Jesus Will Never Return

[Jacob]

1 - Please Untellectual, I am sure you can do better than that! The commandment to get married could not have been given to the unborn.

What commandment to get married?

Certainly marriage can only involve those who have already been born.

In the Bible there are commands for different people. It is important to know all of these commands, but they don't apply to every person.

For example, there are commands for men and commands for women. They are different. They are not the same commands. But if you are a married man for certain you should know both.

2 - Do you know something Untellectual? You don't have to worry about this. That commandment was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles. If Jesus was not a Jew we would not be talking about this today.

Jesus is a Jew, correct. Are you saying the 613 commands of Torah are not for me?

3 - Nah!!! Really! How could I have missed that!

4 - And I believe he didn't. First, because he was Jewish and, second, because he was a Rabbi aka Master. (John 3:1,2)

Where is your rule that a Rabbi must be married?

5 - Probably, because you are a Christian.

Do you trust the Biblical record? Do you trust the Biblical record as it pertains to Jesus? Do you believe Jesus' life is recorded in the words of the Bible?

6 - Hence, you have decided that Jesus remained single all his life.

Some have decided that because Jesus is married to the church He not ever married to any one person.

My line of reasoning is different. It is that the Bible does not say Jesus was ever married... so when it speaks to the church (or, Israel) as the bride of Christ, it makes sense.

7 - So, who was the bridegroom in Cana? John? Any other of the apostles? If none, why was Jesus invited? Why was Mary the person in charge?

I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

8 - Have you ever read II Cor. 5:7? Paul said that Christians are supposed to walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. Probably Paul wanted you to believe what he said and to leave the understanding with him. Embarrassing, isn't it?

What is embarrassing to me is that I am talking to you and you bring up something you don't understand and imply I should be embarrassed by it.

Who provided the good wine for the end of the wedding? Jesus did it. So, who was the bridegroom the headwaiter called to ask why he had reserved the best wine to the end? Do you have any idea?

I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus Will Never Return

What commandment to get married?

Gen. 2:24.

Certainly marriage can only involve those who have already been born.

Really! Wow!

In the Bible there are commands for different people. It is important to know all of these commands, but they don't apply to every person.

For example, there are commands for men and commands for women. They are different. They are not the same commands. But if you are a married man for certain you should know both.

Jesus is a Jew, correct. Are you saying the 613 commands of Torah are not for me?

Where is your rule that a Rabbi must be married?

Do you trust the Biblical record? Do you trust the Biblical record as it pertains to Jesus? Do you believe Jesus' life is recorded in the words of the Bible?

Some have decided that because Jesus is married to the church He not ever married to any one person.

My line of reasoning is different. It is that the Bible does not say Jesus was ever married... so when it speaks to the church (or, Israel) as the bride of Christ, it makes sense.

I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

What is embarrassing to me is that I am talking to you and you bring up something you don't understand and imply I should be embarrassed by it.I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

 

[aikido7]

Jesus returns to me every day.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus Will Never Return

What commandment to get married?

Gen. 2:24.

Certainly marriage can only involve those who have already been born.

Really! Wow!

In the Bible there are commands for different people. It is important to know all of these commands, but they don't apply to every person.

You are getting wiser by the moment.

For example, there are commands for men and commands for women. They are different. They are not the same commands. But if you are a married man for certain you should know both.

Didn't I say so above? You are indeed getting wiser from a moment to another?

Jesus is a Jew, correct. Are you saying the 613 commands of Torah are not for me?

As Judaism is concerned, all men are subject to all the commandments; women only the negative commandments as in thou shall not.

Where is your rule that a Rabbi must be married?

Rabbis are of the same kind of Bishops. Paul said that they all must be married. (I Tim. 3:2)

Do you trust the Biblical record? Do you trust the Biblical record as it pertains to Jesus? Do you believe Jesus' life is recorded in the words of the Bible?

Since you mean the NT, the answer is no.

Some have decided that because Jesus is married to the church He not ever married to any one person.

Amazing! A Jew married to the Church.

My line of reasoning is different. It is that the Bible does not say Jesus was ever married... so when it speaks to the church (or, Israel) as the bride of Christ, it makes sense.

I can see that what makes sense to you is Replacement Theology.

I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

Yes, I do.

What is embarrassing to me is that I am talking to you and you bring up something you don't understand and imply I should be embarrassed by it.I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

Yes, I do.

 

[Jacob]

Gen. 2:24.

This is true for the men who do. I'm talking about the content of the verse. I believe you are saying this verse is about marriage. Are you saying it is an implicit command? I don't see it as a command.

Really! Wow!

You are getting wiser by the moment.

As Judaism is concerned, all men are subject to all the commandments; women only the negative commandments as in thou shall not.

There are positive commands and prohibitions is how I understand it?

Rabbis are of the same kind of Bishops. Paul said that they all must be married. (I Tim. 3:2)

The NKJV does say bishops, yes. But Rabbis are not mentioned. All bishops then are teachers and married, but not all teachers are bishops and married. Unless the discussion is that the man must be a one wife kind of man. Digresses.

Since you mean the NT, the answer is no.

That will make things difficult for you, as it is the definitive source for the life of Jesus.

Amazing! A Jew married to the Church.

Or Israel if you like. The Son of God has a bride.

I can see that what makes sense to you is Replacement Theology.

No, the church does not replace Israel. You are mistaken.

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.

Why? How?

Are you saying in your view the Biblical record says He is the bridegroom? How is that possible if the bridegroom is a different person from Jesus who gave instruction as to what to do?

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus Will Never Return

This is true for the men who do. I'm talking about the content of the verse. I believe you are saying this verse is about marriage. Are you saying it is an implicit command? I don't see it as a command.

Put together Gen. 2:24 with Gen. 1:28 and the commandment will jump right before your eyes.

There are positive commands and prohibitions is how I understand it?

You are right. It follows the same pattern.

The NKJV does say bishops, yes. But Rabbis are not mentioned. All bishops then are teachers and married, but not all teachers are bishops and married. Unless the discussion is that the man must be a one wife kind of man. Digresses. That will make things difficult for you, as it is the definitive source for the life of Jesus.

John 3:1,2. Pharisee Nicodemus used to address Jesus as a Rabbi.

Or Israel if you like. The Son of God has a bride. No, the church does not replace Israel. You are mistaken.

Let's keep Israel out of the picture, Please!

Why? How?

For one, Jesus was a Jew, and for another, he was a Rabbi. (John 3:1,2)

Are you saying in your view the Biblical record says He is the bridegroom? How is that possible if the bridegroom is a different person from Jesus who gave instruction as to what to do?

In the thread about the wedding of Jesus in Cana, I present many evidences that Jesus was the same as the bridegroom. Can you show me one to disprove that assertion of mine?

 

[Jacob]

Put together Gen. 2:24 with Gen. 1:28 and the commandment will jump right before your eyes.

Genesis 1:28 is a command to mankind, not individual men. Genesis 2:24 is an observation/teaching/doctrine, not a command.

You are right. It follows the same pattern.

Can we look at the Ten Commandments to see if you are correct?

John 3:1,2. Pharisee Nicodemus used to address Jesus as a Rabbi.

I have no problem with Nicodemus addressing Jesus as a Rabbi. Nicodemus was not the only one (to address Jesus as a Rabbi).

Let's keep Israel out of the picture, Please!

Did you bring up Replacement Theology in order to say this?

For one, Jesus was a Jew, and for another, he was a Rabbi. (John 3:1,2)

Jesus being a Jew and a Rabbi does not make Him the bridegroom.

In the thread about the wedding of Jesus in Cana, I present many evidences that Jesus was the same as the bridegroom. Can you show me one to disprove that assertion of mine?

The only point I have is that the text does not say Jesus is the bridegroom. In fact, it seems to distinguish Jesus from the bridegroom.

 

[Ben Masada]

Genesis 1:28 is a command to mankind, not individual men. Genesis 2:24 is an observation/teaching/doctrine, not a command.

Can we look at the Ten Commandments to see if you are correct?

I have no problem with Nicodemus addressing Jesus as a Rabbi. Nicodemus was not the only one (to address Jesus as a Rabbi).

Did you bring up Replacement Theology in order to say this?

Jesus being a Jew and a Rabbi does not make Him the bridegroom.
The only point I have is that the text does not say Jesus is the bridegroom. In fact, it seems to distinguish Jesus from the bridegroom.

That's what I asked. Would you please show me the reasons to prove that Jesus was not the bridegroom?

 

[Jacob]

That's what I asked. Would you please show me the reasons to prove that Jesus was not the bridegroom?

I showed you my reasons. Here they are again:

John 2:9-10 NASB - 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

 

[Ben Masada]

I showed you my reasons. Here they are again:

It does not say at all that Jesus was not the bridegroom.

 

[Jacob]

It does not say at all that Jesus was not the bridegroom.

It says the headwaiter called the bridegroom.

 

[Ben Masada]

It says the headwaiter called the bridegroom.

Yes, but it does not say that the bridegroom was NOT Jesus. How can this be so hard to grasp?

 

[Jacob]

Yes, but it does not say that the bridegroom was NOT Jesus. How can this be so hard to grasp?

Did you read these verses in context? You might think that if you only read the verses I presented.

 

[False Prophet]

Scoffers will come in the last days, "Saying, where is the day of his coming?" They do not keep in mind that in the days of Noah, that God saved eight from the days when the earth was flooded and all others perished.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus Will Never Return

Did you read these verses in context? You might think that if you only read the verses I presented.

Yes, I always read the verses in context, before I present my reply. Do you have any thing else in mind?

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus Will Never Return

Scoffers will come in the last days, "Saying, where is the day of his coming?" They do not keep in mind that in the days of Noah, that God saved eight from the days when the earth was flooded and all others perished.

That's the Christian excuse for the failure of the NT. If something is not happening according to what it is written and someone reminds them of it, he or she is a scoffer.

The truth is that Jesus was a Jew and according to his Faith which was Judaism the dead will never return.(Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; and Job 10:21) Now, if a Jew reminds them of it, he is a scoffer! I have heard that before.

 

[Interplanner]

Failure of the NT? What do you mean?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111542

 

[Jacob]

Yes, I always read the verses in context, before I present my reply. Do you have any thing else in mind?

I urge you to reconsider.

 

[Aimiel]

That's the Christian excuse for the failure of the NT. If something is not happening according to what it is written and someone reminds them of it, he or she is a scoffer.

The truth is that Jesus was a Jew and according to his Faith which was Judaism the dead will never return.(Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; and Job 10:21) Now, if a Jew reminds them of it, he is a scoffer! I have heard that before.

Elijah raised the dead. Elisha too.

 

[Interplanner]

BenM,
working back through this stack:

re: understanding. Paul's point in his faith vs. sight contrast was that those who are dialed into what happened in Christ (see his explanation in vs 16+) are living by faith. It is not a contradiction or discarding of reality. As for those who live by sight, he means those who are veiled from realizing what happened in Christ. He himself saw some things Christ did first hand, however, he was later shown that a few details like that were not the big picture or message God was expressing in Christ.

re the appearances of Christ
The verb in Acts 1:3 "appeared" is the Greek's present continuous. Ie, it is not about one showing. It is best translated: he kept on appearing to them... which is probably why he says he gave many convincing proofs. btw, Luke was writing down Paul's teachings and understandings of the early days.

re the OP
I have thought you might on the right track for another reason, which is Eph 3:21, a doxology which includes the phrase 'throughout all generations.' He may have meant to bridge to the new heaves and new earth, I'm not sure.

One other reason you may be correct is that there is quite a distinction in the NT between some acts of conclusive judgement upon Israel in the 1st century and on the other hand, the judgement of the rest of the world. The original declarations are that the latter would happen right after the former (Mt 24:29). But a delay was allowed in the following verses, and 2 Pet 3 explains and defends that delay. I think the difference between what Luke records in 21:25+ and Mt in 24:29 is nearly irresolveable; if Luke (Paul) was so convinced that the end of the world was right after the destruction of Jerusalem, it sure doesn't show. Paul continued to see things that way in the earliest letters: in Thessalonian letters the wrath is complete and the coming is very soon.