Best Arguments For or Against Christianity

[Achilles6129]

Hello all,

In this thread I’d like to invite you to propose what you believe are the best arguments for or against Christianity being true. You may post as many as you’d like. I’ll start off with one of each:

Against Christianity:

I think that by far the best line of reasoning against Christianity is the chronological time gap between the events of the NT and today. The length of time that has passed strongly suggests that the NT is a myth. To this we may add that some of the events narrated in the NT are bizarre (and by bizarre I mean against the course of nature) which is also strongly suggestive of a myth.

For Christianity:

The strongest line of reasoning for Christianity (outside of personal experience, which the NT claims you can have) is, in my view, fulfilled Biblical prophecy. The prophecy I am referring to is prophecy that could not possibly have been written during the lifetime of the prophet and yet was fulfilled. A great example is Daniel 9:26:

“26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[f] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.” Dan. 9:26 (ESV)

In this passage Daniel predicts the cutting off of the Messiah (anointed one) and that after this the city/sanctuary will be destroyed. Messiah was cut off in 33 AD and the city/sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD. Even the most vocal antisupernaturalist can’t place a date of Daniel beyond the 160s B.C. Supernaturalists would claim that Daniel was written in 530 B.C. This, then, is genuine fulfilled prophecy and a strong argument that the Bible (and hence Christianity) is true.

 

[dmar198]

Hello all,

In this thread I’d like to invite you to propose what you believe are the best arguments for or against Christianity being true. You may post as many as you’d like. I’ll start off with one of each:

Against Christianity:

I think that by far the best line of reasoning against Christianity is the chronological time gap between the events of the NT and today. The length of time that has passed strongly suggests that the NT is a myth. To this we may add that some of the events narrated in the NT are bizarre (and by bizarre I mean against the course of nature) which is also strongly suggestive of a myth.

For Christianity:

The strongest line of reasoning for Christianity (outside of personal experience, which the NT claims you can have) is, in my view, fulfilled Biblical prophecy. The prophecy I am referring to is prophecy that could not possibly have been written during the lifetime of the prophet and yet was fulfilled. A great example is Daniel 9:26:

“26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[f] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.” Dan. 9:26 (ESV)

In this passage Daniel predicts the cutting off of the Messiah (anointed one) and that after this the city/sanctuary will be destroyed. Messiah was cut off in 33 AD and the city/sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD. Even the most vocal antisupernaturalist can’t place a date of Daniel beyond the 160s B.C. Supernaturalists would claim that Daniel was written in 530 B.C. This, then, is genuine fulfilled prophecy and a strong argument that the Bible (and hence Christianity) is true.

For Christianity: If it was a lie, it could not have gotten off the ground. And if God was not assisting it, it would have died early. A lie of this nature could easily be disproven. Even assuming its truth, it is the kind of thing that I think most people would ignore: its core message, the resurrection, sounds like a tall tale or a ghost story, none of which ever changed anybody’s life. Moreover, it was persecuted. Only with God’s help, and being based on a real fact, could such a religion spread so quickly.

Against Christianity: Technology can provide enough distraction that we don’t really need true joy. What Christianity offers is therefore unnecessary and superfluous. Keep it.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hello all,

In this thread I’d like to invite you to propose what you believe are the best arguments for or against Christianity being true. You may post as many as you’d like. I’ll start off with one of each:

Against Christianity:

I think that by far the best line of reasoning against Christianity is the chronological time gap between the events of the NT and today. The length of time that has passed strongly suggests that the NT is a myth. To this we may add that some of the events narrated in the NT are bizarre (and by bizarre I mean against the course of nature) which is also strongly suggestive of a myth.

For Christianity:

The strongest line of reasoning for Christianity (outside of personal experience, which the NT claims you can have) is, in my view, fulfilled Biblical prophecy. The prophecy I am referring to is prophecy that could not possibly have been written during the lifetime of the prophet and yet was fulfilled. A great example is Daniel 9:26:

“26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[f] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.” Dan. 9:26 (ESV)

In this passage Daniel predicts the cutting off of the Messiah (anointed one) and that after this the city/sanctuary will be destroyed. Messiah was cut off in 33 AD and the city/sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD. Even the most vocal antisupernaturalist can’t place a date of Daniel beyond the 160s B.C. Supernaturalists would claim that Daniel was written in 530 B.C. This, then, is genuine fulfilled prophecy and a strong argument that the Bible (and hence Christianity) is true.

What do you mean by “the chronological time gap between the events of the NT and today,” and what does it have to do with an argument against Christianity?

 

[Trident_H]

Well Achilles. Here’s the thing. And really it’s all I can offer.

When I was living my faith. I got healed. I got over my addictions. I felt like I had a new lease on life.

When I was living as if God didn’t exist I crashed. I had too much me in the picture. Wrong kind of focus. Filling my own prescriptions. With my own dosages. Because there was no doctor in the picture. No God to control my hand.

So yeah. Having God around makes a useless alcoholic and drug addict like me into someone able to say a prayer for someone else. To worry enough about others to do that. To worry about others instead of just myself. Instead of just sitting around drinking. And using. And conning people out of their money.

So maybe you decide. Which version of me would you rather be living next to?

Peace Achilles.

-Trident

 

[Jelrak_TB]

1. I am an Agnostic/Weak Atheist
2. I would rather not be

I obviously am not convinced about the truths of Christianity. It appears too convenient that it caters to our greatest wants, offers to allay our darkest fears, and then attempts to frighten us into earthly submission to a human-run organization. I wish it had stuck with the carrot and not brought in the stick, for in reading between the lines God appears to have a very big problem with people disagreeing with him. Egocentricity aside, it seems difficult to imagine why an all-loving being would even need to exercise the slightest coercion to be able to welcome 100% of humanity to his bosom.

After all, how many among us would openly scoff at the offer of a beloved relative to take us to the movies out of love? Why then would any of us put up even the slightest resistance to being welcomed into a heavenly and eternal bliss with our most favorite and cherished almighty father?

Unless perhaps he simply appears as an absentee parent…or an angry, manipulative, and potentially domineering abuser…?

After all, who might be able to offer real love and affection to one who might proclaim unto them: “Love me or else!” ??? Which beloved father casually singles out half the family to leave behind when moving out of state? Who might only embrace one’s best-behaved children for the rest of their lives?

Who might put conditions on unconditional love?

Yet Catholicism seems also to have a richness to it…it appears to encourage individuals to have a caring concern for the world and its peoples…to teach individuals to be good…to strive for personal improvement…to refine their spirits and concentrate on confessing sins so as not to repeat them (which is also therapeutic)…to provide a place of sanctuary during times of stress…to provide a place to share one’s difficulties…to be non-judgmental when it counts…to provide a priesthood whose primary objective is the salvation of oneself and one’s loved ones…and to provide individuals with rites of passage that appear meaningful and helpful (especially when dealing with the deaths of loved ones through the very hopeful communion of saints). It also provides a Purgatory as a faint hope clause–which is much appreciated wiggle room for one like me…

Further, contrast a site such as this with one that might instead exist solely to promote answers in support of atheism…in which place is one more likely to feel the love and respect of one’s opponents…let alone one’s confederates? At which site is one more apt to feel scorn for a differing point of view? At which site might the members be more likely to lean towards humility versus self-congratulations?

For do not such things also speak a kind of truth? A truth regarding the society to which one must needs aspire simply by one’s membership to same? Do not such truths potentially matter as keenly as abstract philosophical or specific intellectual reasons in dispute of a creator?

For I would submit to you that if given the choice between a reality that is cold, heartless, and sterile versus an imaginary that is warm, loving, and joy-filled, which might actually appear to truly be the greater intellectual triumph? The greater truth as intuited by the human spirit?

Further, if the human spirit might imagine such an improved possibility over that which might be clinically tested, how far away must one reason that such a fictional reality might ultimately find its source in a far deeper and distant fact than attainable by science of any degree? For if God is to exist, is it truly that unreasonable to suppose that his science might actually be attainable solely through the imagination–what might, in other circles, be termed faith?

 

[meltzerboy]

1. I am an Agnostic/Weak Atheist
2. I would rather not be

I obviously am not convinced about the truths of Christianity. It appears too convenient that it caters to our greatest wants, offers to allay our darkest fears, and then attempts to frighten us into earthly submission to a human-run organization. I wish it had stuck with the carrot and not brought in the stick, for in reading between the lines God appears to have a very big problem with people disagreeing with him. Egocentricity aside, it seems difficult to imagine why an all-loving being would even need to exercise the slightest coercion to be able to welcome 100% of humanity to his bosom.

After all, how many among us would openly scoff at the offer of a beloved relative to take us to the movies out of love? Why then would any of us put up even the slightest resistance to being welcomed into a heavenly and eternal bliss with our most favorite and cherished almighty father?

Unless perhaps he simply appears as an absentee parent…or an angry, manipulative, and potentially domineering abuser…?

After all, who might be able to offer real love and affection to one who might proclaim unto them: “Love me or else!” ??? Which beloved father casually singles out half the family to leave behind when moving out of state? Who might only embrace one’s best-behaved children for the rest of their lives?

Who might put conditions on unconditional love?

Yet Catholicism seems also to have a richness to it…it appears to encourage individuals to have a caring concern for the world and its peoples…to teach individuals to be good…to strive for personal improvement…to refine their spirits and concentrate on confessing sins so as not to repeat them (which is also therapeutic)…to provide a place of sanctuary during times of stress…to provide a place to share one’s difficulties…to be non-judgmental when it counts…to provide a priesthood whose primary objective is the salvation of oneself and one’s loved ones…and to provide individuals with rites of passage that appear meaningful and helpful (especially when dealing with the deaths of loved ones through the very hopeful communion of saints). It also provides a Purgatory as a faint hope clause–which is much appreciated wiggle room for one like me…

Further, contrast a site such as this with one that might instead exist solely to promote answers in support of atheism…in which place is one more likely to feel the love and respect of one’s opponents…let alone one’s confederates? At which site is one more apt to feel scorn for a differing point of view? At which site might the members be more likely to lean towards humility versus self-congratulations?

For do not such things also speak a kind of truth? A truth regarding the society to which one must needs aspire simply by one’s membership to same? Do not such truths potentially matter as keenly as abstract philosophical or specific intellectual reasons in dispute of a creator?

For I would submit to you that if given the choice between a reality that is cold, heartless, and sterile versus an imaginary that is warm, loving, and joy-filled, which might actually appear to truly be the greater intellectual triumph? The greater truth as intuited by the human spirit?

Further, if the human spirit might imagine such an improved possibility over that which might be clinically tested, how far away must one reason that such a fictional reality might ultimately find its source in a far deeper and distant fact than attainable by science of any degree? For if God is to exist, is it truly that unreasonable to suppose that his science might actually be attainable solely through the imagination–what might, in other circles, be termed faith?

Very well stated, particularly the second half, which contains some inspirational ideas.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

This very thread is the REASON I logged into CAF today.

I am struggling…BIG TIME…going between my doubt and my WANTING there to be God.

I have been reading “Preparation for Death” by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri during my adoration hour once a week.

It has scared me and made me wonder WHY a loving God…a loving FATHER…would condemn…PUNISH…by WRATH, his creation FOREVER in the torments of Hell?

Please do not say to me that we CHOOSE to separate ourselves from God, and therefore CHOOSE Hell by sinning. Then by some bad luck where we happen to die at the wrong time and haven’t been to confession…say after we fell and masturbated, for example…then we are ETERNALLY condemned.

The book goes into great detail about Hell, and the torture of Hell, and the true ETERNITY of Hell, and why we should be afraid.

It is coercion to LOVE God for fear of being tortured forever. Love through coercion is not love.

I just can’t correlate a merciful God with the Hell I have been reading about by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri.

I fall. I am weak. Yes, I choose to sin time and again, in many ways. None of this means I want to be separated from God…FOREVER, FOREVER.

It has my stomach twisting.

 

[Achilles6129]

I am struggling…BIG TIME…going between my doubt and my WANTING there to be God.

Let me ask you: what do you think is the best argument for God’s existence? And what about the best argument against God’s existence?

It has scared me and made me wonder WHY a loving God…a loving FATHER…would condemn…PUNISH…by WRATH, his creation FOREVER in the torments of Hell?

Scripture paints it as righteous retribution.

Please do not say to me that we CHOOSE to separate ourselves from God, and therefore CHOOSE Hell by sinning. Then by some bad luck where we happen to die at the wrong time and haven’t been to confession…say after we fell and masturbated, for example…then we are ETERNALLY condemned.

That’s certainly not a Biblical portrait. Scripture portrays people not wanting to go to hell at all, but rather being forcibly put there by God. The idea is that they’re evil and deserve to go there. You won’t find anything else in the Bible.

It is coercion to LOVE God for fear of being tortured forever. Love through coercion is not love.

There’s nothing about loving God for fear of being tortured forever. Hell in Scripture is presented as nothing other than just punishment. Fear of God is a fear based upon the fact that God’s judgment is righteous. It has nothing to do with some sort of slavish fear of unjust punishment, nor is it ever spoken of as such in Scripture.

I just can’t correlate a merciful God with the Hell I have been reading about by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri.

Well then perhaps you should read the Bible instead of something by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri.

 

[Achilles6129]

What do you mean by “the chronological time gap between the events of the NT and today,” and what does it have to do with an argument against Christianity?

The idea is that much of the word of God in the NT remains unfulfilled. It’s been a very, very long time (by human standards) since that word was spoken and that certainly lends credence to the idea that it’s never going to be fulfilled.

 

[Achilles6129]

For Christianity: If it was a lie, it could not have gotten off the ground. And if God was not assisting it, it would have died early. A lie of this nature could easily be disproven. Even assuming its truth, it is the kind of thing that I think most people would ignore: its core message, the resurrection, sounds like a tall tale or a ghost story, none of which ever changed anybody’s life. Moreover, it was persecuted. Only with God’s help, and being based on a real fact, could such a religion spread so quickly.

Against Christianity: Technology can provide enough distraction that we don’t really need true joy. What Christianity offers is therefore unnecessary and superfluous. Keep it.

Very interesting response. In regards to your argument for Christianity, I wonder what you would say about other religions? Would you say that if other religions were a lie they could have never gotten of the ground either?

 

[friardchips]

Best reason for: Heaven and Eternal Love.
Best reason against: The “Non-(Garden) Sequiturs”

“Best Argument For Or Against Christianity”: the result of faith is not so much ‘argument’ as it is ‘conversion’ and ‘repentance’.

You could try reading St. Augustine’s ‘Confessions’. This will help to alleviate temporary disturbances and heal long-term doubts!

 

[Trident_H]

This very thread is the REASON I logged into CAF today.

I am struggling…BIG TIME…going between my doubt and my WANTING there to be God.

I have been reading “Preparation for Death” by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri during my adoration hour once a week.

It has scared me and made me wonder WHY a loving God…a loving FATHER…would condemn…PUNISH…by WRATH, his creation FOREVER in the torments of Hell?

Please do not say to me that we CHOOSE to separate ourselves from God, and therefore CHOOSE Hell by sinning. Then by some bad luck where we happen to die at the wrong time and haven’t been to confession…say after we fell and masturbated, for example…then we are ETERNALLY condemned.

The book goes into great detail about Hell, and the torture of Hell, and the true ETERNITY of Hell, and why we should be afraid.

It is coercion to LOVE God for fear of being tortured forever. Love through coercion is not love.

I just can’t correlate a merciful God with the Hell I have been reading about by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri.

I fall. I am weak. Yes, I choose to sin time and again, in many ways. None of this means I want to be separated from God…FOREVER, FOREVER.

It has my stomach twisting.

Hey man. Look. Calm down just a bit. Because if you’re afraid of accidentally falling into hell. Well I’ve got news for you. I’m about 7000 times more likely to go there. So if you do end up there look me up. We’ll hang out.

But seriously. If God meant even a part of what He said about wanting to merciful and forgiving then the fact that you want to be with Him is going to count for something. I mean that sudden death stuff might be a bit scary to think about. But God is timeless. So He can afford to give you an infinity between the split and the second that you die. To set your mental house in order. And give Him the nod. I mean that’s the idea I have. That’s what keeps me going straight. Because if the test was gonna be so hard. So brutal. That passing it even with full effort was just a maybe. Well then that would fall a big place short of just. And a large way short of mercy. But since God is a lot of both of those it just doesn’t seem like a probability.

And besides. God claims to be like a father. So what father turns his back on a child who’s been trying to work up the courage to be straight with him? What father sees the effort. The strong evidence in the past. And just shrugs and figures that the finish line is all that matters? I don’t know. Doesn’t sound right. Even a strict parent has a memory. Even a strict rules lawyer of a father remembers the dozen birthday cards scrawled out by his wayward son. The ones where all the words were spelled wrong. And even some of the letters were backwards. Even that guy remembers those. So if his son dies five days after calling him to say hi. Five days after making an effort. But at the time of death is in the grips of some really bad stuff. At the time of death is overdosing on drugs. Well that father will still love his son.

So why would we think an eternal and perfect father would be any worse than that? It doesn’t fit with the spirit of the definition. It sounds more like what some rules lawyer came up with. And I mean if God was a rules lawyer. Any kind of rules lawyer at all. He wouldn’t have sent us Jesus. Because man. That guy didn’t even command stuff to be written down. He didn’t even bother to make His own gospel. He just sort of lived with us a bit. Gave a good example. Showed us how to offer ourselves to God. And then did a whole lot of forgiving. The main thing He did. Even when He wasn’t asked to.

So don’t forget. When you die. That guy’s going to be there too. Jesus’ll be off to one side. Blotting out some of the rough spots from your record. Right before it goes to trial. Because that’s the way He rolls.

Peace guiltyofdoubt.

-Trident

 

[friardchips]

 

[Achilles6129]

Best reason for: Heaven and Eternal Love.
Best reason against: The “Non-(Garden) Sequiturs”

“Best Argument For Or Against Christianity”: the result of faith is not so much ‘argument’ as it is ‘conversion’ and ‘repentance’.

Could you expand on this a little bit?

 

[dmar198]

Very interesting response. In regards to your argument for Christianity, I wonder what you would say about other religions? Would you say that if other religions were a lie they could have never gotten of the ground either?

No, I think some lies can get off the ground. I think I may have made the mistake of putting it too simply. I meant that if the Resurrection story was a lie, it would have been easy to disprove, and that’s why Christianity couldn’t have gotten off the ground.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Very well stated, particularly the second half, which contains some inspirational ideas.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read it and let me know.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. I am an Agnostic/Weak Atheist
2. I would rather not be

I obviously am not convinced about the truths of Christianity. It appears too convenient that it caters to our greatest wants, offers to allay our darkest fears, and then attempts to frighten us into earthly submission to a human-run organization. I wish it had stuck with the carrot and not brought in the stick, for in reading between the lines God appears to have a very big problem with people disagreeing with him. Egocentricity aside, it seems difficult to imagine why an all-loving being would even need to exercise the slightest coercion to be able to welcome 100% of humanity to his bosom.

After all, how many among us would openly scoff at the offer of a beloved relative to take us to the movies out of love? Why then would any of us put up even the slightest resistance to being welcomed into a heavenly and eternal bliss with our most favorite and cherished almighty father?

Unless perhaps he simply appears as an absentee parent…or an angry, manipulative, and potentially domineering abuser…?

After all, who might be able to offer real love and affection to one who might proclaim unto them: “Love me or else!” ??? Which beloved father casually singles out half the family to leave behind when moving out of state? Who might only embrace one’s best-behaved children for the rest of their lives?

Who might put conditions on unconditional love?

Yet Catholicism seems also to have a richness to it…it appears to encourage individuals to have a caring concern for the world and its peoples…to teach individuals to be good…to strive for personal improvement…to refine their spirits and concentrate on confessing sins so as not to repeat them (which is also therapeutic)…to provide a place of sanctuary during times of stress…to provide a place to share one’s difficulties…to be non-judgmental when it counts…to provide a priesthood whose primary objective is the salvation of oneself and one’s loved ones…and to provide individuals with rites of passage that appear meaningful and helpful (especially when dealing with the deaths of loved ones through the very hopeful communion of saints). It also provides a Purgatory as a faint hope clause–which is much appreciated wiggle room for one like me…

Further, contrast a site such as this with one that might instead exist solely to promote answers in support of atheism…in which place is one more likely to feel the love and respect of one’s opponents…let alone one’s confederates? At which site is one more apt to feel scorn for a differing point of view? At which site might the members be more likely to lean towards humility versus self-congratulations?

For do not such things also speak a kind of truth? A truth regarding the society to which one must needs aspire simply by one’s membership to same? Do not such truths potentially matter as keenly as abstract philosophical or specific intellectual reasons in dispute of a creator?

For I would submit to you that if given the choice between a reality that is cold, heartless, and sterile versus an imaginary that is warm, loving, and joy-filled, which might actually appear to truly be the greater intellectual triumph? The greater truth as intuited by the human spirit?

Further, if the human spirit might imagine such an improved possibility over that which might be clinically tested, how far away must one reason that such a fictional reality might ultimately find its source in a far deeper and distant fact than attainable by science of any degree? For if God is to exist, is it truly that unreasonable to suppose that his science might actually be attainable solely through the imagination–what might, in other circles, be termed faith?

:clapping: Well said. I agree with you.

There is something beautiful about many aspects of Catholicism. I have a fundamental intuition that the ultimate truth of reality must be beautiful as well. May we all find it!

 

[meltzerboy]

The idea is that much of the word of God in the NT remains unfulfilled. It’s been a very, very long time (by human standards) since that word was spoken and that certainly lends credence to the idea that it’s never going to be fulfilled.

I had an idea that is what you may have meant but I was not sure. Well, if that is the case, then Judaism is really in trouble! We Jews have been waiting even longer than Christians for the fulfillment of prophecy. However, patience can be a virtue.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

:clapping: Well said. I agree with you.

There is something beautiful about many aspects of Catholicism. I have a fundamental intuition that the ultimate truth of reality must be beautiful as well. May we all find it!

Thank you…and, yes, may we all find it…!

 

[fisherman_carl]

Hello all,

In this thread I’d like to invite you to propose what you believe are the best arguments for or against Christianity being true. You may post as many as you’d like. I’ll start off with one of each:

Against Christianity:

I think that by far the best line of reasoning against Christianity is the chronological time gap between the events of the NT and today. The length of time that has passed strongly suggests that the NT is a myth. To this we may add that some of the events narrated in the NT are bizarre (and by bizarre I mean against the course of nature) which is also strongly suggestive of a myth.

For Christianity:

The strongest line of reasoning for Christianity (outside of personal experience, which the NT claims you can have) is, in my view, fulfilled Biblical prophecy. The prophecy I am referring to is prophecy that could not possibly have been written during the lifetime of the prophet and yet was fulfilled. A great example is Daniel 9:26:

“26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[f] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.” Dan. 9:26 (ESV)

In this passage Daniel predicts the cutting off of the Messiah (anointed one) and that after this the city/sanctuary will be destroyed. Messiah was cut off in 33 AD and the city/sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD. Even the most vocal antisupernaturalist can’t place a date of Daniel beyond the 160s B.C. Supernaturalists would claim that Daniel was written in 530 B.C. This, then, is genuine fulfilled prophecy and a strong argument that the Bible (and hence Christianity) is true.

I just wanted to comment on your argument against Christianity. And say that it is not really an argument against the truth of Christianity, but rather an argument against people’s expectations. People were expecting the Messiah to return sooner. Personally, I am glad the Messiah did not return sooner. Every generation seems to expect the Messiah to return in their lifetime. This imho is kind of a selfish expectation. They want Jesus to come and take them away from the world. How many people do you hear of who try to predict when Jesus returns and say it won’t be for another thousand years or some time in the distant future? I have not. They all share in common the prediction that it will happen in the near future. And then when it doesn’t happen they find someone else who predicts it again in the near future. Thus we can say all these predictions have one thing in common. They are short sighted, biased to their own time, and are all wrong.

As far as when Jesus actually predicted his return he says ‘no one knows the day or the hour’. And guess what Jesus’ words have proven true, time and again. Every prediction made has failed. No one knows, despite what some guy claims to think or know.