GenesisNemesis

Is there any evidence other than the Bible for the crucifixion of Jesus? Is there any evidence that the miracles of Jesus could just have been rumors? Why would the disciples who were asking Jesus what the signs would be of His coming be, if His coming was going to be in 2000 years? Why would they be curious, if they knew they were going to be dead 2000 years later anyways? If Revelation was meant for 2000 years in the future, wouldn't it have been written 2000 years in the future? This speaks for itself, the Second Coming was meant for their time. And guess what? He didn't come back. So, what does that mean for the Crucifixion? Did it really happen? If so, why did Jesus not come back? Surely that means the Crucifixion didn't happen then?

Hebrews 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

The word "tarry" means "wait". So, why has Jesus been waiting for 2000 years to come?

Nuwanda

One of Logic, you've made a few assumptions that have created false conclusion. First, the disciples asked "when will these things be (the destruction of Jerusalem), and what will be the signs of your coming and of the end of the age" (Matt 24:3). His answer took both questions into consideration. The destruction of Jerusalem and His return are two separate issues as you will see when you read it in context. This is partially why He said it's coming soon, the destruction of Jerusalem was only a few decades away.

Your second assumption is that God is on our timeline. See 2 Peter 3:8 and 9, "...one day with the Lord is as a 1000 years and a 1000 years as one day. The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some consider slowness, but is longsuffering toward you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance..."

Your conclusion that the crucifixion didn't happen because He hasn't returned is a false conclusion build on faulty logic based on faulty assumptions.

GenesisNemesis

What about

John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time (or hour): and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
The Greek expression, translated "last time" in the verse "eschate_ho_ra_". It literally means "last hour". Could this be any plainer? This doesn't even need further comment. It speaks for itself.

Or Notice the reactions of Jesus' disciples: when Jesus leaves the temple and goes to the Mount of Olives, the disciples following him are talking about the temple and how beautiful it is. Four of them, Peter, James, John and Andrew, come to him privately ( Cf. Mrk. 13:3) and ask him two questions, the second being in two parts, although some argue that there are three questions.
• When shall these things be?
• what shall be the sign of your coming?
• and [when shall] the end of the world [come]?
First, they are curious as to when this will all happen. Remember that Jesus had just told them that not one stone would be left standing on another, meaning a complete destruction of the temple. Next, notice carefully how they associate his coming with the destruction of the temple, and finally, how that, to them, this meant the end of the world. If it didn't, they wouldn't have asked about the end of the world. This is very important because this means that they believed that Jesus himself would return, signaling the end of the world, when that temple, the one standing at that time, in the first century, was to be destroyed.

?

Nuwanda

From a logical and literary standpoint it does not make sense that Jesus would say that no one "not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son..." (Mark 13:32) knows when the time of His return is if He knew that the destruction of the temple and His second coming were parts of the same event. Jesus knew very well when the temple would be destroyed but admitted to not knowing when His second coming was.

Also, it's not important what the disciples "thought" He meant. They routinely got His message wrong, especially when it came to prophesy.

There's also an underlying issue that I probably shouldn't bring up because it requires a lot of explanation and examples, but there is such a thing as "double" prophesy in the Bible. Many scriptures demonstrate that a single prophesy can be telling of multiple occurrences. For instance, John the Baptist fulfilled the prophesy of Elijah coming before the Messiah, however Elijah was still to come in the end time before Christ's return (Mark 9:11-13). Same goes for the "abomination of desolation" (Mark 13:14) which Nero fulfilled in the 1st century but will also be seen at Christ's 2nd coming.

In short, it's not wise to make the statements you made based on your assumptions of Biblical prophesy.

voodoomage

You mean like what you're doing with the "double prophecy" statement, right?

Doug Shaver

In God's lexicon, does "not slow" even mean anything?

What is the difference between fast and slow when God is talking? It would appear that either one just means "whenever God gets good and ready."

Vivisector

Seems God/Jesus could have made things a little easier for us by using words (e.g., "quickly," "slowly") in the sense they're normally used. Maybe God/Jesus just get a charge out of saying, "Yeah, I said a day, but ... bzzzzt ... I mean a thousand years for you! Or maybe two thousand years! Keep waiting! Muahahah!"

God knows all, Jesus is God, therefore Jesus knows all. But wait, Jesus doesn't know all, because he doesn't know when he's coming again. Is Jesus not God? Does God not know all? Or does Jesus really know when he's coming again, but he's misleading all of us? But wait, that would mean Jesus ... or God ... or both ... or whoever ... lied. Can he/he/they lie? This is so confusing.

Bad disciples. Bad, bad disciples. Bad, bad stupid disciples.

You could also have included the equally ad hoc and even more self-serving triple and quadruple fulfillments with all permutations of literal and figurative fulfillment. Those are always nice rabbits to pull out of the hat. Of course, it would have been helpful had you deigned to elucidate the criteria one applies to determine - a priori, of course - which prophecies will be singly, doubly or triply fulfilled, which will be fulfilled literally and/or figuratively, etc. Oh, wait - we don't have those criteria, do we?

That's right. One of Logic's assumptions are wrong, and yours are right. How utterly inconceivable that Logic would presume to have an inkling of how this prophecy business works - especially when Logic claims to be an atheist, and we all know that atheists have no business mucking about in prophecy.

V.

Nuwanda

That's why I said that I probably shouldn't have brought it up, not only does it take a lot of study but it also distracted you from the point. My apologies.

Nuwanda

In a sense you're right.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit..." (John 6:63)

and again,

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor 2:14)

As one without the Spirit you are at a major disadvantage when it comes to understanding scripture which is why it appears so confusing (but that's not to say that believers don't completely miss the point at times either).

Godless Dave

No.

Personally I don't doubt the crucifixion of Jesus. The Romans crucified a lot of people. But if, as the Bible says, he offended the Pharisees more than the Romans, the Jewish authorities would have executed him by stoning, not crucifixion.