Jesus told his followers that some of them would not taste death until they saw his 2nd coming. (attested in Matthew...

Jesus told his followers that some of them would not taste death until they saw his 2nd coming. (attested in Matthew, Mark, and Luke...it's literally "gospel")

When it became obvious that all of his contemporary followers in fact had died, people began to ask questions.

2nd Peter 3 made a lame attempt to answer this question, saying:

"They will say, 'Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.' ... But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

The obvious problem with this is that Peter is essentially straight out saying Jesus was flat-out lying to his followers when he said some of them would not taste death before witnessing his 2nd coming.

Why on earth would the Bible conclude that Jesus lied? At least the Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to explain this away by declaring that Jesus DID come back in 1914 (for some reason) and it's just that nobody noticed (an absolute impossibility considering the absolute cataclysm that is to accompany the 2nd coming according to the Bible.)

Thus the fundamental dilemma. Either Jesus lied, as 2nd Peter 3:4-7 says, OR Jesus failed to predict his own 2nd coming accurately. Either answer is incompatible with being God and the Son of God.

Either way, the only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was a fraud and his millions of followers believe in an obvious lie. The Bible itself gives all the needed proof.


Also, much of the Bible was very clearly written AFTER 70 AD. So why on earth did the actual writers of the Bible, who were divinely inspired by God, FAIL to mention that the 2nd coming already happened? The fact that the Bible writers who lived after 70AD failed to mention that the 2nd coming already happened is proof that this "2nd coming happened in 70 AD" is completely moot and without merit, and not even worth considering.

Other urls found in this thread:

thisisyourbible.com/index.php?page=questions&task=show&mediaid=2897
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

who is gonna read all that

tl;dr ...Jesus lied, billions died

if i'm gonna read a shit ton of fiction it's gonna be the silmarillion

I like turtles

Not necessarily arguing in favor of Christianity, just offering a counterpoint for the sake of discussion.
It could be argued that Jesus was talking about John, who (according to the Bible) had several visions in which he witnessed the end of days and had an apparition of Jesus appear before him. He wrote all of this down in Revelations.

... And this is the problem with people old enough to work these days. No knowledge or skill or patience. Further, Instead of fixing their own shortcomings and lackings, they demand the rules of the world bend so they don't have to change. Such is the reason why so many people want millenials dead.

If the hippy Jesus' writings in the beginning of the new testament was Jesus on pot, Revelation was Jesus on acid.

Not much to gain from reading it, honestly.

>Such is the reason why so many people want millenials dead.

I don't think this is true. I think the reverse is true; that leftist millennials want old people dead. They've been voicing that for last couple of years, trying to sue for global warming, etc.

shitty bait thread

>I like turtles

Why do you like them?

wasn't the second coming easter?

Never said there was, lol. The entire thing is a crock of shit. I was making an argument in the microcosm of the accepted truths within the Bible itself, since that's what OP was (kind of) doing.

>tfw I can't remember the word for "a statement accepted as fact from the beginning"
>tfw I'm a fucking writer
>tfw I'm bad at my job

...

Jesus Christ is my nigga

Fuck off Bastian

That is actually a very interesting point of discussion. I don't believe it actually answers my point(s) and actually appears to be wrong on the surface, first problem being that the John of Revelation and the John of the Gospel of John are well accepted to be two different people in two different times who happen to both be named John. There isn't even a suggestion Biblically that these are the same person.

Well, the Vatican subjected the bible to critical examination hundreds of years ago (in hopes to show how infallible it was), but the project had to be halted, because it backfired and caused erosion of faith as the mere human authorship and hundreds of direct contradictions started to emerge.

Literary critiques under pseudonyms did the same thing with the Qu'ran and all hell broke loose. Credible death threats were issued, because muslims believe that that every single word in the Qu'ran is direct quote's from god himself.

>Literary critiques under pseudonyms

for obvious reasons... kek. You may read and learn from the Qu'ran, but you may not examine it for errors.

Maybe the second comming was when he was ressurected I dont know

Actually my claim looks to be factually wrong.

According to thisisyourbible.com/index.php?page=questions&task=show&mediaid=2897

"Actually, in the New Testament, there are 5 Johns!

1. John the Baptist

2. John the son of Zebedee who was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and was in the inner circle of the disciples along with his brother James and Peter. He wrote the gospel of John and the 3 letters of John and the book of Revelation.

3. The father of the Apostles Simon Peter and Andrew also known as Jona or Jonah

4. Acts 4:3 - a member of the Jewish ruling council.

5. The nephew of Barnabas also called Mark or John Mark (see Acts 12:12). This "John" or, really, John Mark, wrote the gospel of Mark."

I was confusing Gospel of John with John the Baptist, who clearly couldn't have had his revelation after being decapitated.

That's now what those gospels actually say. They don't use the phrase second coming unless you're reading some shitty late 20th century evangelical English translation.

The understanding of the historic church since the second century was that this quote was referring to Christ's transfiguration prior to his crucifixion.

2 Peter has nothing to do with defending a "lie" nor does it suggest Christ lied.

Who says it happened in 70? No one. You're literally making stuff up.

Where the fuck are you getting this nonsense you autistic pedantic neck bearded fedora tipping PARROT who think you're so clever because you can read someone else's half baked ideas which you aren't smart enough to see the holes in.

PS: all of the New Testament was wittten after 70 with the possible exception of Galatians.