Second Coming
-
Matthew 24
"And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory....This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place"
Shouldn't the Second Coming take place in Jesus's Generation then? -
Yah .. an obvious blunder of the gospel author.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Shouldn't the Second Coming take place in Jesus's Generation then?
-
Its not a blunder of the gospel's author.
The bible is complete truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Read again carefully, what are "these things..." -
Read liao .. machiam like some description of the endtimes.Originally posted by specialOps:Its not a blunder of the gospel's author.
The bible is complete truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Read again carefully, what are "these things..." -
It is not a blunder....
I don't believe that is an accurate translation from the greek into the following version. Maybe they confuse the word generation.
Anyway, I belive that generation means the "generation of mankind" and not an age kinda generation....and also remember Jesus is talking about the spiritual warfare, the struggle our spirit has with powers and principalities... and as we individually die and enter into the eternal Kingdom, we see all things ... as the Lord does... -
For a hint, we can look at the attitudes and mentality of the people during the time of the New Testament.Originally posted by mhcampboy:It is not a blunder.... -
Eastern Christians intepretate the Son of Man in his glory to be the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. Some believe that it refers to the Transfiguration. C S Lewis says this is the most embarassing verse in Scripture!Originally posted by Icemoon:Read liao .. machiam like some description of the endtimes.
Then again perhaps the Bible was wrong. After all R C Sprouls preached that the RCC NT Canon is a fallible doctrine haha.
Any Church Historians to document patristics understanding of this? -
dun mislead pple leh .. Sproul and bible wrong dont go well together.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Then again perhaps the Bible was wrong. After all R C Sprouls preached that the RCC NT Canon is a fallible doctrine haha. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:dun mislead pple leh .. Sproul and bible wrong dont go well together.
If Canon can be wrong then Bible can be wrong. If Bible can be wrong then Matthew can be wrong book and contain errors 
-
That's the purpose of apologetics - to explain inconvenient stuff like that away.
-
tell that to your Protestant brethens.Originally posted by vadermanu89: If Canon can be wrong then Bible can be wrong. If Bible can be wrong then Matthew can be wrong book and contain errors
they need to know how to appreciate the Catholic faith.
-
This is the purpose of atheists - to explain the real truth about apologetics.Originally posted by Phaze:That's the purpose of apologetics - to explain inconvenient stuff like that away. -
the purpose of atheists - to reveal the truth and expose the falsehood of religionOriginally posted by Icemoon:This is the purpose of atheists - to explain the real truth about apologetics. -
Strange that someone takes alot of interest in disproving something that is 'non-existent'? Sounds like a tad bit of insecurities.Originally posted by Fateemah:the purpose of atheists - to reveal the truth and expose the falsehood of religion
I personally wouldn't dream of spending time to engage in debates on whether blue jeans are green etc. -
The tricky bit of NT Canon issue. The blame doesn't entirely lie on the Protestants. It is very usual to see Catholic apologist stretching the issue to prove Church Infallibility, Tradition, Apostolic Succession and basically everything under the kitchen sink. It is often seriousy over-played.Originally posted by Icemoon:tell that to your Protestant brethens.
they need to know how to appreciate the Catholic faith.
Though it gives an interesting thought - If the Catholic Church could be infallible then, why not now or if she was infallible then, why not her OT Canon and her other doctrines taught then. Though naturally we have Bishop James White attempting to prove the early Church was proto-Protestant haha! Maybe in the 2th century but definitely not in the 4th century! -
But that's because a great number of people claim that blue jeans are green. And furthermore, they want other people to accept that the blue jeans are green. And even though the jeans are actually green, they want others to respect their belief that the green jeans are blue.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Strange that someone takes alot of interest in disproving something that is 'non-existent'? Sounds like a tad bit of insecurities.
I personally wouldn't dream of spending time to engage in debates on whether blue jeans are green etc.
Now if those people would only keep that belief to themselves, there would be no need to disprove it.
Let's take another example. There is a bunch of people who believe that the moon landings were faked. They have all kinds of evidence for it. When people try to explain to them why their evidence is wrong, they accuse those people of being part of the conspiracy to fake the moon landings. The number of people who believe this is actually very small so not much effort is put into debunking their claims. A couple of astronomers have made the effort to carefully debunk all the claims, but overall, not much attention is paid to them because they don't do much harm.
However, let's say if millions of people believed this, considerably more effort would be put into explaining why the moon landings really did occur. -
Actually the OT Canon was not the work of the Catholic Church. It was the work of the Jews (Council of Jammia?); and the Church just took it wholesale.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Though it gives an interesting thought - If the Catholic Church could be infallible then, why not now or if she was infallible then, why not her OT Canon and her other doctrines taught then. Though naturally we have Bishop James White attempting to prove the early Church was proto-Protestant haha! Maybe in the 2th century but definitely not in the 4th century!
The early Church is charismatic; the church hierarchy resembles Protestant than Catholic. -
Wait a minute .. are you sure you are not confused yourself?Originally posted by Phaze:But that's because a great number of people claim that blue jeans are green. And furthermore, they want other people to accept that the blue jeans are green. And even though the jeans are actually green, they want others to respect their belief that the green jeans are blue.
So are the jeans green or blue? -
Indeed, I am confused.Originally posted by Icemoon:Wait a minute .. are you sure you are not confused yourself?
So are the jeans green or blue? 
See! That's the danger of religion. :p -
The Christian OT Canon was not truly decided till the 4th century through the various Councils. The Council of Jamnia Canon is similiar to the Protestant Canon but that was done in 70AD. That was the very same Council that rejected the NT Gospels. I do not think any Christian would claim Jamnia had any authority over them as a result.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually the OT Canon was not the work of the Catholic Church. It was the work of the Jews (Council of Jammia?); and the Church just took it wholesale.
The early Church is charismatic; the church hierarchy resembles Protestant than Catholic.
I do not think the early Church was Protestant. They didnt believe in Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura and hierachy wise, they followed the Catholic three-fold office.
It is more accurate to state the early Church was similiar to the Eastern Christian's esseciology (since most of Christianity then was in the East). Authority laid mainly in the Bishops and the Bishop of Rome did not truly exercise any signs of primacy yet. -
And we wonder why they took so long .. and ended up with the same canon as the Jews.Originally posted by vadermanu89:The Christian OT Canon was not truly decided till the 4th century through the various Councils. The Council of Jamnia Canon is similiar to the Protestant Canon but that was done in 70AD. That was the very same Council that rejected the NT Gospels. I do not think any Christian would claim Jamnia had any authority over them as a result. -
Not really meh. The EO and Caths got a different OT Canon. I believe the EO has yet to make a definitive ruling on the OT Canon though most of them have 76 books. Caths got 73 books while the Prots got 66 books.Originally posted by Icemoon:And we wonder why they took so long .. and ended up with the same canon as the Jews. -
They early church resembled Protestant in the sense they had no definite hierarchy structure. While there were bishops or elders, the apostle Paul did not see these people as how we will see bishops today. Probably because parousia is near, there is no need for a clear hierarchy.Originally posted by vadermanu89:I do not think the early Church was Protestant. They didnt believe in Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura and hierachy wise, they followed the Catholic three-fold office.
It is more accurate to state the early Church was similiar to the Eastern Christian's esseciology (since most of Christianity then was in the East). Authority laid mainly in the Bishops and the Bishop of Rome did not truly exercise any signs of primacy yet.
The Bishop of Rome, while not exercising any primacy, was certainly a respected figure, c.f. the Tome of Leo. -
Well, the deutero-canonical should be excluded from the discussion. So what we have at the core is the same bible.Originally posted by vadermanu89:Not really meh. The EO and Caths got a different OT Canon. I believe the EO has yet to make a definitive ruling on the OT Canon though most of them have 76 books. Caths got 73 books while the Prots got 66 books. -
By the way, you a fan of the EO?
My heart goes out to Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople.