Where does Jesus promise to return?

a reply to: DISRAELI

This does not fulfil "gathered all the nations", or any of the other indications that the N.T. is expecting a general world event rather than a localised event.

That judgment of the nations scene, I don't see how it could be taken literally.
I think the point of that description is that Jesus was the judge, adding in the fact that it is the prerogative of "the King".
By being accepted as the Christ by the gentiles, then he was in effect being established as their judge.

Paul preached to the Gentiles on the basis that "You need to repent, because you are all going to be judged".

In Acts 24:25, it says that he "talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come".
I can't think of where he talked about a world judgment, other than a vague reference to "coming wrath".

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: maes2
Wow, that just got nuts really fast.
Maes, we all know that Mohammed is not the messenger to come. And Hussein, you are taking that as the actual name of someone?
Hussein, which means the blessed? Wow, talk about yanking Islam into the discussion.
Islam denies the Son, therefore Islam has not found salvation. The Blessed One, is Yeshua HaMoshiac.

Hussein is a name. It is a name of a person. As we know no one had such a name before grandson of Muhammad.
Hussein means neither blessed nor mightier. Maybe it means good person or something like this.
He was killed the same as John the Baptist. But Hussein was not a prophet. He was an Imam. Of course not an ordinary Imam. Sentences of John the Baptist show everything. However I know that you believe John the Baptist is speaking about Jesus.

This name was not used in the pre-Islamic period,[3] and is recorded to have been first used by the Islamic prophet Muhammad when he named his grandson Husayn ibn Ali, allegedly under the command of the arch-angel Gabriel.[3] --Wiki

Is Yeshua HaMoshiac another name for Jesus ?!

never mind...

a reply to: sk0rpi0n
Hilarious. Really.

As I said ... YOU said Islam is taking over the planet. And if that is true, sad as it would be, it would fit right in with what Jesus Himself said about the truth falling away prior to Him returning. Good job. Thanks for, yet again, proving me correct.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
That judgment of the nations scene, I don't see how it could be taken literally.

It can be taken as a future event, following a change in the condition of the world, which is how all the writers of the New Testament are taking it.

I can't think of where [Paul] talked about a world judgment, other than a vague reference to "coming wrath".

"Now God commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts ch17 vv30-31)
(I have an unfair advantage in having studied the subject for a forthcoming thread)

a reply to: DISRAELI

It can be taken as a future event, following a change in the condition of the world, which is how all the writers of the New Testament are taking it.

I think the church changed the world and in a significant way.

"Now God commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts ch17 vv30-31)

I don't take the imaginative speeches of Paul in Acts as equal in authenticity with what Paul wrote himself.
This was written a hundred years after the time of the events that are purported to have happened, by a now anonymous person.
He would have probably had access to all the other books of the New Testament, and could be giving his own interpretation of them by the device of putting it in the mouth of the story's characters.
It could be as simple a thing as reading Jesus saying that "no one knows the day or the hour, only the Father", then reasoning that at least there is a day that God has in mind.

a reply to: jmdewey60
You yourself quoted Acts ch24 as an example of what Paul said, so you were obviously willing to use Acts as source material as long as you thought it was "safe".
Evidently my future threads must include a systematic study of what the letters teach on the subject, just as this thread has been a systematic study of the words of Jesus.

a reply to: DISRAELI

To be fair the only thing that points to the existence of Jesus, never mind the date/place of his return is the Bible. A book written by Man and edited throughout recorded history by tyrants that have their own agendas.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You yourself quoted Acts ch24 as an example of what Paul said, so you were obviously willing to use Acts as source material as long as you thought it was "safe".

That is really off.
I quoted Acts because I couldn't think of where Paul said that himself, so quoted the verse to see if that was what you meant.

a reply to: andy06shake
Well, this thread is obviously within the framework of using the Bible as an authority.
Whether the Bible ought to be an authority is a different topic, for a different thread.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So we are attempting to ascertain the time, date and place of return of what could for all intents and purposes be a fictional character created by Man form the very same book the proclaims his existence in the first place?

I wonder, in a few thousand years will we be applying the same logic to J.R.R Tolkien works? LoL

a reply to: andy06shake
It is called "keeping to the topic of the thread".
I refer you to the sticky thread "Going beyond Religion 101".

a reply to: DISRAELI

Have to say we most certainly seem to be "Going beyond Religion" well into the realms of fiction. Possibly the same thing most certainly both a creation of Man.

I'm simply questioning the authenticity of the supporting evidence, that being the Bible. How's that going off topic considering the subject in question "Where does Jesus promise to return"?

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

We have Jesus AND a warrior called ''faithful and true'', who fights battles with justice. People may argue that this figure is none other than Jesus because he is named ''the word of God'' (a title also used for Jesus). But if that is so, then its very strange that the author stops short of calling him 'Jesus', especially when Jesus is mentioned in the previous verses.

It may very well be that people call Jesus "the Word of God" but it never does in the Bible.
People come to that conclusion by doing some interpretive translating and leaps of logic on the reading of the introductory chapter of the Gospel of John.
There is a verse in The Wisdom of Solomon that talks about a Word of God.
Wis. 18:15-16
thy all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from
the royal throne,
into the midst of the land that was doomed,
a stern warrior
carrying the sharp sword of thy authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death,
and touched heaven while standing on the earth.
(Revised Standard Version)

a reply to: Treespeaker
from what i heard hes going to descend to Damascus, which is modern day Syria

a reply to: DuecesxGeneral

Looks like it, and he will be covered in the Red, White and Blue of the American flag most lightly, self-fulfilling prophecy or what! LoL

There was not space in the OP to mention the only other occasion when the New Testament uses the phrase "Son of Man".
It comes in the words of Stephen when he was being tried by the Sanhedrin;
"I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts ch7 v56).
Luke's description in the previous verse says that Stephen looked up and saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
So of course this concurs with the identifcation of Jesus himself with the Son of Man.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It comes in the words of Stephen when he was being tried by the Sanhedrin . . .

Though you have to consider the likelihood that there was no actual person, Stephen (which means "a crown of glory"), and that it was a device to give a lot of theological exposition in a prophetic way that comes off as therefore authoritative.

a reply to: jmdewey60
The fact that the phrase "Son of Man" is not used in the rest of Acts implies that the speeches in Acts, even if written by Luke, were at least written appropriately for each speaker.
Luke does not put the phrase "Son of Man" in Paul's mouth, because Paul apparently never used it. He reserves it for Stephen, who was closer to the Jesus tradition.
Therefore "Luke must have written the speeches" is not sufficient reason for dismissing what they say.

In fact the phrase does not appear in the rest of the New Testament. It seems that the early church did not use it. Quite possibly the more Hellenistic church simply did not "get" the Daniel significance of the term, which had to be re-discovered by modern scholars.
If the early church made no use of the "Son of Man" concept themselves, the inference is that it appears in the gospels only because the disciples remember Jesus himself using it.
In other words, this is indirect confirmation that the gospels are faithfully reflecting the teaching of Jesus when they record him
a) Warning his hearers to expect the Son of Man coming in judgement, and
b) Identifying himself as the Son of Man.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The fact that the phrase "Son of Man" is not used in the rest of Acts implies that the speeches in Acts, even if written by Luke, were at least written appropriately for each speaker.

That is just hypothetical since we don't know anything of this character, Stephen, outside of Acts.
So there is no other "Stephen" to compare Act's version to.

Luke does not put the phrase "Son of Man" in Paul's mouth, because Paul apparently never used it. He reserves it for Stephen, who was closer to the Jesus tradition.

That only gives a reason why the writer of Acts would invent a character to say what he says.

Therefore "Luke must have written the speeches" is not sufficient reason for dismissing what they say.

I do not accept that Acts was written by Luke.
There is a similarity to style with the Gospel of Luke, but they both are demonstrably written after a particular style common at that period.
Also, we don't know who wrote Luke, either.
Obviously one was written to copy parts of the other, and to make them mesh.
There are just too many obviously make up "facts" in Acts to consider it reliable.
All we can say is that Acts reflects the opinion of at least on person a hundred years later, of how Christianity started.
And it really isn't even that, because the writer was determined to make it a story with added imaginative scenes, rather than a straightforward account of what was actually known at the time of the writing, on the subject.

As for the "Son of Man" thing, I am aware that it is disputed and may never be completely resolved.
I basically agree with you on it.