What will replace Christianity?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

One would think that after getting burned so many times, you would stop making those predictions:
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

nice strawman argument, but my statement in no way set a date.

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

One would think that after getting burned so many times, you would stop making those predictions:
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

nice strawman argument, but my statement in no way set a date.

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Arround Christmas, a TV channel, maybe the best we have in France, a franco-german one named "arte", did a serie of documentaries with high experts of christianism on how did christiannity was born and how it has spread until the middle age. There were 10 episodes, only speeches of historians, very interesting.

Well, I didnt see all episodes but I saw the one which explained how the bible has been built.

What has been cool in the construction of the book is that everybody can find what he wants in it.

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people that were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

don't know what you're trying to say, but there is no contradiction within scripture:

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Mark 13:32 ""No one knows about that day or hour"

Luke 12:40 "You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

John 21:22  22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

1Thes 5:1-2 "Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

One would think that after getting burned so many times, you would stop making those predictions:
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

nice strawman argument, but my statement in no way set a date.

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

You said it would be happening very soon. That's what Christians thought in 33 AD and during Nero's rule and before the year 1000 and before 1033 and whenever there was a great crisis.
Anyway, how would you define very soon?

2 Peter 3:3-5  3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed.

2 Peter 3:8-10  "8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

don't know what you're trying to say, but there is no contradiction within scripture:

Mat 25:13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Mark 13:32 ""No one knows about that day or hour"

Luke 12:40 "You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

John 21:22  22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

1Thes 5:1-2 "Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

Well, outside of the fact that, as always, the sentences are taken out of the context and so that it's more easy to make them say what we want.

is that so?!

out of context in what way?...in that, to your chagrin, they proved my point that the bible clearly states that no one will know the day of Jesus Coming?

or...out of context in that they're not referring to Jesus' second coming?  in that case, then the onus is on you to give the "correct" context.

---

I just wanted to point out by what I said the part of relativity of what the Bible can say when some see an only truth in it. That's all.

I can't understand that statement.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus predicted the apocalypse within the lifetime(s) of his followers.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=9;

Mat 24:34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

he is referring to the generation that witness the events Jesus had been talking about:

Mat 24: 32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

It's a pretty long list of events Jesus mentions in Mat 24: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024;&version=31;  

As an interesting note, the "fig tree" mentioned in Mat 24:32, quoted above, is widely believed to refer to Israel, and figs are used to symbolize Israelis in the Old Testament.  So, Jesus is actually giving another sign by referring to the "fig tree" - when you see Israel come out of its dormancy, then that is another sign Christ's return is drawing near.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I speak in general. In what you said for example it can suits to: Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour". It is not mentionned the day and hour of what.

you can readthe Olivet Discourse, of which Mark 13:32 is part, and judge the context for yourself:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2013&version=31

---

I just wanted to point out by what I said the part of relativity of what the Bible can say when some see an only truth in it. That's all.

I can't understand that statement.

Unless historians gave me wrong informations, I'm sorry you can't.

why don't you try rewording it, then maybe I'll understand what you're attempting to say.

In any case, the New Testament states over and over again that the date of the 2nd Coming is unknowable and not meant to be known by man.  To me, that leaves very little "relativity"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

that is one of the many popular interpretations.  one of the problems with it is that he was addressing a group of disciples directly and constantly uses pronouns such as 'ye' and 'you' as if he is directly addressing those before him.

actually, he is NOT addressing the disciples directly, that's why you're getting hung up on trying to link "this generation" to the generation of ~30AD.

And it is easily provable that he is NOT addressing the disciples directly:

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—..."

Mark 13:14 "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...."

So, the audience is everyone (past, present, and future) who reads the Olivet Discourse

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So I'll take my paragraph again. According to the experts I heard in the serious document I spoke about:

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people who were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

The only thing I could precise here is what is underlined. I meant according to historians I heard, the different evangiles don't say the same thing and some are not OK the one with the other one. Those who made Bible. Those who decided which christian texts will compose the NT decided to do that to give to believers the largest panorama of the witnesses of Jesus' teaches.

This plus the fact that these texts are just some witnesses of what said a Preacher who pretented or sincerely thought speaking in the name of what they called an only "God", to me, it really gives some relativity to what see as an only "truth".

Speaking about this, about texts, so about words and about the future of religions. I really tend to think that the relationship, the communication, between the human being and the "whole thing" which has passed for a long time, and maybe still for some times, in monotheist cultures, by words, by speaking, in monotheism we communicate with God by speaking to him with our language, I really tend to think we could go beyond this in the future, that we could give more importance to the energies we feel in our environment, and that could try to know better these energies, in order to canalize them and maybe to act on them, more than to supplicate or just speak to an only "God" for such or such thing.

Well, maybe that's not very clear, but I really think that it could be pertinent for humans to go over the "relation by words", for the communication with the energies that rule us, which were before symoblized by an only "God" in our societies.

let me give you a little advice:  stop listening to the so-called "experts", for they know very little because they have spent most of their time studying the opinions of other so-called "experts" and not enough time studying the subject matter itself - the bible.

I have been reading the bible for over 16 years, the only contradiction I have found is the following:

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four  thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

Was it 4000 or 40000 stalls?  I don’t know nor is it a doctrinal matter.  Seems to be simply a copying error.

As far as the compiling of the New Testament…you don’t even need the New Testament to preach Jesus Christ, you can use the Old Testament to do so, as the Apostles did.  And I have yet to find a single doctrine in the New Testament that doesn’t have a basis in the Old Testament.  Yet I have never heard any of the so-called TV experts state that fact, because they’re too busy reading each other’s opinion to even realize that fact.

Also, don’t be a dofus, the vast majority of shows on TV about Christianity are only created to slander Christianity, and even a biblical novice can refute 99% of the claims TV makes against the bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Historians vs. Believers. Oh, one never know, I might be wrong, but pardon I give less subjectivty to historians, especially when it sounds they just wanna make their job.

First, I didn't refute any "history", rather I rejected your suggestion that the New Testament was compiled to suit a wide range of contradictory beliefs.  And I did so by pointing out three facts:

1) There are no doctrinal contradictions within the bible, Old Testament or New Testament
2) Christianity can be taught without using the New Testament, by using the Old Testament instead
3) There are no doctrines in the New Testament that don’t have a basis within the Old Testament

Each one of those three facts, much less the sum of the three, totally refutes the idea that the New Testament was compiled to “give different ways for Christianism”.  For there is only ONE gospel:

Gal 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”
 
As for me telling you whom to listen to regarding what’s in the bible…I merely stated that you should  pick up a bible yourself if you are curious as to what the bible itself says it says and how the bible itself says it was written and why the bible itself says it was written.  And when you read the bible, do so WITHOUT using a study guide.

You'll find it the deepest, yet tightest, book ever written.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

that is one of the many popular interpretations.  one of the problems with it is that he was addressing a group of disciples directly and constantly uses pronouns such as 'ye' and 'you' as if he is directly addressing those before him.

actually, he is NOT addressing the disciples directly, that's why you're getting hung up on trying to link "this generation" to the generation of ~30AD.

And it is easily provable that he is NOT addressing the disciples directly:

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—..."

Mark 13:14 "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...."

So, the audience is everyone (past, present, and future) who reads the Olivet Discourse

well, you can't say I didn't try.  the compilers did a good job.  the thing isn't falsifiable. 

should I interpret the smiley face to imply you have realized, once again, that you're arguing against God and not man when you attempt to falsify the bible

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

'unfalsifiable' doesn't mean true.  some of the more absurd metaphysical fiction you can come up with in your own mind is unfalsifiable.

On a very small scale, perhaps.   But not on the scale of the bible, which is basically a small library.  There is no way even a closed committee of people could come up with such a large story spanning thousands of years and backed up with historical evidence.

Add to that the fact that the bible was NOT written by a closed committee, but was instead written by dozens of people over the span of at least 1000 years, yet is:
a)   infinitely deep
b)   infinitely intertwined
c)   perfectly exposes the motives of the human heart
d)   has the ability to make predictions about the future and explains the geopolitical climate
e)   and can be interpreted by unschooled novices better than “the experts”, demonstrating that it is God that gives the interpretation and not the wisdom of man
f)   and whose books contain a single commonality – interaction with the same invisible voice

…and you have your proof that it is the word of God.

---

  I do think the NT is flawed and false, at least in parts; its authors were geocentric, first of all, and that is somewhat clear in a number of verses unless you interpret all of them as documentations of the figurative movement of the stars throughout the sky and etc.

Is there a newspaper in America that doesn’t list the daily times of sun-“rise” and sun-“set”?  The bible doesn’t claim to be geocentric, anymore than your newspaper.  And if the bible did venture off and stray into future scientific knowledge not even fathomable in 2009AD, much less 1000BC, then it wouldn’t be a universal guide for all men across all ages.  The bible is simply meant to be a guide to human relationships.  The bible simply doesn’t even bother with things not pertaining to man’s relationship with God and man’s relationship to man and man’s relationship to the this world. 

---

  but what it isn't is blatantly false, such as the story of the nonexistent people of Nephi in the Book of Mormon, or even Genesis (although the latter may be technically unfalsifiable as well.  but if it is, so is the five minute hypothesis).

Post flood (I’ll limit my point to post flood since the world prior to the flood was destroyed), how does the picture of Genesis not match what we see today?  Is the “Table of Nations” listed in Genesis 10 wrong?  Are the remnants of the Tower of Babel listed in Genesis 11 not still visible in Iraq?  Did the call of Abram in Genesis 12 not define our current geopolitical and religious climate?  Beyond chapter 11, the rest of Genesis spans only four generations (Abraham-Isaac, Jacob, Jacob’s sons), and does not in anyway conflict with current knowledge of the world.  Is the conflict over the land given to Abram in Genesis chapter 12 not the very same piece of land that has become the epicenter of tension in the world today?  Is the Genesis story of Joseph not a perfect picture of Jesus’ relationship with his fellow Jews and with Gentiles?  And is the picture of Joseph saving the Jews after he saved the Gentiles after being rejected by the Jews not a prophecy of the timeframe spanning form 30AD up to the Second Coming?

Seems to me the book of Genesis hit the nail squarely on the head by laying out the complete plan of God’s salvation.  And the historical record of Genesis, and the prophecies gleaned through that historical record (since the stories in Genesis are both historical and figurative), encompass the timeframe of the entire bible – from creation through the Second Coming.  All in one book known as Genesis.

You could literally take each of the stories of Genesis and spend a lifetime before exhausting all the aspects of the story that relate to, or foreshadow, Jesus Christ.  That’s why Judaism no longer holds to many of its previous beliefs of depictions of the Messiah throughout Genesis (and the rest of the Old Testament), because those prior beliefs basically prove that Jesus is the Messiah.  For example, the Talmud records that the story of Joseph was widely accepted as paralleling the life of the coming Messiah, so much in fact that the Messiah was referred to as “the son of Joseph”.  But you rarely hear that in modern Judaism because the life of Jesus too closely mirrors the life of Joseph.

And, going back to your argument, the mere fact that the life of Jesus is infinitely and perfectly intertwined within the lives Old Testament characters proves that the story of Jesus could NOT have been made up by man, and certainly not by a loose gathering of Christians of different backgrounds who continued to disagree even after each compromised on which books should be included in the New Testament and which should not.  For the resulting canon of the New Testament is not a man-made conspiracy to create a perfect story, rather the canon was birthed out of “compromise” of unsolvable disputes. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for me telling you whom to listen to regarding what’s in the bible…I merely stated that you should  pick up a bible yourself if you are curious as to what the bible itself says it says and how the bible itself says it was written and why the bible itself says it was written.  And when you read the bible, do so WITHOUT using a study guide.

You'll find it the deepest, yet tightest, book ever written.

Yes, yes, for sure that would be the best way for me to speak about it, but, the few i know about Christianism and the few I know about the things in general make that I don't want spend time to give interest to the monotheist texts. May you can respect this will. That's why when I speak, I tell from where I speak, here historians of that TV documentary.

Speaking about the Bible, and about Jesus teaches, and about the witnesses of this, I don't doubt that we can find verry deep things in it. I also acknowledge that Christiannity has carried a lot of good things to human societies which followed it. We just have to watch the history of the societies who followed Christiannity to see it.

That said, for me, it remains a human thing, a deep one, maybe very deep, but human, and a thing beyond which humans will have to go if they don't want to stagnate, a thing which carried a lot but which has no more to carry for the future, except maybe some big destructions. In that way, I find the existence of that thread very pertinent.

Oh, you will probably think I'm an ignorant who doesn't know what he says because he hasn't read the Bible

exactly

---

she says about Quran, exactly all the same things you say on the Bible.

really?  then how come there is no trace of Islam prior to ~600AD?  The bible has many witnesses throughout history...where's the witness of Islam prior to 600AD? 

And, how come, in spite of the claims of Islam that a Jewish Temple never stood on the Temple Mount, 2500 year old Jewish artifacts relating to the temple are still being unearthed by Muslims who control the Temple Mount?

Islam is nothing more than a religion based off a bastardized bible made up by a single person and is easily disprovable within recorded human history.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

she says about Quran, exactly all the same things you say on the Bible.

dude, Islam would drown in the flood of parallels between the life of Jesus and just the first two chapters of Genesis.  From the very first verse of the bble, the references to Jesus Christ begin to pour in:

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created..."

John 1:1-3  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.  3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

The subject of the bible, from beginning to end, is Jesus Christ, not Mohammad:

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

neither the bible nor the New York Times makes any 'claim' as to geocentrism.  but the NT does *operate under the assumption of* geocentrism while the NYT operates under the assumption of heliocentrism.  this does not mean that they are central themes of either. 

well, if geocentrism isn't a central theme of the bible and if no biblical doctrines depend upon geocentrism...then how can the bible be "operating" under the assumption of geocentrism?

as to the depth of the bible providing proof of its godly origin...name a work of literature that is deeper than the bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, I completely disagree with how you portray Judaism's position on the Messiah. Judaism never held that Joseph's life parallels that of the Messiah. The Talmud (which by the way was written hundreds of years after Christ, so by your reasoning shouldn't even mention the Joseph allegory) which you refer to, is actually speaking about a Jewish tradition, still fully believed today in Orthodox Judaism (and is actually a major topic discussed in Kabbalah texts), that there will be two Messiah's - "Moshiach ben Yosef" (Messiah from the line of Joseph) and "Moshiach ben Dovid" (Messiah from the line of David).

well, if Judaism never believed that Joseph's life parallels that of the Messiah, then why did they refer to Messiah that was to die as "Moshiach ben Yosef" (Messiah from the line of Joseph)?

the belief (or tradition) was widely held, and for good reason - the story of Joseph parallels much of the prophecies concerning the Messiah.  And the belief (or tradition) was pretty much on the mark, for it is written:

Luke 3:23 "Jesus was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph..."


...it was no freak coincidence that Jesus' earthly "father" was named Joseph!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Islam says, to sump up, that it recognizes all prophets from the Jew and the Christian religion, but it opposes that their texts have been modified by men and it opposes that Mohamed had a direct full speech from "God" and that this speech is Quran.

I am fully aware of this very - shall we say – “convenient” Muslim theory.  Of course, it is flatly contradicted by recorded human history since the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are dated prior to the time of Jesus) prove that the bible wasn't "modified" after the life of Jesus in some “Joint Christianity-Judaism Grand Conspiracy”.

The Muslim theory holds no more weight than if I created my own religion with my own scripture that claimed the real bible was “modified” in a grand conspiracy prior to 1600AD and that I alone was chosen by God to “restore” the truth to mankind.

…come to think of it, that’s pretty much what Joseph Smith did with Mormonism.

---

Why the hell some believers must feel they have "The truth"?? Don't they feel that it sounds impossible for a human to get the "The Truth"??

Can't you deal with something like: "I'm convinced I'm on a, or maybe the, good way, I've strong conviction about it, but, as the small human I am, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, anyway I follow my convictions".

Would it be too hard to deal with such things, instead of losing so much time in trying to be sure to have "The Truth"…

The whole premise of your argument is misguided; for neither choice nor conviction is the basis of my faith in Jesus Christ.  Rather I became a Christian when Christ chose to reveal himself to me. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As far as I know, there is no Jewish tradition anywhere which states that the story of Joseph parallels that of the Messiah. The Messiah from the line of Joseph in Jewish tradition is a completely different thing, with absolutely nothing to do with there being any comparison between the Messiah and the story of Joseph.

well, if the recorded life of Joseph wasn't the basis, then what was?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

I can't wait to watch them haul you off to the camps. I will watch with an evil smile.

oh, I am sure they will; afterall, they will attempt to kill anyone who doesn't accept the mark of the beast.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus wasn't the Messiah.  The Messiah hasn't come yet.

Psa 118:22 "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

I can't wait to watch them haul you off to the camps. I will watch with an evil smile.

oh, I am sure they will; afterall, they will attempt to kill anyone who doesn't accept the mark of the beast.

Do you believe in a literal 666 mark, or the symbolic/ID chip theory?

some sort of ID, but I think the mark being in the "right hand" or one the "forehead" is probably symbolic...but, it's impossible to tell.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Define "very soon".  I remember hearing "He's coming, very soon" back in the 70s.  They told me the end times would begin with lots of wars and natural disastors and they would list a bunch of wars and natural disastors that were occuring at the time and say "see? He's coming!".  Same thing in the 80s.  When I stopped going to church in the early 90s they were still saying the exact same things.  I'm pretty sure it goes back long before the 70s too.

What the hell does "very soon" mean?

Since the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, there have been only 3 main prophesies left to be fulfilled before the Second Coming:

1)   Reformation of nation of Israel (see Ezekiel ch 36 and 37.  Ezekiel is a chronology of the nation of Israel, past through future, and the reformation of the nation in its biblical homeland is followed in the chronology by Armageddon.  And physical nation of Israel is required for a literal interpretation of NT endtime passages)
2)   churches falling away from Christ’s teachings
3)   Appearance of Antichrist and his proclamation to the world that he is god
#1 happened in 1948.  #2 is occurring now (just look how many churches are openly renouncing the teachings of the NT).  So, #3 is about all that is left, but that requires the Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

I am not a pre-tribber, I do NOT think Christ could come back at any time, rather I believe the church will have to endure persecution from the Antichrist. (I am not willing to wager my salvation on his return not being imminent, so I need to always be ready because even if his return is not imminent, I could die today in a car crash…but I am 99% certain the temple in Jerusalem has to be rebuilt before the Antichrist makes himself known.)

The battle over the promised land is consuming more and more nations.  It’s why we were attacked on Sept11th (bin Laden stated that reason point blank), and since many nations in Europe will become majority Muslim nation in the next 50 years, I really can’t see, from the pace of the world events, the 2nd Coming not taking place this century.  It might be 2019 or 2053 (just picking random years), but it is getting very close!

---

As to you having always heard the prophecy of his return…

2pet 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the 2nd Coming hasn’t take place yet because God is patient, not because God is slow.  He is patient with you in hope that you might turn towards him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, do you think the apocalypse will mean the end of the spacetime universe or merely a seismic shift in human consciousness?

well, I believe in the 1000 year reign of Christ after the 2nd Coming, so I still think the earth has another 1000 years before it will be recreated (New Heaven, New Earth).