When will Jesus return, according to the NT?

Never.

Jesus was ban ed.It still upsets me thinking about it so i'm gonna go.

a reply to: ketsuko

So all those OT prophecies were lies?

No, interpreted by middle aged 'scholars' that also thought blood letting and inquisitions were legitimate... lulz.

But how could they 'interpret' them, their symbology lacked the perspective of our modern technologies like radio, tv, firearms, aircraft, etc.

Only now are we able to reflect upon what the symbology might have meant, as compared to our own devices today.

originally posted by: polyath

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: polyath

I have a question. Supposedly when he left he stopped and said, I am leaving now, but I will be back.

Where did he go that it takes thousands of years to go there and then return?

My post is questioning the notion of any set time period. I'm asking, rather, if he comes back at the time of a person's death.

Well, technically he was 'dead' when he 'left', remember?

I don't think he was misguiding everyone, I think he literally meant he's leaving. After all 'to his fathers mansion' he goes to prepare a place for everyone. Besides the parable of the vineyard owner sending his son afar to collect the profits from his business reflects that 'remoteness' too.

Imo, interstellar distances. Why it takes so ling to go there and come back as well.

a reply to: Cloudbuster

Bingo!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Josephus

How you get the modern interpretation of the "Rapture" from that?

No where does it say it will occur all over the planet all at once.


Edit: Quit reading more into it than it says. By that I mean quit reading into it what men have added onto it.

Because it refers to people being 'raptured' in bed at night and also out working in the fields during the day. They are both referred to in a way that implies it is the same day. This makes sense if there are people 'raptured' simultaneously on different sides of the planet.

(Nice try with the left arrow BB code, I Know that trick)

How many people die every day all over the world?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Josephus

How you get the modern interpretation of the "Rapture" from that?

No where does it say it will occur all over the planet all at once.


Edit: Quit reading more into it than it says. By that I mean quit reading into it what men have added onto it.

Because it refers to people being 'raptured' in bed at night and also out working in the fields during the day. They are both referred to in a way that implies it is the same day. This makes sense if there are people 'raptured' simultaneously on different sides of the planet.

(Nice try with the left arrow BB code, I Know that trick)

How many people die every day all over the world?

If you are suggesting that being "snatched away" or "caught away" is a euphemism for death, then that is possible. However Paul was a strict Benjamite Jew and appears to have been translating the Hebrew 'laqach' (to snatch or take away, [Strong's number H3947]) which was used for both Enoch and Elijah when they were 'taken up' by God.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Josephus

How you get the modern interpretation of the "Rapture" from that?

No where does it say it will occur all over the planet all at once.


Edit: Quit reading more into it than it says. By that I mean quit reading into it what men have added onto it.

Because it refers to people being 'raptured' in bed at night and also out working in the fields during the day. They are both referred to in a way that implies it is the same day. This makes sense if there are people 'raptured' simultaneously on different sides of the planet.

(Nice try with the left arrow BB code, I Know that trick)

How many people die every day all over the world?

If you are suggesting that being "snatched away" or "caught away" is a euphemism for death, then that is possible. However Paul was a strict Benjamite Jew and appears to have been translating the Hebrew 'laqach' (to snatch or take away, [Strong's number H3947]) which was used for both Enoch and Elijah when they were 'taken up' by God.

Yes I am, there is no sudden death back then like today modern weapons. At best a rock could fall on you and kill you 'instantly', or getting your head chopped off, etc.

From their perspective (and if we consider Johns visions of the future on Patmos), then it also becomes apparent he would not possibly understand how a bullet or bomb kills people that fast, 'consuming the flesh from their bones and the eyes from their sockets, "as they stand upon their feet" '.

His reference is to a 'plague' , like modern war surely is.

The notion of instant mass death like at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for instance, fit that bill. Same with massive ordnance air strikes, that rain down, like a plague.

It also covers how one person could be taken suddenly (killed), "caught up in the air" and another near by, not. Only Bullets and bombs have that effect, in a war, (tribulation), whatever.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh yah, chariots of fire and all. or locusts with stings in their tails making the sound of many chariots. Again, Elijah was witnessing the future.

Lets see, what 'looks like' a chariot of fire???

Any suggestions. Look around. They are everywhere, today.

originally posted by: polyath
In the New Testament, specifically in the Book of Revelation, we are told that Jesus will come back when least expected, "like a thief in the night." So what does this really mean?

You've said it already, "Jesus will come back when least expected." If you want to meet him, then dont expect him to come. As long as christian and muslim expecting him to come, then he would not come. But It's good thing, since the world is safe as long as there are people who believe him to come.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Josephus

How you get the modern interpretation of the "Rapture" from that?

No where does it say it will occur all over the planet all at once.


Edit: Quit reading more into it than it says. By that I mean quit reading into it what men have added onto it.

Because it refers to people being 'raptured' in bed at night and also out working in the fields during the day. They are both referred to in a way that implies it is the same day. This makes sense if there are people 'raptured' simultaneously on different sides of the planet.

(Nice try with the left arrow BB code, I Know that trick)

How many people die every day all over the world?

If you are suggesting that being "snatched away" or "caught away" is a euphemism for death, then that is possible. However Paul was a strict Benjamite Jew and appears to have been translating the Hebrew 'laqach' (to snatch or take away, [Strong's number H3947]) which was used for both Enoch and Elijah when they were 'taken up' by God.

Yes I am, there is no sudden death back then like today modern weapons. At best a rock could fall on you and kill you 'instantly', or getting your head chopped off, etc.

or a spear, or an arrow, or a club...

From their perspective (and if we consider Johns visions of the future on Patmos), then it also becomes apparent he would not possibly understand how a bullet or bomb kills people that fast, 'consuming the flesh from their bones and the eyes from their sockets, "as they stand upon their feet" '.

Obviously a Martian Mark II Disinetgrator ray gun.

His reference is to a 'plague' , like modern war surely is.

The notion of instant mass death like at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for instance, fit that bill. Same with massive ordnance air strikes, that rain down, like a plague.

It also covers how one person could be taken suddenly (killed), "caught up in the air" and another near by, not. Only Bullets and bombs have that effect, in a war, (tribulation), whatever.

Possibly.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh yah, chariots of fire and all. or locusts with stings in their tails making the sound of many chariots. Again, Elijah was witnessing the future.

Lets see, what 'looks like' a chariot of fire???

A smouldering rickshaw?

Any suggestions. Look around. They are everywhere, today.

a reply to: chr0naut

or a spear, or an arrow, or a club...

So the visions meant, by arrow and spear?

They understood that, back then.

Edit: Chariots , too...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Josephus

How you get the modern interpretation of the "Rapture" from that?

No where does it say it will occur all over the planet all at once.


Edit: Quit reading more into it than it says. By that I mean quit reading into it what men have added onto it.

Because it refers to people being 'raptured' in bed at night and also out working in the fields during the day. They are both referred to in a way that implies it is the same day. This makes sense if there are people 'raptured' simultaneously on different sides of the planet.

(Nice try with the left arrow BB code, I Know that trick)

How many people die every day all over the world?

If you are suggesting that being "snatched away" or "caught away" is a euphemism for death, then that is possible. However Paul was a strict Benjamite Jew and appears to have been translating the Hebrew 'laqach' (to snatch or take away, [Strong's number H3947]) which was used for both Enoch and Elijah when they were 'taken up' by God.

FYI, Benjaminite Jew is itself a euphemism for Herodian Jew, something which Paul advertises as his allies are mostly Roman Aristocrats, he even has Herodian "kinsman" including one "Herodion (littlest Herod)", an epistle to someone who must be related to the Flavians as nobody not called themselves "Titus" like "Titus Falvius Clemens" the relative of an Emporer according to the ancient (oldest MS as old as oldest Bible) Homilies and Recognitions of Clement of Rome, who wad estranged and successor to Simon Peter according to some ancient accounts.

As Paul is called "Acher" (other) in Talmud, I figured out Herod Arche-laus is an anagram.

Herod Arche-laus means Herod Acher-Saul or Herod, an "other" (King) Saul.

Obviously no compliment and to be a "Benjaminite Jew" is akin to being a traitor.

Which Paul consistently was, when told to stop preaching against the Law of Moses he denied he was (lied) and went on to dishonor his agreement at the Jerusalem Council re: "Meat sacrificed to idols", which to him was a sign of weakness.

Later he teaches an admittedly foreign 'gospel' and declares his indepence from the 12, that he is "not the least inferior to the arch Apostles."

And subsequently corrupted the teachings of Jesus pbuh by making him a human sacrifice and equal to God so polytheistic, violating the first or Greatest Commandment

Traitor.

a reply to: chr0naut


There was no possibility of tracing lineages back to the tribe of Benjamin. There were no records in Babylon to preserve.

The returned exiles divided into Judah and Levi, not based on unavailable records but at best oral traditions.

The entire Tanakh is written after the exile to Babylon but not preserve past a full copy of Isaiah from B.C. and fragments from Qumran that shed no light on when they were written originally but to believe that Benjaminite lineage was preservable is absurd.

There is no Benjaminites so obviously it was not a literal epithet and waw an insult as the Wolf of Benjamin implies.

Today you have few Semitic Jews, but I believe Cohens claim to be Levite and the Sephardic Judahite, Ashkenazi are European converts from long ago and not Semitic and would be the modern equivalent of a Benjaminite as Herod's dynasty started as Edomite converts.

It's why Paul was obsessed with circumcision.

According to the Ebionites (like Poleme of Cilicia in Josephus, hmm...) Paul was circumcised and converted in hope of marrying the daughter of a priest (according to RCC history, ante-Nicene).

Upon realizing this was not to be Pol became disgusted with Judaism and the Law, circumcision especially. Which explains a lot as he literally traveled who knows how far to get a ruling from James so his disciples didn't have to do it, a theme common with Antiquities book XX (double cross!) and the story of King Izates and Poleme.

There is a Pallas who writes epistles to incite the Jews. Again, hmm....

Berenice is mentioned as a former wife of Pol-eme that marries the "First Man" of the "Alexander family" of Egypt.

I can't help but wonder if "First man" is an esoteric reference to the "First Man/Adam" of the philosophy of Philo Alexander, of the Alexander family who it seems Paul "borrowed" his "spiritual vs earthly Adam" idea, inferior though it is it is the same idea.

The question should be asked if he already here and about to leave, before coming to finish things. Perhaps mankind do not understand all the mystery's of God and many look up when should been looking to their left and right and in-front of them. The righteous shall find the truth and it shall set them free, many think they know truth yet it is a mixture and so they get mislead still because of it, for they fall not into true righteousness but become self righteous and lost.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Josephus

How you get the modern interpretation of the "Rapture" from that?

No where does it say it will occur all over the planet all at once.


Edit: Quit reading more into it than it says. By that I mean quit reading into it what men have added onto it.

Because it refers to people being 'raptured' in bed at night and also out working in the fields during the day. They are both referred to in a way that implies it is the same day. This makes sense if there are people 'raptured' simultaneously on different sides of the planet.

(Nice try with the left arrow BB code, I Know that trick)

How many people die every day all over the world?

If you are suggesting that being "snatched away" or "caught away" is a euphemism for death, then that is possible. However Paul was a strict Benjamite Jew and appears to have been translating the Hebrew 'laqach' (to snatch or take away, [Strong's number H3947]) which was used for both Enoch and Elijah when they were 'taken up' by God.

FYI, Benjaminite Jew is itself a euphemism for Herodian Jew,

Both Herod the Great was a Nabatean Edomite, his son Herod Antipas was born of a Samaritan woman, Malthace, so neither "Herod" was Jewish at all. So they couldn't have been from the tribe of Benjamin, either.

something which Paul advertises as his allies are mostly Roman Aristocrats, he even has Herodian "kinsman" including one "Herodion (littlest Herod)", an epistle to someone who must be related to the Flavians as nobody not called themselves "Titus" like "Titus Falvius Clemens" the relative of an Emperor according to the ancient (oldest MS as old as oldest Bible) Homilies and Recognitions of Clement of Rome, who wad estranged and successor to Simon Peter according to some ancient accounts.

So, it was a small world in 1st century Idumea.

As Paul is called "Acher" (other) in Talmud, I figured out Herod Arche-laus is an anagram.

Herod Arche-laus means Herod Acher-Saul or Herod, an "other" (King) Saul.

You read too much Dan Brown.

You can't just jumble up the English letters and arrive at some ridiculous and unfounded conclusion. Perhaps "car" means "Ra" (the sun god) and "c" the constant for the speed of light?

Obviously no compliment and to be a "Benjaminite Jew" is akin to being a traitor.

Not obvious because it wasn't.

Which Paul consistently was, when told to stop preaching against the Law of Moses he denied he was (lied) and went on to dishonour his agreement at the Jerusalem Council re: "Meat sacrificed to idols", which to him was a sign of weakness.

Later he teaches an admittedly foreign 'gospel' and declares his independence from the 12, that he is "not the least inferior to the arch Apostles."

And subsequently corrupted the teachings of Jesus pbuh by making him a human sacrifice

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. ... and of course the whole last supper symbology, which Jesus explains in depth. (I used the NRSV as you seem to like that translation, gnosisfaith).

and equal to God so polytheistic, violating the first or Greatest Commandment

Traitor.

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one", Paul is just repeating what Jesus said.

You really should research things a little better and stick to what is actually written, interpreted by its context where there is confusion. You can't just make stuff up and then draw conclusions based upon groundless assumptions.

a reply to: chr0naut


Great Google work.

I need extra strength Excedrin just to read your comments. You are that person who can't be wrong about anything (but usually is about most things). Most of it is unrelated to anything I just said because you don't know quite how to handle such esoteric concepts as anagrams and figurative allegory presented as history (see: the Bible).

It doesn't have anything to do with what I am talking about. It doesn't matter what country Herod came from.

The Herod family was Idumean though. And like I said the origin of the term 'Benjaminite" because both were despised, which is the origin of the term Archelaus, so I wasn't really concentrating on his place of birth just his converts status and only to compare Benjaminite Jews to Ashkenazi as his people would have converted with him and did giving us the no longer existing Benjaminite.

Because Benjamin wasn't a real tribe circa AD 1. I know it blows your mind you didn't know something but you will have to deal with it or not. I don't care.

Herod Arche-laus is an anagram for Herod Acher-Saul which means what I said and as usual you can't discuss a topic you don't understand and just look up maybe facts and say them.

I wasn't saying anything that require clarification or correction or follow up. The nationality of the different Herod's is different but like I said, EDOMITE CONVERTS. Aka the synogogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews but are not. That's a Benjaminite. A Herodian Jew.

Idumean to more precise. Rather well known fact actually. I think you just like contending anything, don't even know what a Nabatean is.


I am sure you will Google it!

a reply to: chr0naut


A Nabatean would be an Ishmaelite from the tribe of Nebaoth, son of Ishmael, pbuh.

And Antipater's son H. the Great wasn't born from his Nabatean first wife either but Cypros.

Herod wasn't an Ishmaelite.

Idumea is Edom. Brother of Jacob, not Isaac, pbut.


Herod Antipater is the father of Herod the Great and Antipater is called historically "The Idumean."

Archelaus succeeded him and is where you (I actually figured this out on my own) get "Other Saul", as Herod 1 was ok to some, 2, not so much. So he was called an "Other (King) Saul."

Obviously not his real name. Acher is the Talmudic term for Paul too, means "other" referring to his use of an other name.

To be a Benjaminite in Jesus'pbuh time is to be a Herodian Jew, which Paul even admits, calls some his "Kinsman", Herodian/Roman Aristocrats are his friends.

Traitor. Or Roman agent.

a reply to: chr0naut


For future reference I will do this to you every time you try challenging what I say. I spend an extraordinary amount of time researching and fact checking, say when something is from my mind or history and hardly ever get caught saying something where I make a mistake. If I do I admit it immediately.

You will hear things you don't know for the rest of your life, but you will learn nothing if all you want to do is argue that nobody possibly can know anything you don't or be right and disagree with you at the same time. All you do is argue against things you hear that you think aren't true BECAUSE you don't know them.

That is not what makes a fact a fact, that YOU are aware. You think you do but you don't, know everything. Obviously not so literally but you are a classic (undeserving of the attitude version of a) know-it-all.

Christian (percieved) entitlement is what gives Christians that attitude.

Not knowledge.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: chr0naut


There was no possibility of tracing lineages back to the tribe of Benjamin. There were no records in Babylon to preserve.

Ezra, which is post exilic, seems to have no trouble identifying and listing the heads of the other 11 tribes (Ezra himself was a descendent of Aaron and the head of the Levites). Nehemiah also mentions the tribes as does Zechariah and Haggai and Malachi.

Not only that, but land ownership was delegated by tribal inheritance. You had to know your family tree to own land in Israel.

The returned exiles divided into Judah and Levi, not based on unavailable records but at best oral traditions.

That is provably incorrect.

The entire Tanakh is written after the exile to Babylon but not preserve past a full copy of Isaiah from B.C. and fragments from Qumran that shed no light on when they were written originally but to believe that Benjaminite lineage was preservable is absurd.

The silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom contains a few verses from Numbers 6:24-26 and also probably from Deuteronomy 7:9 (although there are a number of places in the Old Testament that say the same thing). The scrolls have been reliably dated 650-587 BCE which means they were pre-exile.

So the Tanach could not have been written after the exile to Babylon, which ended in 538 BCE, about 50 years later than the latest date the Ketef Hinnom scrolls could have been created.

There is no Benjaminites so obviously it was not a literal epithet and waw an insult as the Wolf of Benjamin implies.

Today you have few Semitic Jews, but I believe Cohens claim to be Levite and the Sephardic Judahite, Ashkenazi are European converts from long ago and not Semitic and would be the modern equivalent of a Benjaminite as Herod's dynasty started as Edomite converts.

It's why Paul was obsessed with circumcision.

According to the Ebionites (like Poleme of Cilicia in Josephus, hmm...) Paul was circumcised and converted in hope of marrying the daughter of a priest (according to RCC history, ante-Nicene).

Although I am aware of Poleme (and the disreputable Bernice), I was unaware that he had authored any texts, or that he was Ebionite. As far as I know (from Josephus, Antiquities 20) he converted to Judaism and was circumcised and married but Bernice ran off with someone else and so he dropped Judaism (as you said below).

Please post a supporting link or links.

Upon realizing this was not to be Pol became disgusted with Judaism and the Law, circumcision especially. Which explains a lot as he literally traveled who knows how far to get a ruling from James so his disciples didn't have to do it, a theme common with Antiquities book XX (double cross!) and the story of King Izates and Poleme.

There is a Pallas who writes epistles to incite the Jews. Again, hmm....

Berenice is mentioned as a former wife of Pol-eme that marries the "First Man" of the "Alexander family" of Egypt.

I can't help but wonder if "First man" is an esoteric reference to the "First Man/Adam" of the philosophy of Philo Alexander, of the Alexander family who it seems Paul "borrowed" his "spiritual vs earthly Adam" idea, inferior though it is it is the same idea.