Wow, That is amazing. You post reads just like something from antiquity. That's exactly what many were saying just before He came the first time.
Would you care to name those "many"? Most in his own time, according to history, did not believe him the first time around.
According to history, most did not believe him the first time around. Were you there, or just pigheaded enough to be unable to see the truth?
Yep, generation after generation has bought into the same old line of crap. One generation dies and another picks up the fantasy mantle. What is really funny and sad at the same time, is how many people buy into centuries-old lies and faith, but reject hard science.
That is my point exactly. Your opinion now would have put you as squarely in the majority then as it does now.
Ok, if you're not willing to show me what your argument was, I can't address it. I'm happy enough to be corrected on anything I've said, but I can't do it if you're dodging.
This doesn't seem to me to address my point. I'm not talking about the conditions under which Christ could return, I'm talking about the actual return of Christ. I think the phrasing is something along the line of "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled", not "This generation shall not pass till conditions under which all this could happen are in place".
No, the point is that you claimed "many" had absolute faith in this entity fro day one wile in fact they did not. That us called a lie.
Yet you refuse to do your own research on this thread, in an effort to continue pushing an argument that you claim to not even remember. Quite the statement of faith in your own statements, showing them to be shady if not outright false. Once again, since you claim to be after the truth, do your own research to educate yourself.
You are talking about nothing, since this alleged "Christ" has not returned in over two thousand years. Just another myth to try to gain power over those that believe it.
I did, I had a look at the previous statements, and I don't know if you were referring to a claim in my post or in the post I was quoting. You just wrote "the claim" or some such thing, I don't know which one you meant.
I'm not talking about whether it is true, I'm talking about whichever logic Bricklayer used to argue that there was sufficient evidence (and probably about what he actually means by sufficient evidence).
Look again at the context you cite. Everything there was fulfilled in 70AD. All of that happened by God's hand. It was obvious. It was predicted. It happened just as it was predicted. One might as well see the face of Christ, Himself, in the clouds of dust maintained above the legions that descended upon Jerusalem. That portion of scripture was not referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ; obviously, because he didn't come. There's a couple of things that we know about Christ's coming. The first, although predicted, was not recognized by most at the time. And in the second will not be predictable, to the exact time, by any. So, if anyone predicts an exact time, you check that off of your list; it won't be that.
You are thinking of someone else. I don't believe that. I never wrote anything even remotely like that. You are simply in error; I'll assume, because of how adamant you are about lying.
Then you lack the intelligence that you claim as your own, or purposely choose to make claims of ignorance. Neither reflects well on you.
No, you are once again playing with words in an effort to promote yourself as superior and more intelligent than anyone else. You indicate that you have no dog in this race yet continue to push an agenda that you admit is not true. Very telling.
Go back and reread your post. You will find that it is you who are mistaken by claiming that you never said such a thing. Avoidance is tantamount to expressing and supporting falsehoods, aka lying.
Maybe you're less clear than you think you are or maybe I'm stupid, or maybe you've misunderstood what I said in the first place, or maybe something else, I don't really care. If you're willing to explain your argument, you're welcome to make it understood. I don't see how posting these posts back and forth is a lesser waste of time than you just writing your argument out. Whether I'm stupid or not, I can't see a reason for you not writing it out clearly, unless you've realised in hindsight that you can't defend it.
I think I've made it clear what point I am arguing. Here below is the last post in which I wrote it out (the post you first responded to and the posts in between referring to this post, but not restating it). I don't mean to suggest that I don't have other opinions on similar topics, but this is the point I'm arguing right now. Starting to talk about whether Christ has actually returned would, in this case be a deflection from the point I'm actually making, which refers directly to bricklayers first post.
So you admit ignorance in not being able to "see" how this applies to your posts. Somehow not surprised.
Perhaps a point if you can provide proof of this "Christ". Not opinion, which is all you provide, but actual proof.
I'm not arguing about the historicity of Christ, so why would I do anything like that? Maybe so. Either way, would you mind spelling it out?
To the best of my understanding, there are conditions sufficient for Christ's return. Those conditions have been present ever since the first generation of Christians and continue to become more and more favorable with each successive generation. As for the exact time, no one but God, Himself, knows. If anyone predicts a certain time, you can pretty much just cross that time off of the possible times. It will be at a time when no one is expecting it.
