gregor

The preterist argument is a poor post-hoc rationalization. It ignores all of the language about the events surrounding the return (darkness, all people seeing him, trumpets, etc.).

And the ultimate proof of the invalidity of the preterist claim is 2 Peter.

2 Peter was probably written after 70 CE, and it points out that people are losing faith because no return of Christ. Why should we (2,000 years later) believe the second coming occurred in 70 CE, when those folks living in 100 CE were still awaiting a promised return - and complaining about it not occurring?

Mike(ATL)

Jack the Bodiless, read all of Mark 13, does that sound like Jesus is talking about something that's going to happen in 30 years or so? He gives several things that have to happen first, the least of which is not that the gospel must be preached to all the nations of the earth. You then attempt to take one phrase, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," and say that means it will all happen within what we commonly label in our current language the period of a "generation." Just look at the definition of the word genea. Another interpretation of the word could be race, it's not clearly defined. Since it's not clear, look at the surrounding text. Jesus had just gone through this whole list of conditions to look for and things that must take place in a period of "tribulation" before the second coming. This certainly does not read like something that's supposed to happen within 30 years. Also note that right after the mention of this "generation" He says something that gives the impression that he's speaking on a larger timescale here.

Mark 13:30-31
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

I'm glad Mark and Spurly pointed out you pointed out 2 Peter 3 and Acts 1 because they clearly address this issue.

2 Peter 3 clearly says that although some were impatient that the apostle Peter at least was not expecting Jesus to come right away.

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Luke opens Acts by addressing this issue. Jesus said it is not for you to know the "time or epochs," does this sound like someone who's thinking on the timescale of a single generation? He even goes on to say that although the time of the second coming is unknown, they will soon receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:6-8
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Javaman gave a few verses speaking about a more immanent coming of the Son of Man. In all of those verses He said that at a time very close to His crucifixion. When Jesus died and was resurrected he conquered death and Satan and ushered in the time of Christ. He described his death as His coming to power Himself when He was on trial.

Matthew 26:64 (NASB, capitalized to denote OT reference)
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

This certainly isn't a rationalization. Jesus was making the point that He was establishing His kingdom fulfilling prophecy. Not a worldly kingdom but a spiritual kingdom.

Hope this clears things up, as always please correct me where I'm saying something contradictory to the Bible.

judge

Yes this is exactly what I am saying...read the prophets ..Joel is one who springs to mind. Read just who it is that is at the head of this terrible army in Joel

Jack the Bodiless

Mike:

Those works you cite were written later than the verses from Paul, when the non-arrival of Jesus was becoming a problem.

There is a fundamental problem with the use of later works to wriggle out of ANY contradiction: it means that the Bible is wrong until the later work gets written.

Mike(ATL)

I don't buy that argument as long as the later works don’t contradict the earlier. That is certainly not the case here as I demonstrated. When Jesus was talking about his second coming originally, as I said, it does not appear he is talking about all of this happening within this "generation." He was trying to drive the point home that we do not know when He will come so we should be ready at all times. The reason for saying this, as I see it, is that we live with a sense of urgency when we know that Jesus could come again at any time. I guess you would like me to address specifically the verses you cited. Yes, it appears there was an attitude evident that Christ would be coming soon. Jesus wants us to have this attitude, however He did not promise to come right away (Mark 13:33). The authors in the verses you cited were not promising He would come right away. There's nothing wrong with believing Jesus will come soon, just know that we do not know the day so don't grow impatient. This is a consistent message throughout scripture, regardless of when the particular text was written.

mark9950

Either way the followers believed and written that he would come soon and he did not.

Which is a biblical error and the word of God is just a word of a god.

We cannot deny a misunderstanding between jesus meaning and his followers understanding can we?

Mike(ATL)

Wrong. Like I said, the authors did not say that Jesus was definitely coming within their lifetimes so their word was not errant.

Jesus cannot be responsible for our perception or how we act on it. If God was at fault every time we did something stupid then we have bigger problems than this.

Doctor X

Save that they clearly did say he was coming within their lifetimes.

Then, of course, you have those competing birth narratives and genealogies. . . .

--J.D.

mark9950

I guess you are saying that the english language EVOLVED and God did not create it.

That makes sense now.

Jack the Bodiless

Mike:
The problem here is that we cannot know what Jesus said "originally". Even though the storyline has the events in the gospels preceding Paul's writings, the gospels themselves do not: they were written later.
The authors of the gospels are making this point. As I see it, the reason is that Jesus didn't show up as predicted.
And this would have been the latest info from the most up-to-date Christian texts we know of, until the gospels themselves were written and the claim revised.