DID THE 'SECOND COMING' ALREADY HAPPEN ?

I copied the following from here:~ http://freethought.mbdojo.com/2ndcoming.html

Jesus Said that He Would Return in the First Century
2001

---

It seems that every generation of Christians believes that the end of the world, and the return of Jesus, will happen during their lifetimes. The first prediction of this sort that I can find is from Saint Paul himself, in his letters, in 1st Thessalonians Chapter 4, when he predicts the prompt return of Jesus at a time when "…we also … are still alive." That people think that Jesus will return in their lifetimes is easily discovered by simply speaking to them. People are taught by their priests and pastors that Jesus is "coming quickly", and that they should be prepared, because he might pop up at any moment.

And yet Jesus' return does not seem to have been quick. It seems not to have happened at all. Do we have any information as to when the writers of the New Testament foretold the return of Jesus? Actually, we have very good information on that. We have nearly precise information. There is scriptural evidence that those who wrote about Jesus intended for him to come back during the lifetimes of those who first followed him. That's right... in the First Century.

First, let us look at the gospel of Mark, chapter 13. (When I reference the gospels, I will refer to them as "Mark" and "Matthew", even though these labels were attached to those texts by the Early Church-- the books are actually anonymous and no one knows who the true authors are). In this chapter, Jesus speaks of a "tribulation", nation rising against nation, earthquakes, and the coming of false Christs and false prophets, the stars falling from the sky, and the coming of the Son of Man "in the clouds with great power and glory". Then, in verse 30, he tells when this will happen. "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

Second, let us look at Matthew (copied from Mark), which contains the same story. The same earthquakes, false prophets, darkening sun, falling stars, etc., and the return of the Son of Man, "coming in the clouds with of heaven with power and great glory." And then in verse 34, he says when to look for all of this commotion: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Pretty conclusive.

Now, there is a rebuttal to this interpretation. It can be found, among other places, in some evangelistic bibles as a footnote in Matthew and Mark.

<blockquote>
"The word "Generation", though commonly used in scripture to those living at one time, could not mean here those who are alive at the time of Christ, as none of these things, i.e. the worldwide preaching of the kingdom, the tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect-- occurred then. The expression "this generation" here may mean the future generation which will endure the tribulation and see the signs. Or it may be used in the sense of race or family, meaning the nation of Israel or the Christians will be preserved until these things take place."
</blockquote>

This apologist basically says: "It can't mean those living at the time of Jesus, because that's not what we believe". They say that "this generation" means the generation that's alive during the tribulations. Let us take a good look at this "explanation". First, the claim that generation could mean race, family, or the nation or tribe of Israel.

What are the Greek words for Nation, Tribe, Family and Generation? Generation is "genea", the root of genealogy. "Family" is "patria". "Tribe" is "phule". "Nation" is "ethnos", as in ethnic. Next, we need to look up these words as they appear in the New Testament, and cross-reference the Greek words with the English words. I have done this. Every single occurrence for Nation that I looked up gave the word "ethnos". Every single occurrence for Generation that I looked up gave the word "genea". When the writers meant nation, they wrote ethnos. When they meant generation, they wrote genea. They were apparently very clear in this. They never used "patria" or "phule" in any of these instances. To prove his case, the evangelistic writer who wrote the "explanation" above must find one instance of the word nation translated from the Greek word genea. Furthermore, if the word genea could have been translated as nation, then why wouldn't the translators have written it as nation? It would certainly have made more sense, if that's what they intended, and they could have prevented a major theological problem. But that's not what they wrote.

So, the rationalization that the bible writers meant "the Nation of Israel" falls to the ground. But what about the other "explanation" that is sometimes offered, that Jesus was speaking about those people who would be witnessing the tribulations in future times? Did he mean that that future generation would not pass until all those things came to be?

This rationalization fails as well. In the first place, Jesus does not say "that generation", he says "this generation". But in fairness, this is could be related to translation. Some have argued, ala Thomas Paine, that this sort of situation (the inability to accurately translate one language into another), is proof that the "Word of God" could never exist in print. Then again, the translation could be perfectly accurate. This is a thing that we can never know, however, since no original version of any of the gospels exist.

But there is more positive proof than this. Jesus makes it clear that he is speaking about the current generation of people. In Matthew 24:4 when the disciples asked Jesus about the end of the world, he "answered and said unto THEM", "Take heed that no man deceive you... ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars... Ye shall see the abomination... etc." He is clearly replying to them, telling them what they shall see. He says that THEY shall see these things. Read it for yourself. Then he concludes by saying: "THIS generation shall not pass" until he comes again. The evidence can be found in Mark chapter 13, starting from verse 5 onward. It is clear that he is speaking to his apostles, answering their inquiry. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.

And yet there is something even stronger than this. The same story is related in Matthew chapter 16. Yet this time, Jesus does not use the word "generation". He again describes how he will come in the glory of his father, with his angels, to judge men according to their works. Then he concludes by saying "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That is the final nail in the coffin. Matt. 16:28 says there were some men standing there next to Jesus who will see his second coming, and it is totally clear that in Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30, Jesus believed the end of the world would come during the lifetimes of his apostles. Jesus says so himself. He thought that he was going to be returning in the First Century. He said: "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15) Similar statements are to be found in Mark 9:1; 13:30; Matthew 10:23; 23:29-36; and Luke 12:49-50. Jesus' title of "Messiah" literally translated means "inaugurator of the end".

It is clear. There is no reason to doubt that the author of Mark wrote what he intended to write. Christian scholars claim that the book of Mark was written around the year 60 C.E., 35 years after the alleged death of Jesus, and well within the lifetimes of any of his followers. Whoever wrote the text believed that the Messiah would return during his lifetime. And as Matthew was constructed from Mark some decades later, whoever wrote Matthew simply copied this same information.

I share Robert G. Ingersoll's opinion:

<blockquote>
"You must remember, also, one other thing. Christ never wrote a solitary word of the New Testament -- not one word. There is an account that he once stooped and wrote something in the sand, but that has not been preserved. He never said: "Matthew, remember this. Mark, do not forget to put that down. Luke, be sure that in your gospel you have this. John, do not forget it." Not one word. And it has always seemed to me that a being coming from another world, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should at least have verified that message by his own signature. Is it not strange that not one word was written by Christ? Is it not strange that he gave no orders to have his words preserved -- words upon which hung the salvation of a world? Why was nothing written? I will tell you.

In my judgment they expected the end of the world in a few days. That generation was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat. That was their belief. They believed that the world was to be destroyed, and that there was to be another coming, and that the saints were then to govern the earth. And they even went so far among the apostles, as we frequently do now before election, as to divide out the offices in advance. This Testament, as it now is, was not written for hundreds of years after the apostles were dust. Many of the pretended facts depended upon the inaccuracy of legend, and for centuries these doctrines and stories were blown about by the inconstant winds. And when reduced to writing, some gentleman would write by the side of the passage his idea of it, and the next copyist would put that in as a part of the text. And, when it was mostly written, and the church got into trouble, and wanted a passage to help it out, one was interpolated to order. So that now it is among the easiest things in the world to pick out at least one hundred interpolations in the Testament. And I will pick some of them out before I get through."
</blockquote>

ANY old explanation is not an adequate explanation. Christian apologists could say: "There were some standing there listening to him who were immortal, and would live 2000+ years, and so would see him return." That's an explanation too, but is it reasonable to believe? Coming up with any statement that explains the problem is not enough. They must come up with something that fits ALL the points of the text, and fits within reasonable possibilities. Their explanations do not work. My explanation DOES work. It works with reason; it fits the biblical texts, and it is honest. It just doesn't start with the assumption that Jesus is god.

In this case, the bible itself provides ample evidence that Jesus was supposed to return in the First Century, some 1900 years ago. If he did, no one noticed. But, I don't expect that this proof will make a dent in most Christians. But I thought that I would point it out. The end of the world will not come anytime soon. Jesus will not "come quickly". No. What will happen is that you will continue to live, and work-- the world will continue to go on, past 2000, then 2010, then 2025, and so on, until you grow old and pass away. When you get to be old, at the end of your life, think of my writings. Remember that I told you so. You will never see the end of the world.

Some readers may point to the book of Revelation, and object to my conclusions. But let's honestly take a look at that book for a moment. Among much unintelligible ravings, the anonymous writer of Revelation clearly predicts the destruction of Rome (17:16-18 ), asserts that Nero, who was really dead, was yet alive (13:3), proclaims the immediate coming of Christ (1:7, 22:7, 12), the avenging of the persecuted prophets and apostles (18:20), the binding of Satan for a thousand years (20:2), and the establishment of God's Kingdom (21).

"We know how completely these expectations were disappointed. Jerusalem, where the temple at least was never to be violated, fell utterly, and the sanctuary was laid low never to rise again; while Rome, instead of being turned into a desert, still held her rank and fame. Nero, the Antichrist, was dead and never returned to life; but neither did the Christ come back to earth. The martyrs were not avenged, but fresh persecutions awaited the faithful. The kingdom of Satan held its own, and the Kingdom of God came not." The Bible for Learners, Vol. 3, pg. 655)

------------------------------------------------------

I would largely agree with the above, except that I don't think that the original contemporary disciples would have thought the world was literally (physically) going to end at the return of the Master!

What do you think?

Bob My friend, as your Humble brother I thank you graciously for the story You have done much research on and presented here truly. For I have read many things of the Fathers word and it usually balances Parable and Celestial in His understanding for me most of the time. There has been an entire section of Christ Gnostics I had to learn and discern within me for I did not think for many years it was of the father, I also have seen and read those text you presented here tonight again, wondering what the answer was in explaining these things He says, associated with the Final Generation, which is mentioned in the Old testament Daniel and others I think.
What you have brought to my enlightenment from an indirect Gnosis that placed the Missing key in the door so to speak that has been closed up till now is this;
with Reading Pistis Sophia a Text I have always encouraged many to read from the vast truths within it. Christ teaching his disciples covers much of This key I needed to have in answering the Question You posed. The subject of Cycles of the Body/Soul/Spirit that He talks about in much detail within these Texts answers all things You have asked for Conversation sake.
See in His teaching, He says that each soul is apportioned a required number of cycles so as to attain the mysteries of the Father so that they will enter the Kingdom of Lights. A Cycle (or reincarnation as some see it) is when the soul comes out of the Body and is taken eventually up to the Virgin of Light at the gates of the Kingdom of lights, she checks to see if the soul has any of the Fathers Mysteries in it, if it does not it will be sent back to the world accordingly to try again to achieve them in another cycle. He tells His apostles to tell those that know this, do not put it off knowing these things so as letting your next cycle learn them, for the allotted time of the prince to come may be before you have attained them (These are the Lamp oil) and then You will be turn away from the gate, as in the 10 Virgin Parable. When the soul has attained the Mysteries of the father and come out of the Body with them , He needs not go through anymore Cycles. One of Elijah Cycles was John the Baptist, and again he will be in many in the final generation, as with Enoch also.
So you see by Christ telling ones back then that this generation will not pass before you see the Son of man coming again. He was saying that at the Finish of their cycles They will be of the Last generation of mankind , That is We.... in Great Joy. Some that, will not tast death was talked about in those ones that has sinned of the world, and after coming out of the body their souls will be given to the archons to pay homage to them which they owe and will taste death abit, before returning again. Some that are in the Fathers Mysteries will not taste death at all, Things are so perfectly clear now
I guess if we wish to ask the Father who we really are in the Cycles of time, with much meditation and prayer, and in His way He will tell us indeed. Its for each man to know solemnly.. the white stone, to each a song that only he knows.
how small a world for the past 2000 years this truly is, hay Bob
I always knew the cycles was intertwine more into his logos then I was understanding.

The bible I must read again now, in a new light.
Tonight was truly an enlightening moment Brother indeed....
I urge Pistis sophia scriptures to all

Much Love and Light in Him we are....
Thomas....

Just my opinion....

The 'second coming' as mentioned by Yeshua deals with the awakening of the Christ-center within us all. This will happen on a personal level, not a universal one, and not on a given timeline.

I pretty much agree with you Darkchlyde. I figured the second coming was something to do with what happened in the upper room when the apostles came into the holy spirit.

Good point, Lig.

When we choose to embody the 'Christ within us,' we ourselves are the 'second coming.' It isn't part of some 'Left Behind' crap that is so misconstrued by the misinformed....