:

The term does not point to thegeneration or the people that Jesus is actually speaking to.

And you know this for sure how?

BrianCalgary

sean_keevey wrote:

And you know this for sure how?

By reading the passage.

bmoferrall

BrianCalgary wrote:

"this generation" refers to the generation that will exist at the end time spoken of. That is when all the stuff begins to happen, that generation will experience the whole works.

The term does not point to thegeneration or the people that Jesus is actually speaking to.

Another interpretation would be that 'generation' refers to the human race as a whole. That seems more plausible to me anyway. Perhaps the greek scholars amongst us can shed light on this?

panda100

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

TBH you live in a time of unparalled religious freedom.

I disagree.If Jesus came now he would be locked up before the age of ten.Actually Jesus wouldnt even be born becuse Joeseph would have divorced Mary and then probably would have sanctioned her to the psychiatric hospital where doctors would probably abort her baby as they would seem her as too unfit a mother. We may have 'religous' freedom in Ireland but we're one of the lucky countries.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/Oppression/

Mordeth wrote:

umm.. slavery? genocide? female opression? homosexual opression? the inquisition? book burnings? trying to destroy science (although that hasn't stopped)..

All these are very much alive and well today.Well except for the book burnings!

Of course I realise that 'evil' has always existed.I guess Im just wondering why then?why not now?and why Jerusalem?Why not London?

BrianCalgary

bmoferrall wrote:

Another interpretation would be that 'generation' refers to the human race as a whole. That seems more plausible to me anyway. Perhaps the greek scholars amongst us can shed light on this?

I have read commentaries citing that viewpoint as well.

robindch

> Another interpretation would be that 'generation' refers to the human race as
> a whole. That seems more plausible to me anyway. Perhaps the greek
> scholars amongst us can shed light on this?

Glad to help.

The greek word is [γενεα] and you can find Liddell and Scott's thorough definitive dissection of the various meanings of the word here:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2321831

Personally, I'd translate it as "those-who-are-born-and-have-being", meaning at most just the next generation, rather than this one. But that's just me.

Either way, it's fairly clear and pretty unambiguous that the speaker intended to mean that something would happen quite quickly, and not at a distance of 2,000 years (and counting).

bmoferrall

Thanks.
It's a confusing chapter to say the least, with references to present-generation and future-generation events seemingly interwoven. A plain reading does appear to imply that verse 24 refers to the contemporary generation. You could (controversially) argue that the author put the chapter together rather badly(/fallibly)!

Zombrex

bmoferrall wrote:

That seems more plausible to me anyway. Perhaps the greek scholars amongst us can shed light on this?

Speaking as an atheists is the more plausible answer, given the context of the passage, not that "this generation" means exactly that, the generation that Jesus is actually talking to, and that the prophecy is simply wrong?

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

Speaking as an atheists is the more plausible answer, given the context of the passage, not that "this generation" means exactly that, the generation that Jesus is actually talking to, and that the prophecy is simply wrong?

NIVersion footnotes this (regarding words this generation)

# Matthew 24:34 Or race

If is obvious that God's servant Jesus is speaking about the end of times (just before the Day of Judgement). He also confesses that he does not poses certain knowledge (showing that he is only a human BTW) and thus (obviously) not being the All-Knowing One.

The Day and Hour Unknown
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Speaking as an atheists is the more plausible answer, given the context of the passage, not that "this generation" means exactly that, the generation that Jesus is actually talking to, and that the prophecy is simply wrong?

It is translated, in some versions I think, as "those now living". Possibly these are not inerrant translations, though...

cordially,
Scofflaw

bmoferrall

Wicknight wrote:

Speaking as an atheists is the more plausible answer, given the context of the passage, not that "this generation" means exactly that, the generation that Jesus is actually talking to, and that the prophecy is simply wrong?

Note that I meant more plausible (to me) than Brian's interpretation, not that it's necessarily the most plausible, or even plausible at all. On reflection, I accept my interpretation is probably wrong.
Anyway, here's a decent, if not entirely satisfactory, exposition of the text. It points out that Jesus was replying to two questions from the disciples - the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming - and that this is the source of much of the confusion. Jesus obviously couldn't say confidently that the second coming would happen during the current generation's lifetime and, at the same time, state that only his father knew when the event would take place.
If one assumes, as a Christian might be expected to, that this is verbatim recording of what Jesus said, then it's undoubtedly a difficult passage to grasp. I can certainly understand how an atheist might dismiss it as a faulty prediction.

Zombrex

bmoferrall wrote:

Jesus obviously couldn't say confidently that the second coming would happen during the current generation's lifetime and, at the same time, state that only his father knew when the event would take place.

That appears to be exactly what he did say.

He basically said "I don't know exact what day or exactly what hour it will happen, but rest assured it will happen within your lifetime"

People say this type of thing all the time, only today my mother said she isn't sure when she will get to visit some relatives of mine, but it will be before Christmas.

Think about the context he is saying it in. He is telling these people that they are to prepare as if the second coming could take place at any time. He describes it like servents in a masters house who do not know when the master will be coming home, but they know it is soon. So they are to be on constant watch. They cannot relax. If they knew the exact date then they wouldn't be on constant watch. If they knew it would happen long after they were dead again they wouldn't be on constant watch.

The "this generation" probably means exactly that, this current generation, within the life time of the people Jesus is talking to. The only reason not to believe that is what the translation meant is because it clearly didn't end up happening.

The context of race holds little meaning here in the the context that Jesus is speaking, and holds little meaning within the context of the analogy of the servent watching for his masters return.

Now of course Christians are going to bend over backwards to try and find other meanings, with varying degrees of plausability, for this apparent mistake, since the Bible has to be correct and cannot contain any mistakes or errors. But I have no religous need to do so, this is just another in the long list of errors that is found in the Bible that are plain as day to a non-Christian.

It is merely an example of why arguing over the errors in the Bible is largely pointless since a Christian with a vested interest in the Bible being correct will never see the errors, as they can always be explained away with some other explination.

hairyheretic

panda100 wrote:

I disagree.If Jesus came now he would be locked up before the age of ten.

And how do you figure that?

panda100 wrote:

Actually Jesus wouldnt even be born becuse Joeseph would have divorced Mary and then probably would have sanctioned her to the psychiatric hospital where doctors would probably abort her baby as they would seem her as too unfit a mother.

I think you're a few decades out in your thinking there. The religious institutions can't get away with that kind of abuse any longer.

panda100 wrote:

We may have 'religous' freedom in Ireland but we're one of the lucky countries.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/Oppression/

Try www.religioustolerance.org .. I've found it quite a good site

panda100 wrote:

All these are very much alive and well today.Well except for the book burnings!

Their descendents live on though, in censorship of assorted kinds.

panda100 wrote:

Of course I realise that 'evil' has always existed.I guess Im just wondering why then?why not now?and why Jerusalem?Why not London?

That I can't answer.

Dave!

Panda, what are you talking about? We've never had it better!!! Try living in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus and I'm sure you'll quickly lose the romantic image you have of the time.

Zombrex

panda100 wrote:

I disagree.If Jesus came now he would be locked up before the age of ten.

Under what charge?

panda100 wrote:

Actually Jesus wouldnt even be born becuse Joeseph would have divorced Mary and then probably would have sanctioned her to the psychiatric hospital where doctors would probably abort her baby as they would seem her as too unfit a mother.

Yes, because that happens a lot! :rolleyes:

panda100 wrote:

Of course I realise that 'evil' has always existed.I guess Im just wondering why then?why not now?and why Jerusalem?Why not London?

Probably because we have it so good now, morality is at an all time high, what is the need for Jesus. That would be my guess

panda100

DaveMcG wrote:

Panda, what are you talking about? We've never had it better!!! Try living in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus and I'm sure you'll quickly lose the romantic image you have of the time.

Dont get me wrong of course I know that things werent all rosepetals and daises back then. But there not excatly all kittens and rainbows these days either! Im sure both modern day Jerusalem and Jesus's Jerusalem had their pros and cons. Im just asking is there any reason why he came then and not now?Does it perhaps explain in scripture why God chose THAT time to send Jesus to earth? Would It not have made much more sense for him to come now?He could have travelled all over the world ,he could have used all types of media to spread his message and doctors would have been able to testify conclusively that his 'miracle' were in fact 'miracles'. I know this sounds like the reasoning of a two year old child but its something I've always thought about.Why then?Obviously no one really knows the answer to this but it would be intresting to hear what other peoples view are on Jesus timing?

aidan24326

Wicknight, even if morality is at 'an all-time high', that's only relative to our barbaric past. We could hardly have gotten any worse than our predecessors who used the full scope of the human imagination in inflicting all manner of horrors on their fellow man (and other creatures). Though I would think an 'all-loving God' would be no less distraught at the modern day actions of his 'creations', still killing each other by the truckload, often in his name.

As for Jesus' timing (going back to Panda's question) there would be alot to be said for 'God', if the God of the bible existed, sending a representative (like Jesus) to Earth in the modern age. (after all he's God, surely he can do this whenever he pleases).

There are claims that Jesus performed miracles, walked on water, healed the sick etc. In a time rife with irrational superstition and lacking in the scientific knowledge and method of today, these hocus pocus magic tricks wouldn't have been too difficult to pull off (not that they ever happened - but I would love to have been there for the David Copperfield-style walking on water trick).

Were Jesus to come back now and demonstrate these wondrous feats under scientifically controlled conditions, well at the very least us naysayers might have to take him a little more seriously as an illusionist, if not as the son of 'God'.

bus77

aidan24326 wrote:

Were Jesus to come back now and demonstrate these wondrous feats under scientifically controlled conditions, well at the very least us naysayers might have to take him a little more seriously as an illusionist, if not as the son of 'God'.

Hell, It would be a miracle to see a magician everybody liked.

Capt'n Midnight

From What we believe but cannot prove ISBN 0-7432-7592-6 page 52

Sam Harris wrote:

Twenty-two per cent of Americans claim to be certain that Jesus will return to Earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. Another 22 per cent believe that he is likely to do so.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1294&Itemid=244

starn

Going off topic. But with all due respect to everyone I think a better question is to ask why no one in this society has had as much unfluance as Jesus. The only person who I can see effecting any sort of change or of having any influance of note is Oprah Winfrey and her bookclub. Why havent the right people come forward and tried to effect change

Capt'n Midnight

starn wrote:

Going off topic. But with all due respect to everyone I think a better question is to ask why no one in this society has had as much unfluance as Jesus. The only person who I can see effecting any sort of change or of having any influance of note is Oprah Winfrey and her bookclub. Why havent the right people come forward and tried to effect change

The communists/dictators are probably responsible for more deaths in the last century than all the religious wars ever, Marx take a bow.

Oprah Winfrey is hardly a world changer.

Zombrex

starn wrote:

Going off topic. But with all due respect to everyone I think a better question is to ask why no one in this society has had as much unfluance as Jesus. The only person who I can see effecting any sort of change or of having any influance of note is Oprah Winfrey and her bookclub. Why havent the right people come forward and tried to effect change

That isn't really true.

History has produced far more influential people that Jesus. For a start you kinda have to be Christian to be influenced by Jesus, where as other ideas such as democracy, or various scientific ideas such as Newtons laws of motion, have pretty much universally influenced everyone who studies even basic maths.

babyvaio

I'm not sure if everybody will agree, but to take a look doesn't hurt. Here is the list of Top 5. The full list can be found here

THE 100 - MICHAEL HART

A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY

1. Muhammed

Muhammed was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religous and secular levels.

For a while, it must have seemed that the Moslems would overwhelm all of Christian Europe. However, in 732, at the famous Battle of Tours, a Moslem army, which had advanced into the centre of France, was at last defeated by the Franks.

Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occured even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived.

2. Isaac Newton

Even though political changes are significant, it is fair to say that most people in the world were living the same way 500 years after Alexander the Great's death as their forebears had lived five centuries before his time. Similarly, in most of their daily activities, the majority of human beings were living in the same way in 1500 AD as human beings had been living in 1500 BC. In the last five centuries, however, with the rise of modern science, the everyday life of most human beings has been completely revolutionized. We dress differently, eat different foods, work at different jobs, and spend out leisure time a great deal differently than people did in 1500 AD. Scientific discoveries have not only revolutionized technology and economics; they have also completely changed politics, religious thinking, art, and philosophy.
Few aspects of human activity have remained unchanged by this scientific revolution. Isaac Newton was not only the most brilliant of all scientists; he was also the most influential figure in the development of scientific theory.

3. Jesus Christ

That science did eventually arise in Europe is indeed an indication that there was something in the European cultural heritage that was favourable to the scientific way of thinking. That something, however, was not the sayings of Jesus, but rather Greek rationalism, as typified by the works of Aristotle and Euclid.
It is noteworthy that modern science developed, not during the heyday of Church power and of Christian piety, but rather on the heels of the Renaissance, a period during which Europe experienced a renewal of interest in its pre-Christian heritage.

4. Buddha

5. Confucius

The failure of Confucianism to spread widely outside of China indicates how closely the ideas of Confucius were grounded in pre-existing Chinese attitudes.

panda100

Intresting list there babyvaoi
Plaese can those sending me pms about how crazy I am from this thread please stop.It was a genuine question and while it may seem silly to some people was something I have always wondered about.

robindch

> The communists/dictators are probably responsible for more deaths in the last
> century than all the religious wars ever, Marx take a bow.

Memo -- must put this into the christianity FAQ too: Marx is no more responsible for Stalin's power games than Jesus Christ is repsonsible for Richard Lionheart's. The common problem is the habit of unquestioning belief that some people hold, and a murderous nutter who knows how to advantage of it.

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> The communists/dictators are probably responsible for more deaths in the last
> century than all the religious wars ever, Marx take a bow.

Memo -- must put this into the christianity FAQ too: Marx is no more responsible for Stalin's power games than Jesus Christ is repsonsible for Richard Lionheart's. The common problem is the habit of unquestioning belief that some people hold, and a murderous nutter who knows how to advantage of it.

Michael Hart is a Christian BTW, so in case somebody has problems with his book, then I suggest you talk to him.

Capt'n Midnight

robindch wrote:

Memo -- must put this into the christianity FAQ too: Marx is no more responsible for Stalin's power games than Jesus Christ is repsonsible for Richard Lionheart's. The common problem is the habit of unquestioning belief that some people hold, and a murderous nutter who knows how to advantage of it.

The question was in relation to influence, not responsibility.

Maybe in years to come it will turn out that more people will be affected as severly by Oprah than by Mao :rolleyes:

As to the original question of an imminent second coming, do people expect this because they want it or fear it ?

robindch

> The question was in relation to influence, not responsibility.

Fair enough. But the point still stands

> As to the original question of an imminent second coming, do people
> expect this because they want it or fear it?

I suspect because they want it. They're told constantly that all they have to do is to believe the right thing and they'll magically be transported immediately to everlasting happiness as soon as the second coming happens (or sometime soon after it). Would you like to believe that you could swap your life in an Alabama trailer-park for a land flowing with milk and honey and no dang libruls?

starn

I dont belive that Muhammed really belongs at the top of that list of Christ for that matter. As far as I can see everything in modern day society for physic, maths, geography to ethics and moral code. Seems to stem from ancient greece. Shouldnt Pytagoris, Plato and Socretes and there disciples feature heavily in that list