- Topic
[Comment moved by admin from What Will The Second Coming Look Like? to this forum thread on 08/03/2011]
[Originally posted by nick on August 1, 2011 at 1:03 AM]
I can see that you enjoy interpreting the Bible literally so how would you explain Luke 17:24-25 and Luke 12:49? Obviously if Jesus is only to come in the literal clouds to bring fire and mess the Earth up He is NOT going to be suffering and getting rejected?? Also i’m pretty sure Jesus was already baptized according to Luke 3:21 so how is he going to be baptized again if he’s only coming to bring fire and destruction??
[Originally posted by admin on August 1, 2011 at 2:04 AM]
Thanks again for commenting on the site. In regards to Luke 17:24-25, it is clear that Jesus is speaking of his first coming when he says that “first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” before he returns for the second time. This does not imply that Jesus will suffer and be rejected again at his second coming. You may want to read from Luke 17:20 in order to get a better understanding of the context surrounding the verses. Hebrews 7:27 says that Jesus was sacrificed once for all. There is no Biblical support for Jesus returning to suffer a second time.
In regards to Luke 12:49-50, first I would like to point out the the Greek word for baptism in this verse is βαπτίζω or baptizó which means to submerge or immerse. You are correct when you say that Jesus was already baptized, so the baptism that Jesus speaks of here refers to something else. Let us examine the same sentiment in another gospel. For instance, in Matthew 20:20-22. In verse 22 Jesus says, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? Again, the Greek word for baptism is the same as in Luke 12:50. Jesus refers to the suffering that he is to endure, and is immersed in while on earth. In further support, to drink a cup, in the Bible means to endure pain or affliction. See Matthew 26:39, Isaiah 51:17, Psalm 75:8, Jeremiah 25:15, John 18:11. Afflictions are also described as being sunk in the floods and plunged in deep waters. See Psalm 69:2, Isaiah 43:2, Psalm 124:4-5, Lamentations 3:54. Jesus is not referring to the baptism performed by John the Baptist, but about the suffering and sorrow that he would endure during his first coming and not the second.
[Originally posted by admin on August 1, 2011 at 3:22 AM]
In Luke 17, it’s pretty clear that when Jesus says that he must be rejected by “this” generation he is referring to “this” generation because that’s what “this” means. If Jesus were referring to a future generation, he would have mentioned it or said “that” generation. In reference to your comment on Matthew, could Jesus have been referring to the persecution that his followers received for believing in His divinity and preaching the gospel? Was Paul not arrested, beaten and persecuted for his faith in Jesus?
[Originally posted by admin on August 1, 2011 at 5:42 AM]
Jesus speaks about himself in the third person in Mark 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33 and He does not imply that the suffering that he will endure will be at the hands of any future generation. Jesus specifically refers to the suffering that he will endure on the cross.
You should probably also educate yourself on the many mistranslations and omissions in the NIV. Here is a website that clearly points out verses that are completely omitted from the NIV (http://www.searchthescriptures.com/newsletters/foundations.htm). Personally, I think the NIV is a horrible translation that lends itself to misinterpretation. We quote most of the verses from the NIV because we know that our readers use it most often. Doesn’t the WMSCOG say that whoever adds or takes away from the Bible is cursed? Why would the WMSCOG use the NIV as the primary source for their Bible studies? (I know that they use the KJV, NKJV, and NLT occasionally.)
Nick, why is it that whenever someone disagrees or doesn’t share the same interpretation of the Scriptures as a WMSCOG member, that person is automatically accused of not having their “spiritual eyes open”? It just seems like an easy way for the WMSCOG member to dismiss the person that they are talking to. This reminds me of the “us vs. them” mentality that controversial groups like the WMSCOG create.
[Originally posted by admin on August 2, 2011 at 1:24 AM]
Hi nick,
I see we are going back and forth concerning whether Luke 17:25 refers to a future generation or the current generation based on which voice Christ may be using (first person vs third person).
If we look at verses in Luke 17:24-25 on their own, one might conclude that the voice is ambiguous, which is the cause of our discussion. In a proper exegesis though, the verses must be harmonized not only with their surrounding context, but with the rest of Scripture.
If we interpret v25 as being spoken with third-person voice and applying to some “future-suffering” of Christ and not Our Lord’s Passion, we run into some pretty serious problems harmonizing this interpretation with the rest of Scripture, especially in the case of Ahnsahnghong.
Since Ahnsahnghong died, you would need to now have a third-coming of Christ to have the glorious return prophesied in the Bible (described above in the original article). However, the rest of Scripture is very clear on the number of times Christ will come to Earth, and it is only twice.
The idea of a third coming of Christ is so foreign to Christianity, nowhere in the 2,000 years of understanding that we have about our faith would you find support for such an idea.
In short, saying that Christ must come to Earth three times (which logically follows from a third-person voice interpretation of Luke 17:25) is untenable in light of the rest of Scripture and the entire deposit of Christian history. A “third-coming” of Christ would certainly be considered a strange teaching to the world’s approximately 2 billion Christians, and it takes rather clever interpretive gymnastics to thrust upon the Scriptures this idea that has never been there before, and is foreign to the rest of the text.
If you would like to have longer debates than the comment areas on the posts allow though, I might suggest posting in our forum. [Note, this thread has since been moved to the forum]
The fact of the matter remains though that the term “spiritual eyes open” used often by WMSCOG members we speak with falls into the “loading the language” category under cult expert Steven Hassan’s BITE model.
Again, I am going to ask you to please refrain from making rude comments on this site if you would like to continue having the privilege to post. People come here to learn more about the WMSCOG in a constructive, academic setting.
Hi Nick. Nice to meet you.
I'm sorry to say that you have matched up the wrong conversations (or "father and mother" revealed it to you incorrectly).
If you look more closely, the conversation in Luke 17 does not match with the conversation in Matt. 24, therefore you cannot compare the contexts as automatically the same. The Matthew 24 passage matches rather with the one in Luke 21.
Matthew 24:34 (like Luke 21:32) is definitely talking about the end times. But since the word for "generation" also means an "age, nation, race, or time" scholars have said Jesus is referring to the Jewish race, or the human race in general.
That sentence is talking about the many end time events that will happen before "this generation" passes.
However Luke 17: 25 talks about what must happen before those end time events–He must suffer and be rejected by "this generation." Jesus only needed to suffer once, and that was at His first coming.
You have matched up Luke 17:25 with Matt. 24:35 to try to prove Luke 17:25's "this generation" refers to the end times.
We can match it up just as easily with Luke 9:22 to prove Luke 17:25's "this generation" refers to Jesus' time.
Luke 9:22 "And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”"
Here's Luke 17:25 again to see the match, "But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation."
And here's Matthew 24:35 just for comparison, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Isn't Luke 9:22 a better match for context? And it's clearly talking about Jesus' first coming.
Why do they always say something interesting then when someone here breaks it down for them, either they don't answer back or never come back? (then again it is a comment) but as you can see Admin. and Genny addressed it nicely.
Here you go Emil, see what you can find here, I'm pretty sure you wil find something. 🙂
interesting…
The AntiNIV rhetoric is silly…
I don't really understand baptism as the cross but its fairly common doctrine so I dunno
Also not sure the Bible really says ONLY twice (even though it is what all of us nonWMSCOGers believe, but the Jews believe it says only once…
But definitely right on about the this generation 🙂
Admin and genny have addressed all issues very well here.
Simon has raised three points here. I don't know what is being refered to in the third point.
1. The NIV translation is indeed a very readable translation and I do use it a lot for ease of understanding. However, when it comes to understanding doctrine and deeper interpretation, we must realize the NIV is not a pure translation. The group that got together to compile the NIV translation had a mandate to do it by understanding (this where it got subjective) what the original authors had in mind rather than exactly translate what had been written. In that context the KJV is great though the language seems outdated at times.
2. Jesus asks the apostles whether they can be baptized like Him. Obviously he is talking about an event that is yet to take place at that time. He himself, as well as other apostles who were former disciples of John had already received John's baptism at the time so he couldn't be talking about that.
ALL translation is about the meaning not the literal words. plus kjv is subpar based on translation of translation of texts known not to be most reliable
As far as baptism. not being Johns baptism tells us what it isn’t not what it is
Simon wrote:
ALL translation is about the meaning not the literal words. plus kjv is subpar based on translation of translation of texts known not to be most reliable
True. Using literal words would create problems because of syntactic differences between languages. I am talking about going beyond that. It is about starting with sets of doctrine and then translating so as to make the translation friendly to the doctrine. I must admit though that later editions have ironed out some such instances.
Maybe the original did but not nearly as much as nwt which failed to remove the deity of Jesus
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.