@therationa,

therationa:

Why are you guys getting hot under-the-colar (pun intended ).

Ha! I don't think the responses so far should be interpreted that way.

therationa:

I was simply advertising some irreverent books for people interested in finding out the alternatives to god-belief. I was not making any slurs or accusations on anyone. So I think you guys have missed the point.

I don't think you've necessarily slurred anyone though.

therationa:

BTW Stimulus, you posted about Flew earlier, not on this thread, but on my other thread about resources for non-believers.

True - found it here. _{(How quickly this motherboard moves!)}

Apologies yet again for the mix-up.

[s]I notice my initial posts in this thread have been deleted. No worries - it confirms a sneaking suspicion that the "godless" are simply restless[/s].

The reason why I initially made reference to Anthony Flew's book 'There IS A God' was not so much to push for the debate in favour of the Christian worldview of theism. I didn't want to carry an argument forward on this thread - and that was why I 'complied' with the initial request to not further a discussion thereto. The whole point was to show you that Anthony Flew himself as a celebrated (former) atheist could not rationally sustain his denial of the theistic worldview. For him, the figures just do not add up to hold an a[/b]theistic ideology.

However, rather than see our (i.e., the Christian) presence here as a threat, it may help to discuss (or at least make observations to) the recommendations listed in the original post. Simply put, they are what some atheists themselves have described as "militant/fundamentalist atheism" - and that was why I recommended Anthony Flew as a direct answer to such a mindset.

If you truly know the authors in your list (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al), you'd have a pretty good idea of what I posited. It is not so much that these chaps try to favour sanity in their intellectual exercises; rather and above all, they have an unwritten code of ethics - the "unethical" brashness to reason unscientifically against the legitimacy of religious (more specifically, "Christian" convictions.

That is why [b]imhotep's question is a necessary question to be addressed by those who seek to congregate themselves as disciples of Richard Dawkins et al.

Nonetheless, these gentlemen may have remained on the bestsellers' for a while - until apologetical publications were offered to the public reader to highlight the gaps in these celebrated atheists' arguments. I have just enjoyed two by Alister McGrath:

(a) Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life




(b) The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine



These are direct responses to Dawkin's grievances against Christianity; and when you peruse McGrath's responses, you would feel very sorry for Dawkins.

Of course, this is not my attempt to directly challenge your effort here; but like imhotep asks: "Why does anybody have to believe these authors?" Why these authors in particular? Do I suspect that atheism really has problems with itself since these authors have given themselves largely to argue against Christianity (rather than "religion"?

Dear therationa, you would have to admit just one thing: your efforts have not been about examining the claims of "religion". Like every other apprentice atheist (or atheistically-inclined person), your problem has been with Christianity, rather than with "religion". The amazing thing is that when Christians have invited you to a rational and spirited discussion based on your own assumptions, your threads quickly die off prematurely.

Alphazee:

But God [color=#990000]swore[/color] to Joseph that "of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh" he would raise up Christ (Act 2:20)

What the. . .?

Ha! @Alphazee,

It should've been Acts 2:30 you meant. In anycase, the verse was not about Joseph, but rather about David. I'll just quote it so you can see for yourself:

Acts 2:29-30

[list]²⁹Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. ³⁰Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;[/list]

therationa:

Stimulus,

Thanks for the apologies which I graciously accept.

Good to know. Enjoy.

@olabowale,

You're just being unnecessarily tedious with your arguments - nothing to me personally; but you'd soon tire yourself out by pedantically forcing yourself to make unrealistic comments back and forth.

olabowale:

@Stimulus: The Great Religion of the Prophet, (as), who God completed a favor on mankind through, by chosen The Great Religion as the only acceptable way/religion, has been around for over 1400 years.

I don't know of any so-called "Great Religion". My discourses with you are about Islam.

olabowale:

I had asked that you should look to the proper examples in the time of the first 3 generations.
When in doubt go back to it!

I also asked you what the results were - did you attend to that question?

olabowale:

You refine only unpure/impure materials(eg, Sugar, Crude oil to get all types of finished and semi finished products). Sharia is unlike that. It is the practitioners who should refine themselves to meet the challenges that Sharia throws at them to be better people.

Excuses - after you'd stated that Muslims have corrupted the Sharia?

olabowale:

First, I never have said that it was never practised before. I had continued to tell you that the first 3 generations of The Great Religion, is a very good example.

I never made that inference - go back and see.

olabowale:

The perfect example is in the first generation when the master was among the Great Ones, to humanise, the embodiment of sharia for all to see.

Who is "the master"? So, una sef don begin dey refer to Muhammad as "the master"? Na wah O!! When did this innovation in Islam start, abeg tell me?

olabowale:

Your inference is as follows: (Posted by: stimulus
Insert Quote
@olabowale,
Quote from: olabowale on Today at 01:27:33 AM
@Stimulus: The guys in Nigeria are not practicing Sharia properly.

Where has Sahria ever been practiced 'properly'? I think your comments are more of an excuse to apologize for the failure of Sharia to stand up to the coherence of contemporary thinking.) Please pay attention to the "EVER," used here and try not to deny it, please.

I'm not denying anything, cool down! I'm asking you the same question: Where has Sahria ever been practiced 'properly'? Did you miss that? Did you not also agree earlier that it has not been practiced "properly"? Wait make I check greatly again:

This is what I had said:

Where has Sahria ever been practiced 'properly'?

And you said:

You are right, that presently, there is no place on earth where Sharia is practised as it is supposed to be practiced.

So there! Did you miss the question of where sharia has ever been practiced "PROPERLY"? I never said that it has never been practiced; rather, I asked if you could point out where it has been practiced PROPERLY at anytime.

olabowale:

It is not the name that makes it what it is. The name is just the Title, if the content was ever doctored!

No matter. Your excuses are beginning to be worrisome. The name answers to its content; and the content does not become more acceptable because you later disfavoured the name.

olabowale:

The Bible is lost because, on one hand the exact text was already change, from what it was when the prophets were there on earth, to receive and then preached what was received.

The Bible is still available, unless you're living on another planet.

Second, the Muslim claim that it has been lost is quite an unintelligent assertion to make, bearing in mind that it has been laid soundly to rest, and Muslims have not been able to hold their forte in their arguments thereto.

If you don't know what message was preached by the Biblical prophets, why make this false allegation that what they preached has been lost? Is it not rather shameful that you keep making these excuses every single time but have never been able to stand as a man to discuss your misgivings every time I offered you an invitation to do so?

olabowale:

Then corrupted because apart from these changes, you now have a complete text and then additional information, from those who did not have authority as prophets and no reveelation is given to them anyway.

I can directly say that about Muhammad - he was never given any revelation, if all that Muslims (sorry, "great ones" have in defence of their assertion are the denials produced in the Qur'an.

You cannot continue to slur the prophets in this manner and expect that no one would say just about the same things to scrutinize the assertions of Muhammad. This is why I have personally asked you guys to come forward and let's examine the revelations of the prophets together - you have always declined to acknowledge that invitation. Do I suspect that you already know that you have absolutely nothing in defence of the statements made in the Qur'an that is why you keep evading the invitation?

Do you care to open a thread and let's discuss issues in mature manner, or you'd rather sit behind the cover of a PC and keep making these wild assertions?

olabowale:

I do not know Nigeria too well. But where are the Christian Ribadus? I am sure the Governors are all filthy, all of them, including the Christians. Now lets have 5 Million or more Ribadus, to clean up Nigeria.

True - we do not have the 'Christian' Ribadus - what do we need them for?    You have directly named Ribadu as one of your Muslim iconoclasts, and I'm waiting to see the next few names that will stand up tall as the headmasters of Sharia village!

Oya, next!

therationa:

BTW, I would prefer this thread to be a resource for share information rather that a thread debating atheism/theism.

I respectfully comply. Cheers.

Congratulations! Halleluyah! Many more happy years to add!

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

I take offense at your accusations of plagiarism.

I apologise, even though it does not change my persuasion that your posts seem to be slaved upon the views of other people. The reason why I'm so persuaded are two: (a) I've seen the same thing represented in other blogs with very slight adjustments (as I took the time to walk you through the other one on the 2nd Coming); (b) you have not been able to defend your views but have made it a requirement for others to make comments which you have not discussed hitherto.

Again, I apologise; but then you can see that several people are concerned about these same issues in your attitude to the posts you make.

therationa:

BTW, you are misrepresenting the meaning of the word. Plagiarism is where one copies someone else's work with the correct credits and in fact claims it it their own.

I guess you meant to say "without the correct dredits"? Even so, I may have used the term broadly; excuse my brashness, but then is it not in the same category to absorb the ideas of another even when the resulting article has been adress up by and large? All the same, I didn't mean to be deliberately offensive.

therationa:

Nowhere in my posts can I be accused of plagiarism. Where I have been making a point and have known some source where that point is made better I have given links to the source. You do not call that plagiarism.

No, I do not call those which you referenced the same thing as 'plagiarism'; perhaps those which seem to be widely circulated in various forms may be regarded as such - especially where the posters have not been able to hold their course in thos posts.

therationa:

The arguments for/against theism have been around for a long time. In One of my threads I made a reference to Epicurus who lived in the BCE. In that post, my comments were correctly attributed. Is that plagiarism?

No.

therationa:

I have read on the subject a great deal, from the likes of Epicurus, Seneca, Cicero, Diderot, Laplace, Baron d'Holbach, Ingersoll, Tom Paine, George Smith, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Victor Stenger etc, etc, etc. So the arguments are not new. So it is inevitable that some of the points I make would not be new to you.

True.

therationa:

The force of an argument is not diminished by the fact that it has been made before.

True again. But the force of an argument is critically diminished by the fact that those who present them have never been able to defend their premise in well-rounded discourses.

I do apologise again for the inconvenience of the plagiarist attribution - I didn't mean it too deeply on you. Shake hands?

@therationa,

therationa:

The numbers just do not add up. That is my point.

Perhaps you could have had a valid point if you'd looked carefully again that the 100 year-gap misses the point!

Look again: Matthew traces the genealogy from Abraham; while Luke traces it past Abraham backwards to Adam! At least no less than 15 names were mentioned from Abraham backwards to Adam in Luke's genealogy account; while Matthew skips those 15 names and starts from Abraham!

Did you ever sit down and try to ask yourself why Matthew traces the genealogy forwards from Abraham; while Luke traces it backwards from Joseph past Abraham and unto Adam?

This alone should make you understand that they were not trying to be stereotypical in their accounts; and by this is not stating that there was a descripancy between them! Rather, we are looking at the reasons behind why they adopted thes distinct approaches!

Among the various reasons that might be adduced, I'd give you that Matthew traces it the genealogy with Jewish interest to the promised "Kingdom" according to the Davidic lineage!

In Luke's case (being himself a physician - Col. 4:14), he traces the genealogy back to the first man, Adam; so as to convince his audience (primarily Theophilus) that Jesus Christ was actually truly Man! This is why Luke takes on the conception in more detail than you find in the synoptic Gospels (compare Luke 1:26 - 31 with the mention of His birth in Matthew 1).

Clearly, Matthew and Luke had clear objectives in theor accounts of the genealogy. You're looking at issues you have not been able to defend as a means to making allegations that miss the gist! Do you care to point out that the above could not be so in the distinct approaches in Matthew and Luke on the Genealogy?

@yvskc,

I admire your sane attitude to your daughter - afterall, she is your daughter, and none of us understands her half as much as you do.

Two things that are of interest to me here, perhaps could be of help? These:

(1)

yvskc:

I do try to show her examples of being a Christian in everyday life rather than expecting her to listen to sermons that she find it hard to relate to.

Way to go! I trust you always do this with confidence, whether or not she might have some counter-examples of the weaknesses and failures in lives of some believers. What many people do not understand is that being a Christian does not mean that unrealistic claims have to be placed upon the believer. Certainly, we make no excuses for the sad behaviour evident in some people; but being the convictions in a Christian heart would not rejoice in those sad issues.

(2)

yvskc:

I have tried to put a different interpretation on it to make it easier for her to understand the message in the Bible.

Okay, that's quite innovative. Let me add here (perhaps by way of a reminder, since you may already know this): whatever you do explain, please do not make it easier for her to "understand" anything at the expense of what the texts say or teach.

It is often a serious mistake that many people hold that have actually resulted in unfortunate events. For example, some ministers in trying to make it "easier" for some of their brethren to relate with Christ, have tried explaining the miracle of the Incarnation in reductionist terms. The result? Their audience today deny that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit!

Okay, I'm not trying to be overstretched or overbearing on this; but I guess you get my drift?

You're in my prayers, and may God bless you as a mother for His name's sake.

skyone:

Why wait for another man to bamboozled you with his or her set of vague theory of JESUS CHRIST.

I'm glad so many people are making these observations by the day. It has never helped anybody to plagiarize the views of other people on any subject when the plagiarists themselves have never been able to stay on course and defend their assumptions.

There are quite a few intelligent minds on the Forum who are atheistically inclined. The reason why I spend time reading their views is because I see originality in their discussions (even though I may not agree with some of their premises or answers) - they have always impressed me with their own thinking, rather than try to plagiarize the views of others they cannot defend.

Let me say this, therationa: before applauding the ideas of other people, why not spend time convincing yourself that you have enough understanding of the subject you deal on to sustain your arguments? It makes us wonder if those who scoot from thread to thread have anything of substance that they could offer others.

I'm sure that more reknowned exponents who have argued long and hard in favour of militant atheistic ideologies have found it all a waste. I'm still trying to understand Anthony Flew's rational for changing his views on atheism (in his book, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind", being himself formerly one of the world's "most notorious" atheists.

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nL8HF67kniGqbM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Antony_Flew_headshot.jpg/200px-Antony_Flew_headshot.jpg[/img]

If I am allowed a bit more space to observe some "great" contributions here, then let's see this one:

Loveniger:

We africans have lost our religion, the real african religion is vodoo, before the arrival of the colonial masters,

A clear example of self-confessed "free speech". Nobody has to complain about the "corruption" of voodoo; and the practitioners do not need to be slurred by anyone making it their birthright to accuse the hex-people of any "corruption".

Did he say "voodoo" was his idea of expressing African Religion? Okay, so what's anyone's quarrel with that?

Carry on!

trukoments:

Some of our forefathers sold everything they had, including their brothers, their sons and daughters, and their ways of life to the missionaries who came under the false guise of bringing the knowledge of God. They brought an already corrupted religion.

When will Muslims realize that their continued and deliberate derision of Christianity is going to lead to people saying very "politically in[/b]correct" things about Islam, Mohammed and the Qur'an? Do you guys mind discussing issues [b]without recourse to these deliberate offensive remarks?

Seun, it is quite worrying that a fatwa from Muslims will be taken seriously by you. But it seems that it has become nothing to bother you when the same Muslims have unceasingly seen it as their birthright to use Nairaland as a platform for their own version of "free speech" where they ridicule the convictions of non-Muslims.

Besides Christian-Muslim discussions/debates, there are other very enlightened minds who discussion very legitimate issues on this motherboard. I'm sure those who are atheistically inclined have enjoyed rubbing minds with theists in amicable ways, and no one has seen the need to call for any fatwa. People are mindlessly subjected to having to address Muslims as "the Great Ones", while the same chaps have no clue as to what it means to being "Great".

If it is alright for these Muslims to post hate speech and publicly inciting and offensive verbiage against others, then please make it also our birthright to "correct" such rascality by telling them the hard truth about the "great" religion, Islam! Yes, I am concerned about your safety from these fatwa-mongers; but I'm also concerned about our (yours and Nairalanders') collective integrity in the various boards.

No one feels threatened or insecure from whatever any Muslim may say about Jesus Christ, Christianity and the Bible; or about atheism and African Religion(s). We don't have to place any notice of how insecure these same Muslims have demonstrated in themselves when issues about their "great religion" are being publicly discussed in an honest manner.

On the whole, we keep observing from the sidelines how our "great ones" continue to exhibit their "great dread" at being told the "great truth" of their religion in "great humility".

Just my simple thoughts. Enjoy greatly!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

First am not apologising for the likes of babangidas, etc. Rather I am unhappy that they behaved badly, while carrying Great Religious identity.

Okay.

olabowale:

You are right, that presently, there is no place on earth where Sharia is practised as it is supposed to be practiced.

I was actually hoping to see an example where it might have been so practised 'properly', as I don't know of any. However, how do you suppose it is supposed to be "practised"? How realistic could it ever be hoped that a coherence is maintained in every situation as well as guaranteeing delivery of promises to non-Muslims - especially in view of the fact that no society has seen a "proper" set of ethics from Sharia for over 12 centuries?!?

olabowale:

However, look directly to the first three generations of Muslims. The beginning of Islam, the generation of the prophet and his companions, the folowing two generations as well.

And the result after looking at all those is. . .?!?

olabowale:

If you want to know about Sharia, read the Qur'an, and the hadith and the history of the people in these 3 generations.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like an umbrella excuse to cover the core questions here. If Muslim scholars themselves are unable to refine their understanding of Sharia after reading the Qur'an and Hadiths for over 12 centuries, is it stimulus as a non-Muslim in 2008 that will be in a better position to explicate Islamic jurisprudence for the whole Muslim ummah? That must be such a task! But no thanks, I'm not in a hurry to grow long white beards!

olabowale:

To say that Sharia was not ever practiced, is to simply tell us that there was no Sharia at all.

Ha! Where did I make that inference? Did you not agree with me that it has not been PROPERLY practised in any society in any country around the world? Am I missing some connecting dots here?

olabowale:

You could say that Muslims have lost or corrupted it, but not in the same manner that the Bible is lost or corripted.

C'omon now, baba olas! You're beginning to sound frantic! Who has ever claimed that the Bible was lost? I could even send you a free copy - just request and fiam, it's at your door!

And thanks so very much for admitting that Muslims have "corrupted" the Sharia - which I then take as confirmation of the fact that we can't even trust what the Qur'an says about it too!

olabowale:

Sharia isintact, but just practiced properly, while Bible is simply corrupted and the 100% quality of it, is lost forever.

"Sharia is intact" - from what is left after after admitting that Muslims have corrupted it above? Is this your own version of a lost Sharia?

olabowale:

Afterall you have never read anything about the prophet of The Great Religion (as) and his companions.

Oh puh-leease! How many things have we not read already about "the great prophet" in several threads on this Forum alone, not to mention several other blogs? Wetin make Usman Muhammed send his "friendly advice" to Nairaland?

olabowale:

First you have to have good Muslims, who are honest and not lukewarm at best.

It's been a hard and long search. So please name them.

olabowale:

Who makes any arrest in Nigeria? The Police in their corruption laden mind? Remember Ribadu, a Great One man? Lets start from there and better him.

Thanks for the example of Ribadu. Which Sha-Governor is better than him with clean hands?

Next!

imhotep:

Sharia law should never be applied to Christians for any reason. They are (from the Islamic point of view) kafirs [/i]and [i]infidels and destined for hell fire.

It is not even as simplistic as that. The point is that Sharia has no concensus or coherence even among the Muslim scholars; and as olabowale has admitted, it has never been properly practised anywhere in any society (even though he infers we should look at the first 3 centuries).

Now, if these "great ones" cannot hold themselves together in what they propose, how are we guaranteed that the same thing can better the lives of non-"great ones"? Is that not the same hypocrisy that people have been calling to be done away with?

What sharia has not done for the Muslim, they should never seek to impose it on others - regardless the "political correctness" of seeking to be neighbourly!

Jairzinho:

When did evangelism drop from their list of priorities

When they lost touch with God.

That question is one that needs urgent redress in many 'Christian' quarters - ala the Rowanese bloc.

Agbenu2:

lease read my blog and lets have a real discussion about it.

Good one - I'll take time to visit your blog.

@Agbenu,

Thank you for inviting a discussion to this topic. A few times it has been mentioned around me, I didn't know what to think of it. You succinct description of what it appertains to is a good start. Perhaps I'd have to read more and possibly watch 'The Secret' movie, then be well prepared to make informed contributions.

Many thanks again.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
Your first Mistake Therationa. There is nothing in Islam called Muhammedan(s) or any derivative of it.

Begging to excuse the term 'Muhammedan(s)' from Is[b]l[/b]am does not remove the fact of what it has come to mean - sample it here. There is no reason why you want to force unrealistic claims on others but beg to apologise when you meet with the same pun upon yourselves.

olabowale:

I will like you to explain how you come about the Muslim being labelled as atheists by you?

I'd like you to explain how you dishonestly came to labelling me an 'almost atheist'?

olabowale:

If Muslims are atheists, who then believe that God exist as He truly does?

If you accuse others unfairly, why complain when the same thing is said about you?

@olabowale,

I'll not want to drag on endlessly with your deliberate accusations - indeed I find them very immature. However, I'll simply focus on the very issue that interests us all in this thread, to which I wanted your direct response:

olabowale:

Stimulus, I thought I had indicated that my almost atheist label had indicated that you, as a Christians does not truly believe that God exist, in His Singly entirety as an Entity.

Atheism is a matter of questioning the existence of God - and I have never at any time come close to denying the existence of God. Please olabowale, refrain from this childish rants - they do not speak well of your age, nor do you score any marks to promote Is[b]l[/b]am thereby!

It is not now a question of what form of existence people believe in "God". Atheism is not a debate about "forms" of God-existence; rather it is about the non-existence of God/deity!

Is there any place where I ever inferred that I do not believe in the existence of God? I'd very much appreciate a direct and honest response from you, thank you.

@4Him,

Anyhow, when Jesus said: "till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28), He was speaking of His glorious entry to Jerusalem to fulfill Malachi 3:1.

You will notice that Jesus had been in the Temple several times, for example: 'sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions' (Luke 2:46). However, the "coming" to the Temple referred to in Malachi 3:1 was a specific event, for which we now turn to Matthew 21.

When Jesus went to Jerusalem, "a very great multitude" gave Him a glorious welcome, calling out such acolades as "Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest" (vv. 8 & 9). Inspite of all the celebrations, the leaders had not recognized the fulfillment of the prophecy that they were acquainted with - Malachi 3:1!!

Mark 11:11 states that when Jesus entered into Jerusalem and into the temple, He looked round about upon all things; but went that evening into Bethany. It was not until the next day that He went again into Jerusalem and entered the Temple to cast out the heinous things He had seen the previous day! Right before their eyes, Malachi 3:1 had suddenly come to pass!

When Jesus entered into the Temple in Matthew 21, the very thing He told them in Matthew 16:28 had been fulfilled - that was His 'coming' in His Kingdom in the sense that Malachi 3:1 prophesied; but it did not affect or negate the apocalyptic "coming" in Matthew 16:27.


In summary:

Matthew 16:27-28 speak of both aspects:

(a) v. 27 speaks of the broad sense of His apocalyptic coming
(with rewards to every man according as He deserves)

(b) v. 28 speaks of the narrow sense of His coming to the Temple
(fulfilled in the very presence of those who stood there and did not taste death)

On the whole, both aspects have been clearly enunciated in Scripture - and if we take the time to see the collective whole, we shall not miss what is meant.

As therationa has helped us with refining the topic, I'd advise readers again:

Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages

I think that is a warm and very needed advice especially for many of us Christians.

@4Him,

Now, let's see Matthew 16:28 --

'Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'

At first glance, one would assume that this is a reference to His apocalyptic "coming"; but again, that would mean that it had happened in the past - because He clearly mentioned that some of those standing there as He spoke would not have died before they saw Him coming in His Kingdom!

Could I point out a few things here for easier understanding?

Reference is made to a few pointers as well:

[list][li]a. those He spoke to were standing there and would not have tasted death before they saw Him "coming"[/li]

[li]b. He spoke of His "coming" here as connected to His Kingdom[/li]

[li]c. both matters undeniably speak of an event which has happened in the past[/li][/list]

We cannot dribble away the first part (a) and quickly assume that the second part (b) must point to the apocalyptic "coming" in the future. Both aspects (a. and b.) must be considered together to get a proper understanding of what He was pointing to - which I'm persuaded leads to the inference in (c).

I'm persuaded that Matthew 16:28 points to the narrow aspect of His coming to the Temple as declared by Malachi 3:1, quoted again:

    the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Did this happen in the past? It should have; and this is why:

The Kingdom:

Let us not assume that the mention of "his Kingdom" in Matthew 16:28 must mean that the "coming" is yet to happen in future. The Lord Jesus in another verse speaks of the "kingdom" as a present reality, rather than as a future event to be awaited:

Luke 17:20-21

And when He was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come,
He answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Of course, we often pray for the Kingdom to "come" [thy kingdom come - Matt. 6:10] as a future expectation - but that is in reference to a full manifestation of the apocalypse. However, as seen above, the very presence of Jesus is the Kingdom He was speaking about! The "Kingdom" was right there amongst them, but they did not recognize Him! (I doubt that we could have recognized Him ourselves if we stood there!)

@4Him,

4Him:

Bravo stimulus. Even i found it hard to wrap my head around your explanations . . . i learnt something new today thanks!

Well, I do apologize for being so closely knitted in my explications of the "comings" that I'm persuaded the Lord Jesus was referring to in His teaching. Perhaps a simple outline may help?

Here goes:

Whenever we read of references to the "coming" of Jesus Christ in the NT, we should understand that there are various aspects of those 'comings' and they do not all point to the same epoch or the same events and time. Basically, the 'comings' in the verses we have examined outline two aspects:

[list][li](a) His coming in view of the OT prophecies in a narrow sense[/li]

[li](b) His coming in terms of the apocalypse in a broad sense[/li][/list]

As regards (a) above, we should remember Malachi 3:1 speaks of His "coming"; but where and when? The answers are highlighted in the verse itself:

the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

This is not in reference to the apocalypse as in the case of (b) above; rather, it speaks of His "coming" to visit the earthly Temple and its resultant effect upon the JEWS.

I understand that many people see Matthew 16:28 as a direct reference to the apocalypse; but if that were so, it would mean that that "coming" happened in the past and we are all waiting for a non-existent promise!

However, the simple issue here to understanding the "coming" in Matthew 16 is to look at two verses (27 & 28) which carry both aspects of (a) and (b) in reverse order! Let me explain:

[list][li]Matthew 16:27 speaks of the "coming" in a broad sense, which we properly identify as the Second Coming of the apocalypse! Let's see what the verse says:

'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.'

It is clear here that this is the reference in that chapter that we should be looking at as a direct reference to the 2nd Coming! It speaks of 3 things in every reference of that 2nd Coming:

a. His coming with the angels

b. the epoch marked by "and then"

c. the rewarding of every man according as he deserves

However, when these things are thus highlighted, they do not point to the narrow sense of His coming "suddenly" to His Temple; for this other aspect is not in view of the apocalyptic rewards.[/li][/list]

I'll go on next to examine Matthew 16:28.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: The guys in Nigeria are not practicing Sharia properly.

Where has Sahria ever been practiced 'properly'? I think your comments are more of an excuse to apologize for the failure of Sharia to stand up to the coherence of contemporary thinking.

olabowale:

Though a beginning, never the less not complete.

Sharia in itself does not (and has never) complete(d) a society. I haven't seen or read any Mos[b]l[/b]em being able to demonstrate its functionality in any society in any country. It has always been a case of excuses where such a concept has failed repeatedly in its application to bring about desired results.

olabowale:

They should arrested those National Treasury Thieves and robbers, especially the ones who called themselves " EVIL Genius", etc.

Who is going to do the arrests? Please tell me: which of the Sharia Governors are not robbers themselves - are they not also deeping their sharia hands into the National Treasury and looting the coffers of their own States? How have such Sha-governors developed their own States and bettered the lives of their state indigenes? What are your indices for measuring the integrity of the Sha-governors over those who you want arrested?

olabowale:

There hands should have been chopped off.

This is exactly the reflex of sharia-thinking minds. Chopping off the body parts of people for excuses of every type under Isla[b]m[/b].ic jurisprudence does not answer to the democratic call of civil political governance. Please consult the archives of the mus[b]li[/b]m countries where such laws have been running for long and see what Mosl[b]em[/b]s themselves deeply think of their own sha-laws!

olabowale:

They are disgrace to The Great Religion. The lukewarm Great Ones; very hypocritical!

This will always be the epitaph of all sharia-minded "great ones".

Thanks, therationa.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Thanks for your responses, But try as I might I just could not link them up together well enough in my head to understand them. No fault of yours, of course. My mind is just not wired up understand scriptures the way you do.

I understand that giving a very detailed response would need careful reading and absorbing. Which is what I'd like you to do - please find the time and go through them: the point is simply this - there are are several contextual meanings to the subject of Jesus' coming, and they relate to:

     (a) His coming in view of the OT prophecies in a narrow sense

     (b) His coming in terms of the apocalypse in a broad sense

If these two issues are kept well in view, the seeming confusion soon dissolve away.

therationa:

I was expecting you would deal with Matt 16: 28 but that was not forthcoming, alas.

Well, I did deal in a summary way with Matthew 16:28 when I made this concluding remarks:

stimulus:


Now, in answer to your assumptions:

Your premise was in view of these texts: Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34-38 and Luke 9:23-26 - and from which you understanding led you to believe that we have already missed Jesus' 2nd Coming.

If you follow the reason why I set forth the distinct meanings of the subject of His Coming, Matthew 16:28 should not be difficult to see as regards your inference. Please let me know if you need further clarification thereto.

therationa:

I shall modified the subject of my mail as promised to reflect the complicated nature of the subject.

Will look forward to that.

therationa:

How about this one?

Beware of any simplistic interpretation of jesus 2nd coming passages

Lol. . . thanks and much appreciated. I'm sure by the time you go through my rejoinders, you'd find that I'd well considered that advice while responding.

Cheers.

almondjoy:

I knew it was only a matter of time for the competition of cutting and pasting to begin. Great job!

Could you be more specific?

. . . continuing:

@therationa,

The preceding answers so far have sought to distinguish for you the various contextual meanings of His "coming".

When you read of the "coming", please seek the context first before you assume the prophecy failed! The first text quoted in the other thread (Matthew 10:23) has been expounded - and I went further to show you another aspect of His "coming" which appertained to the prophecies of the OT prophets: especially Malachi who warned that the Lord that the Jews were seeking would COME suddenly into His Temple!

- - - -


Now, in answer to your assumptions:

Your premise was in view of these texts: Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34-38 and Luke 9:23-26 - and from which you understanding led you to believe that we have already missed Jesus' 2nd Coming.


Indeed, the apostles had not gone round the cities of Israel BEFORE that prophecy in Malachi 3;1 was fulfilled - and when He suddenly was in His Temple, rather than they seeing and recognizing that it was their Day of visitation for huge blessings, they did not. Sadly, they had neglected the prophecies (or interpreted them poorly, perhaps giving them a literal interpetation such as that it should have happened in Malachi's day suddenly). And when Jesus did "come" suddenly, it was a sad case of finding them living contrarily to His warning of preparing for that "coming". The result? He drove them out of the Temple before pronouncing to them that their house was left unto them desolate!

The same instance of reading the other verses you quoted out of CONTEXT!! Many people make these assumptions because they give them a "literal interpretation" without having considered the collective teaching on the various meanings of this teaching.

Where you failed to see them contextually, you will keep making the same mistakes!

- - -

Perhaps you may want to take the time to review them and let's read from you where we might have missed the "literal interpretation" in yours.

Cheers.

. . . continuing:

@therationa,

Let's go back to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1 - "The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His Temple!"

When would this have happened? We turn to Matthew 21.

There at His entry into Jerusalem, Jesus goes to the Temple indeed - but what He found there was an appalling condition that set Him to drive them all out! Sadly, the leaders of the people had no regard for the prophecies God had given. . . and they had no clue when Malachi's prophecy was fulfilled upon them! Yes indeed. . . "the Lord" Himself whom Malachi called 'the Messenger of the covenant' had suddenly arrived at the Temple when they were least prepapred for that august visit!

If the prophecy in Malachi made no sense to them, then all the other prophecies would have made no sense to them either. And that was why they had been so pre-occupied with such commercial activities in the Temple and thought that since Malachi's prophecy said He would come "suddenly" and it was not fulfilled around the time of Malachi, then the prophecy was long past. . . or God had probably changed His mind!

The effect of God's prophecy is that it does not matter how long it assumes in the eyes of man! That is why He warns us to be very careful to wait for the fulfilling of His word:

'For the vision is yet for an appointed time,
but at the end it shall speak, and not lie:
though it tarry, wait for it;
because it will surely come, it will not tarry.'
~ [Habakkuk 2:3]

God does not measure timing in His ways as we are often prone to measure timing! It may seem as if His prophecies are a long time in being fulfilled; but he says: at the END, it SHALL speak. . . it will SURELY come!!

- - - - -

All this simply go to point out that the "coming" in Malachi 3:1 was verily fulfilled in Matthew 21. However, in Matthew 23, due to their hypocrisy, Jesus testifies to them:

Matthew 23:38-39
'Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth,
till ye shall say,
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'

What has happened here? How is it that when the prophecy in Malachi was fulfilled, the Jews did not even recognize it until He had to leave their house 'desolate' unto them?

When we compare the incidence with Luke 19, we understand why:

Luke 19:41-45
'And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day,
the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from
thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep
thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and
thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone
upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold
therein. . .

They did not know the time of their visitation; nor did they know about their day that there were things which God had prepared to belong to their peace! Yet, many prophets had announced this very blessing in prophetic language many times before --

Zechariah 2:10
'Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion:
for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee,
saith the LORD'


Isaiah 12:6
Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion:
for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.


Zephaniah 3:15 & 17
The LORD hath taken away thy judgments,
he hath cast out thine enemy:
the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee:
thou shalt not see evil any more!
The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save,
he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love,
he will joy over thee with singing!

This meaning of His "coming" suddenly to His Temple as the Messenger of the covenant would have brought great blessings indeed to them! If they had recognized Him who was in their midst, how blessed indeed they would have been!

But sadly, they had failed to see Him for WHO He was, and the blessing was hid from their eyes!

. . . continuing:

@therationa,

However, He indeed spoke of His "coming" in various other ways and contexts different from the second coming. As regards the text quoted (Matthew 10:23), for instance, He was not speaking in terms of the apocalyptic epoch of the Judgement Day that affect ALL the tribes of the EARTH and the heavenly bodies being shaken! Please read the preceding verses of that chapter again to see the context, and let me delineate them neatly for you:

(a) In Matthew 10, He was speaking in terms of Jewish persecution
of the apostles; whereas, in Matthew 24, He was speaking in terms
of ALL the tribes of the EARTH!

(b) In Matthew 10, their commission was only to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel (vs 5 & 6 - "Go not into the way of the Gentiles
. . . go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."; whereas,
in Matthew 24, the Gospel was to be preached to EVERY NATION
(vs. 14: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in ALL
the world for a witness unto ALL nations; and then shall
the end come".

Having outlined the difference between these two distinct "comings", let me give you an example of a prophecy declaring one type of His "coming" as different from the second coming.

In Matthew 23:39, Jesus says: "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." This was a reference to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1, where the Messiah is called "the Messenger of the covenant":

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare
the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall
suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."

Please notice that Malachi was one of the OT prophets (so that the OP of the other thread does not come up with his rubbish of the NT is 'corrupt'). Long before the birth of Christ, this OT prophet had declared that:

The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His Temple!

"The Lord" Himself will come, declared Malachi (and several other prophets had declared the same). A few other prophets who declared the same "coming" in this context include the following (note also what exactly they called the Messiah):


(1) Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 62:11)

'Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world,
Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, THY SALVATION cometh;
behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him'

- - - - - - - -

(2) Prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9)

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
behold, THY KING COMETH UNTO THEE:
he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass,
and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Since these are prophetic declarations, the identity of the Messiah is given in various contexts so that only those whose hearts have been illumined by the Holy Spirit will be able to recognize Him. That is why Isaiah in ch. 62:11 refers to Him as "Thy Salvation" - the Messiah is the "SALVATION" of His people (as the Psalmist also called Him "my Salvation" in Psalm 27:1 ['the LORD is my Light and my Salavation]; and Simeon in Luke 2:30 actually calls Him by the name "the Salvation".

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Waiting for your response with bated breath.

Good then.

Now, let's start off by keeping your assumptions in clear view, which is: today's Christians "have already missed Jesus' 2nd Coming". I'm making reference to that premise, because I hope that you'd not whip up any excuses for something else where you find it tedious to hold your presumptions any longer.

As stated earlier, I'd be using the first example in that link to address this issue of the 2nd Coming. Of course, of the verses you quoted (Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34-38 and Luke 9:23-26), the first one in your quote (Matt. 16:28) appears as item #2 in that link.

However, I'd be using the Matthew 10:23 verse (item #1 in that thread) to discuss the subject for the reason that it more or less answers to the same inference you've made for all the verses you quoted in yours; and this would help the poster in the other thread realize that plagiarizing the fancies of other arguers does not make an intelligent person out of him.

So here:

Matthew 10:23 - When giving instructions to his apostles as to just how they are to go about spreading his message Jesus says,." . . . for truly I say unto you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."

The thought that follows that quote is: "They have since perished but son of man hasnt come".

Reading such texts out of their contexts, many have arrived at their pretexts for the idea that either:

> (a) those were not Jesus' own words; or

> (b) if they were, they have proven to be unfulfilled and therefore
false prophecies; or yet that:

> (c) they should be given a "literal interpretation" - which should
therefore mean that the 2nd Coming has already occured in the past!

That your premise answers to the third assumption (c), I'd be focusing mainly on that here.

A basic question needs to be asked:

In what context was He to "come" in that passage?

Many people obviously miss the whole gist of that text because they you snatch it completely out of its context and therefore assumed that the prophecy failed!

Please understand that Jesus was very succinct, specific and clear in the prophetic message of His second coming. He was not vague about that subject, and the relevant texts where He enunciated His second coming include the following:

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall
see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory.

When you seek the [b]context of the "coming" in the verse above, you see that it points to the epoch of the Day when He returns to earth and the Judgement of humanity is unveiled (compare with Mark 13). That is why we read in clear terms of ALL the tribes of the EARTH" than merely the cities of Israel. Infact, the previous verse (Matthew 24:29) tells us that this "coming" in this context is set at the time described as "immediately after the tribulation of those days" - days when the heavenly powers shall be shaken, and the celestial bodies (sun and moon) will not yield their light!

Further back in the early verses of the chapter, the disciples had asked him some questions, which point out directly that His answers were towards the epoch of His "second coming". They asked in Matt. 24:3 --

'And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came
unto him privately, saying, Tell us, -
~ when shall these things be?
~ and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
~ and of the end of the world?

His answers addressed His coming differently from that which He spoke about in Matthew 10; and the context in Matthew 24:29-30 as above simply demonstrate the point contextually.