Talk:Second Coming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs to be NPOV

This article needs to balance the ridiculous christian circlejerk with some info that the verses refer to the second coming which would happen within Jesus' generation, and that the references to the destruction of Jerusalem are later additions to the bible. It should also state that Paul actively believed that the end time is (was) at hand and gave the advice that people shouldn't get married because of it. it should also state that revelations refers to the battle against the anti-christ, number 666, emperor nero and that at the beginning of Revelations it refers to these "coming" events as being at hand.

This article legitimizes the second coming (and therefor christianity) by not noting these things and writing up a bunch of bullshit ideas about the second coming written by christians, hiding the fact that Jesus' says the second coming will come before his contemporaries have died and that his apostles shouldn't spread beyond Israel because the end is at hand (a later addition does state that christianity should be spread).

The article should also note later additions (some of which I just mentioned) to the Bible, after the first christians were doubting jesus would be coming back because he hadn't after decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.205.224 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC) It would be also nice to list early some non-canonical biblical works that mention the second coming such as:

"It must also be noted that our evidence for church reactions to texts is incredibly scarce. For there were books that were extant in the 2nd century yet never mentioned and thus entirely unknown until recovered in more recent times. How many other Christian writings are we completely ignorant of? For instance, traces of a forged Epistle survive in the Coptic (Egyptian) and Ethiopian manuscript traditions: the almost ridiculous Epistle of the Apostles, a semi-apocalyptic text written by the "eleven disciples" after the resurrection "to the churches of the East and the West, the North and the South" (M 180-2), even though there could not have been any such churches at that time. This text has been plausibly dated to c. 180 A.D. (it does fit the mystical orthodoxy of Irenaeus), and even earlier than 120 A.D. by some scholars. It is too derivative and fantastic in my opinion to come so early, but redaction evidence points strongly to a middle date: the End Times is placed at 120 years after the Resurrection in one redaction, and this was altered to 150 years in another--a possible sign that the text was written shortly before 150 and then amended when the End did not come. Yet no extant Christian writer even took notice of this book--not even to denounce it. As another example, we have already discussed above the "lost synoptic Gospel" recovered in a 2nd century papyrus fragment. " http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.205.224 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Views

I would be very grateful to anyone who can fill in some more information on the Eastern Orthodox views of this subject. I've always wondered why the second largest Christian organization in the world is so unknown. I, a non-Christian in general, can't do the work myself and have been unable to find any good source of information on the subject. Thanks. shinsukato —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus again

I want to say that armageddon the last war mentioned in the Bible is at hand and most probably next year. Iran's president is the messiah as muslims believe and the jesus will come at the situation that is very near when a great techer is needed.As told by Benjamin Creme , he will be a non religious person and exists. I want to infor that he is in india and a born muslim and have a common view to all humanity. his name is Zikrullah and he is coming in light through TVnetworks very soon.

ok, what? your spelling is shocking. And no, we dont think Iran's president is Jesus, we believe Jesus is Jesus.

Isn't Maitreya like the 7th coming of Buddha? how does he fit into Second Coming, then? Mydotnet

Creme was saying in full page advertisements in about 1981(?) that the Christ was about to be revealed. Is this old new-age weirdo still alive? Armageddon occurs at the end of 7 years of tribulation. There will be a major war before the tribulation. Many will think that this is Armageddon, and will accept Benjamin Creme's pseudo-christ as the real thing. Well, he will bring a temporary peace between Israel and the moslems! Half way through the tribulation, when Satan takes him fully over, it will be obvious that he is the Antichrist. Jesus returns at the end of the 7 years. ^rossnixon 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the first user, whoever he/she is, kindly read Matthew 24:36 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) which says: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

No one can set any dates yet for Armageddon because the Rapture hasn't occurred yet. As far as anyone claiming to be 'Christ':

Matthew 24:4-5 (King James Version)

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

If you return to this page and discussion (and I hope that you will) then check the book listing that I inserted in, or go to my user page for a listing of books.

In answer to the last user who mentioned Creme, read Dave Hunt's good but dated book, "Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust", again on my userpage.--MurderWatcher1 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Futurama 2:03 states that the second coming of Jesus (the Zombie Jesus) happens in the year 2443, so we have nothing to worry about within our own lifetimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.237.39 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This page is about 1/3 fundamentalist evangelical religious propaganda.

prepares the delete button::

Hope no one minds too much.

I agree, it's actually kind of funny to read. Having many equally unencyclopedic propaganda somehow balance this out. I'm about to start on a deleting/changing frenzy. Cuñado - Talk 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This purpose comming event is a mayjor mental and/or sociallogical causality factor, or at least regligious folk's expectancy is, so it warrants documention. Do ya agree to that assertion? Zarutian 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I mind quite a lot actually. It's quite hard to keep bias out of a theological page, and this page has done a pretty good job at trying to present the subject information in an informative and factual manner (regardless of your opinion on the verity and validity of the content). Why not try to contribute to the page in a productive manner, instead of an antagonistic manner? 210.50.64.105 (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying to delete the page. Of course the second coming is important. But the page was full of propaganda. Cuñado - Talk 02:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I hope you are good at boiling out biases in articles Zarutian 00:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerning bias, it's interesting to note the length of the "esoteric/gnostic Christian" section as compared to the others. Just how many gnostics around anyhow?... A.i.c.d.perren 13:45 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nostradamus

I think nostradamus' prediction regarding year 1999 was not the second coming of christ but the coming of some new king --128.214.200.98 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Like the birth of the Antichrist? ^rossnixon 10:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is anyone into Nostradamus? His quatrains can be interpreted anyway a reader wants to interpret them! In contrast, Scripture can only be interpreted and understood one way -- literally!--MurderWatcher1 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm... I think I'll refer to Athanasius and the other fathers concerning the multiple levels of interpretation of scripture.--C.Logan 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about Christian Outlook

Maybe some kind person would be able to clarify Christian outlook concerning the second coming. My understanding is the Christians claim Jesus returned to earth shortly after his death and execution, spending time with many of his closest associates. Why then do Christians talk about a second coming as if this were some as yet unfulfilled prophecy? Why do they insist he has to appear yet again, and if he did wouldn't this be (according to their views) a third coming? --Philopedia 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim is not that he returned to earth after his resurrection from death. He was still here on earth for 40-50 days following. The "second coming" has many associated "apocalyptic" events - which clearly have not yet occurred ^rossnixon 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Messianic prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.209.78.19.42 17:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of debate within the Christian community concerning this. For the most part, Christians agree on the idea that Christ is going to return a second time to judge the world based upon His promise at the ascension. The debate concerns the seven year tribulation (whether it's literal or figurative) and the 1000 year reign of Christ.

But, just so you understand, the Christ we see after the resurrection but before the ascension is NOT the second coming. The promise of the second coming was given just before the ascension, so Christ would not promise He would come again AFTER he had already done it.

Yeah, the second coming and the resurrection are two different things. Second coming is still to come. It could be tommorow, it could be 2,000 MORE years.

Article cleanup

I've started a major cleanup of this article, merged info from the article Parousia, and moved related concepts from other religions to the See Also section. I've left the cleanup tag, because there is still more work to do. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam

He will then wage a battle against the false Jesus or Dajjal, break the cross, kill swine and call all humanity to Islam.

Just to be sure: is "swine" here to be taken literally as the link suggests? That's pretty harsh. "To do: descend from heaven. Battle Antichrist. Kill all the piggies." Weregerbil 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Jesus was replaced by a duplicate is the opinion of Muslim scholars. The Quran does not say anything about a duplicate. All it says is that it was made to seem like Jesus had been crucified but that anyone who thinks they can kill Jesus is fooling themselves. It also states that Jesus was taken up to God to await for the appointed hour of his return. It does not state that his physical body was taken to heaven either. Nmentha 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved that section from the main article to a non-Christian view section (see comment below about Bahai as well). The resson being that the second coming is commonly referred to as a "Christian" belief and Christians do not look outside the Bible for support or theories. The Bible would consider these other (Islam or Bahai) to be false teachers and their beliefs heresy. Although I am not debating the other beliefs, I do think this part should not be in a Christian belief, I decided to keep it and do a section for non-Christian views. Maniwar 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í Comment

I'm not sure if Todd unt's comment is appropriate in this section. Any other thoughts on this?: Followers of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the second coming of Jesus, as well as the prophecies of the 5th Buddha and many other religious prophecies of a second coming, were fulfilled in Bahá'u'lláh. They commonly compare Bahá'u'lláh's fulfillment of Christian prophecies to Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, where in both cases people were expecting the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic statements.

It is commonly understood that the second coming is "Christian" and that it is the forward look for Christ return and not some other deity or god in another religion outside of Christianity. Although I'm not challenging the belief, I am questioning its placement in the "Christian" second coming. I considered removing it, but wanted other coments. Maniwar 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this section to a non-Christian view section. The point being that as pointed out above, the second coming is commonly referred to a "Christian" belief and Christians do not look outside the Bible for support or theories. The Bible would consider these to be false teachers and their beliefs heresy. I still think it should not be in here, but decided to do a section for non-Christian views. Maniwar 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Baha'is do believe that Christ has returned in the personage of Baha'u'llah, and there are many books on the subject including Hugh, Hushidar. Ed. D Motlagh (ed.). I Shall Come Again: Time Prophecies of the Second Coming, Vol. 1. ISBN 0-937661-16-3. and Sears, William (1961). Thief in the Night. London: George Ronald. ISBN 0-85398-008-X.. The Second Coming is not only Christian; Muslims also believe that Jesus will come back after the end times, and Baha'is believe that those prophecies regarding the Second Coming in both Christianity and Islam have been fulfilled. That you state that forward look for Christ return and not some other deity or god in another religion outside of Christianity is a specific POV. In many places in the Bible Christ says that he will have a new name. So your statement that what the Bible considers these to be false prophets is a decidedly Christian POV, and Wikipedia is striving for NPOV. The paragraph should definitely stay. -- Jeff3000 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I'm not challenging the Baha' philosophy, but about your POV statement...go and ask just about anyone, "Do you believe in the second coming?" Generally speaking, this is unique to Christianity and that person would assume you are talking about Christianity. For example, in order for a "second" coming to occur, there would have to have been a first. The Baha'u'llah has not had a first coming. Although I do challenge your comment on the Bible stating Jesus will have a different name when He returns, that does not mean He will be a different person. Generally speaking, the second coming is unique to Christianity, although more recently, I will agree, 'some' religions have adopted a 'second coming' variation, yet this has been a basic foundation of the Christian religion from day one. All the others seemed to have morphed into it. Now, if the Baha' (and this is not to bash them, but question them) believe in Christ's return, how do they answer the images of Revelation where Christ is visible and audible in His return? Also, back to another question, where does it say He will come as some other religion's diety in the Bible? Also, why is it that the 2.1 billion Christians do not share the same sentiment as the (roughly) 6 or 7 million Baha'. Would that not be a shared thought if that was Christ's prediction of His second coming? Good discussion. Maniwar 13:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you ask a Baha'i if they believe in the Second Coming, they would say yes, and if you ask a Muslim, they would also say yes (the difference being that Baha'is saying that Jesus has come back, and Muslims say not yet). Baha'is believe that the Baha'i Faith is the fulfillment in Christian religion, and the many Christian people who accept Baha'u'llah believe they have fulfilled Jesus's covenant. In regards to your questions about how and why Baha'is believe in Baha'u'llah's fulfullment of Biblical prophecies of the Second Coming I would suggest you read the books I noted above (since Wikipedia is not a forum) and all your questions will be answered. They go into detail about the Biblical prophecies regarding the Second Coming (especially why most Christians haven't accepted Baha'u'llah, which BTW was predicted in the Bible). Regards. -- Jeff3000 13:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Christ's Second Coming

Shall not taste death

The article at present reads as follows: "Another verse is more explicit: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27). This reference is related to the disciples who saw Him transfigured on the Holy Mount." This last sentence seems most difficult to justify in that Mathew 16:27, i.e the verse immediately preceding that quoted, says -"For the son of man will come in the glory of his father, with his angels: and he will render to every man according to his works", i.e the context of 16:28 is not the transfiguration but Christ's second coming. It does not appear to relate to the transfiguration account which follows this passage, i.e Math 17:1~, because that happened only six days later whereas "those who shall not taste death" indicates not a short period but something significantly longer. I understand that this verse is the cause of much discomfort with some Christians because it seems to confirm that the imminent return of Jesus is a failed prophecy and this cannot be accepted under any circumstances. As wiki is neutral and not a platform for apologetics I suggest that the sentence beginning "This reference is related to the disciples who saw him transfigured on the Holy Mount" be removed. Any objections? 24 September 2006 5.02pm

Yes. The sentence should be modified to state that "One attempt to explain this has it referring to the Transfiguration which occurred only six days later". If I find a better explanation I will post it here. ^rossnixon 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a more likely explanation. It fits better with statements like "The Kingdom of God is within you". The reference is not to his final coming to judge the world, but to his spiritual coming to establish his kingdom. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Mark (9:1) shows the meaning by substituting, "Till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." The "coming of the Son of man in his kingdom" means, therefore, the same as "the kingdom of God come with power." Compare Acts 1:8, and Luke 24:49. The kingdom came with power on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1). ^rossnixon 02:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The gospel writers especially Mark and Matthew equate it with the crucifixtion. I will write this up for the article and will supply the quotes and evidence there. But I wouldn't want to remove the examples of other confussing interpretations this passage has caused - I think they are quite revealing. :) --Just nigel 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added to the text of the Main Article a note (at present, note no.3), which says that to interpret the Transfiguration as an an "anticipatory" fulfilment od the Second Coming (Parusia) is only an attempt of explanation of a verse, which otherwise would remain as "embarrassing" (as C.S. Lewis put it, see current note no.2).

Before engaging in a "battle" of deleting and reinserting the note, please discuss it here.Miguel de Servet 14:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"4 Catholic and Orthodox View" as compared to "5 Mainstream Protestantism"

These sections are very unclear about what difference there is (if any) between the beliefs of these groups. Three main points are mentioned in the statement of Catholic and Orthodox views, but there's nothing in the statement of Protestant views to indicate whether these are agreed with or not. Then the statement of Protestant views quotes a part of the Nicene Creed, which was written before these groupings existed. And it goes on to talk about "The Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and United Methodist liturgy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.136.61 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam

Here's a question, should the Islam section not be under the Predictions and claims of the Second Coming like all the other claims? Maniwar (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Second"??? Who is counting??

This article is titled Second coming but it never explains from where this number two comes. The section on Biblical origins does not have a quote that calls this the second coming.

We already have one person asking - "but I thought Christians beleive Jesus came back after his death", and another saying "but I thought Christians beleive Jesus only comes once" kind of like "eternally begotten"; so I do not think it adequately communicates what the (mainstream) Christian church teaches about Christ's retrun.

It would help to give this article a context in the broader theological area of eschatology which allows for a final coming, a last judgment, an ultimate realising of the reign of God before narrowing its meaning to those (Christians and / or Muslims) with a belief in a specific 'Jesus came once and he will come twice' chronology. But we still have the difficulty of the title. Mainstream Christian eschatology usually uses the time category of Kiaros (God's time, the fullness of time, the day of the Lord etc) rather than the time category of Chronos (Second coming, this after that, timetables of which year it will happen).

There should definately be a discussion of people who predict days times and years that Jesus will come again and confussion over the statement of Jesus in the gospels that this generation will not pass away before they see the son of man come in his glory ... but so too should there be an understanding that many mainstream Christians see this prophecy fulfilled in Jesus' death, they see the resurrected Christ alive and coming again and again to different people, they hear Jesus saying in the gospels to his disciples to have no part in setting calenadars or chronologies of when he will return and they see that the reality of his final coming is about the full realisation of God's reign and the ultimate act of justice/judgment.

I will have to continue to think about how best to incorporate this into the article. I think it needs a lot of work. --Just nigel 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind Wikipedia:No original research. The term Second Coming is well established, for example http://www.google.com/search?q=second+coming . 75.0.1.189 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the second comming was when he arose from the dead. Ie has has already come. --IceHunter (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Future event?

WTF is that tag doing there? This tag is meant for stuff that is scheduled to occur because human beings said "it'd be nice to do this at that date", not for something that might or might not occur according to some divine prophecy. Yoe 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same feeling about the tag as you do... I was wondering if it was some sort of joke that has never been recognized as such and was thus not removed. However, I'm not familiar with all of Wiki's rules, so I didn't want to delete it if the rules somehow validated its use here.--C.Logan 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag does not belong on the page per Wikipedia:Current and future event templates. —Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the template. It says "a well-documented scheduled or expected future event". This is "well-documented" (about a dozen books by several authors) and "expected" by millions. ^rossnixon 09:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Read closer: All articles about future events must be verifiable. This "future event" cannot be verified. —Viriditas | Talk 09:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's right that it should not be included. It's verifiable in the sense that a lot has been written about it as a religious belief, but I think the intent of the category/template is for events that humans have some degree of control over--i.e. we can make them happen and we control when they happen. This seems to not be the case with this topic if the timing is believed to be in God's hands. In other words, it's verifiable as a belief but it's not verifiable as a future event. Thus, it shouldn't be in the category and the template should not be used. –SESmith 09:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit – I prefer to omit the template. I don't believe this is the type of article for which it is intended. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit - per above. -- Jeff3000 13:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care to vote in the matter, but I'm leaning towards omission, only because it seems apparent that the template was not intended for this sort of scenario. Still, I suppose a good argument could be made for inclusion, however.--C.Logan 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit The note in small type on the template says, "It may contain tentative information; the content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available." In Christian theology there's nothing tentative about this event, and we will have no additional information until Christ comes "like a thief in the night" -- meaning unexpectedly. This is plainly intended to mark events that have been scheduled or are expected in the ordinary secular sense, not the subject of prophecy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit noting the little revert war going on too. I agree it's POV of some denominations of some religions, and certainly not scheduled on a human standard.--Smkolins 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit It's ridiculous that this tag should be on this article. IrishPete 00:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

what is "verifiable"? is it something "observable"? in that sense how can any future event be observable? can we 'verify' that the sun WILL one day explode or can we only verify that it appears that one day it may. how can we verify a blackhole wont one day suck it up before it can? this whole concept seems nebulous and vague to me and it appears that after rationally examining the terms being used any article using this header will be subject only to the whims of those voting and not in fact to this noble idea of 'verification'. i would like this cleared up please.70.156.11.235 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Also, I have no overweening desire to actually have the header placed in this article as I find it would be trivial. Rather, my goal is more universal it is the lack of rationality I mentioned earlier that causes me to write. The very idea of a future event header should be removed if we can't properly define these terms. I have noticed no response. Am I therefore correct or not? Please may someone clear this up.70.156.11.235 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all too busy looking up "overweening" in our dictionaries. –SESmith 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since noone has offered a good response after two days I have returned the heading. To support this I will cite the rule and defend this decision.

Future events templates indicate articles or sections that describe a well-documented scheduled or expected future event,*

• (This is well-documented as has been noted earlier. It is not scheduled but it is an expected future event as again was pointed out earlier in the talk page.)

and warn the reader about the speculative nature of the information. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about future events must be verifiable,*

• (These sentences are meaningless per my above discussion)

and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.*

• (This article is of sufficiently wide interest and I think should it have already occured it would be worthy of an article.)

70.156.11.235 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, over the past day the tag has been removed twice. While, I understand some of you may feel that it is "ridiculous" wikipedia is not supposed to be subject to your prejudices. Please, discuss your opinion in the talk page and defend your choice to edit it and I will respect it. But, as long as you have no reason other than your own POV what you're doing it clearly against the Wikipedia:Current and future event templates as I have pointed out above. Thank you. Jstanierm 12:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should abandon all personal POVs and ask yourself two questions: 1. Is this article about an event that 'may' occur sometime in the future.

The answer is yes. This article is not discussing an event that has happened or is happening. It is discussing something that a lot of people believe will happen in the future regardless of anyones POV the topic at hand is a future event.

2. Is it 'possible' that the event will happen.

Yes, it is possible. No one can state for a fact that anything in the future will or will not happen.

I feel like I have made good arguments for the inclusion of the tag. I would greatly appreciate it if instead of simply removing the tag you do what no one else has and discuss it here. Jstanierm 12:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. The consensus is clearly that the tag does not belong. Please work within Wikipedia guidelines, and stop readding the tag. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 13:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This occurence of this event is out of the hands of humanity, and has no one has any clear expectations of around when it will happen. In fact, most of those that have dated the event, have placed it in the past, and there are others who actually believe it has actually happened. One person's opinion and interpretation of a tag does not go over the consensus that has been developed. The tag has no place in this article. -- Jeff3000 13:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you, Jeff 3000, for engaging this argument instead of simply removing the tag as most have done.

You have stated, "this occurence of this event is out of the hands of humanity." I would like to direct you to Solar eclipse of August 1, 2008, Post-2008 Atlantic hurricane seasons, Post-2008 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. Additionally, nowhere in Wikipedia:Current and future event templates does it state that the event need be in the hands of humanity.

You also wrote, "there are others who actually believe it has actually happened." First, I would like to point out that full-preterism is a minority view of this event. You also stated "most of those that have dated the event, have placed it in the past" those who have publicly published a date (again a vast minority compared to those who have not dated it) did so expecting a future event, which did not occur. This does not detract from it conceivably being a future event.

The point at issue is not 'will' it occur, rather is this topic a 'future' event. Regardless, if one believes in it or not one can conceive this idea in one's mind, and when the majority do it is in that category of 'future' events.

Take a similar concept for example, Adam and Eve. While, one may not believe these people ever existed the key point is not one's belief but one's syntax when describing them. "Existed" is past tense. Thus, it is a past event regardless of historicity. Regarding future events there is no way to know if they will happen or not. Thus, historicity is meaningless in this context.

I think most have a mistaken view that this is concerning religious fundamentalism or belief sets. This is not the case. This is regarding ideas and their proper designation. Jstanierm 15:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is no way to tag this as a future event in an NPOV way. Yes, Christians and Muslims believe that Christ will return. That's a religious belief, not a fact in the neutral sense. In other words, we're not talking about a planned event (such as the United States presidential election, 2008 or the 2008 Summer Olympics) or a mathematically predicted event (like the expected return of Comet Halley in 2061/2) but one not set for any particular time and which not even everyone who's a Christian believes will occur in a literal sense. This template is obviously inappropriate, on its face.

Majorities have nothing to do with the tag either, as you're completely ignoring the non-Christian non-Muslim population. They ipso facto don't believe in the Second Coming because they don't believe in the Incarnation (or Christ's prophethood, for Muslims). You can't take a religious belief -- which I happen to share, so my argument isn't a reflection of my personal POV at all -- and approach it this way. Not on Wikipedia.

How to refer to it in the article is a different issue. Yes, where it's believed in it's thought to be a future event, so the future tense is called for. But not this tag. Off it goes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that Muslims don't believe in Christ's divinity.--C.Logan 05:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that people who are neither Christians nor Muslims believe in either version of the Second Coming because they don't believe in the person of Jesus as either religion teaches about him. To Christians he's God Incarnate; to Muslims he's a prophet; and to both he's the Christ. But it was not something I should have attempted to say in a single phrase. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. It does seem rather ambiguously phrased.--C.Logan 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for those of you posting I really wish you would have read from the top and not come here and just post your own views because you have ended up arguing against something else entirely. For example, Csernica wrote, "Yes, where it's believed in it's thought to be a future event, so the future tense is called for." Well, let's assume Person B does not believe in the Second Coming. He might express this by saying something like, "I don't believe that the Second Coming 'will' occur." The event he is talking about is a future event. Regardless as to whether he thinks it will happen or not. He conceives of it as that which is future. It is not past, nor present. I am discussing syntax. The Second Coming is a 'future' event.

This is 'not' a discussion about religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if you're atheist, Christian, Muslim there's no reason why anyone should have brought those terms up.

For example, to take an article currently with a future tag at random: Chinese woman in space. I may not believe that the Chinese will have a woman in space by 2010. But, the issue is not "do I or many others believe this will happen?" but rather "is this a future event?" Let us assume that the Chinese fail to put a woman in space by 2010. One event may be more possible, but they are both possible. You may be beyond a doubt certain that Jesus will not return, however since you don't know everything you must admit to yourself that there is a 'possibility' he might return. Let us say a percent chance near 0 yet still possible. The claim of the Second Coming of Jesus may be more unbelievable to some than the Chinese government's claim to put a woman in space. It doesn't matter it is still a claim of a future event.

I am talking about logic and syntax and philosophical truths. I am dealing with absolutes. Either you absolutely say it is possible that Jesus will return or you absolutely say nothing is possible. Possibility is not equal to certainty. As no future event is certain all future events are possible. Unless any one amongst you may claim to know the future beyond doubt.

Unfortunately, it appears many are unable to understand this concept, and prefer to turn the argument into matters of dogma and faith. Therefore, as I am unwilling to constantly repeat myself to every newcomer to this site, I wash my hands and leave the matter to the mob. Jstanierm 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One last note, Csernica also wrote "majorities have nothing to do with the tag either" and yet removed it because a "majority" of people on this talk page feel it must go. Though not one. Not one single person has addressed any of my logical arguments nor my appeal to the future tags rules of use. When this began I asked a fellow contributor to tell me that logic and rules have a place here and are decisions are not subject to the whim of the masses. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. Jstanierm 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for external link edit?

Hi, Jeff3000--I noticed that you removed my addition of an external link to the "Second Coming of Christ" article. My link was to a free, publicly available article on a totally non-commercial site (absolutely nothing for sale). The article was completely on topic of the Second Coming. Yet you labeled it as "linkspam" and removed it. I've certainly got no desire for an "edit war," but can you explain to me why you classified the link as spam? Is there any chance you were a bit hasty in your judgment of it? Thanks! :) --LovedByYesu 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello loved by you. While your site is free, and without ads, the link does not really pass by the policies set by WP:EL#Links_to_be_considered. The website is closer to a personal website with personal views which are not really considered to be reliable sources in Wikipedia, and are also discouraged as external links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Is "Coming" a proper noun? If not, this article should probably be moved to Second coming. --BigDT 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Second Coming" as the name of a specific event is a proper noun. If it is ever written in lower case, I for one have never seen it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... nobody ever accused me of being a good speller. That's why I asked first. ;) --BigDT 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Harold Camping

It says Harold Camping claimed the second coming was 1994. But now he claims 2011, shouldn't that be added in?? --12.40.93.240 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it, why not? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure it's necessary to include a list of every person who has ever made a claim that Jesus is returning soon or has claimed to be Jesus on this page. Perhaps a new page titled something like 'People who have claimed to be Jesus' or 'Predictions of the Second Coming' would work better and we could link to that from here. As it is it's slightly off the main subject. Jstanierm 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The List needs to be cleaned up

I just removed what is clearly non-notable material from the list of predictions in this entry. It strikes me however, that there is alot more of the same in there, and without references establishing the notability of what is containted therein someone should really clean it up and delete more of the information. If you don't establish a good precendent then this list will always be open to SPAM like promotional activity. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, we should come up with a set of guidelines for who should be included in the list. I'll have to wait a little before I can edit the article so I don't pass 3RR. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Newton

There are various accounts of Sir Isaac Newton setting the date for the second coming as 2060 and the date of Jews returning to the Holy Land as 1948 [1]. Some papers relating to this were exhibited in Jerusalem recently. Whoever looks after the Newton page on wiki is very allergic to this and will not even allow it to be discussed. --Rolec Dubbing (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Christ has died"

Under "Mainstream Protestantism", the article currently has this statement: The Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and United Methodist liturgy proclaims the Mystery of Faith to be: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again".

• This is a somewhat inaccurate statement with regard to the Catholic Mass. For one thing, this exact text ("Christ has died...") appears only in the English-language version of the Catholic Mass, and it is expected to be dropped with the introduction of a revised translation in a few years. "Christ has died..." was a rather loose paraphrase from the Latin text of the Mass, which translates as: "We announce your death, O Lord, and we confess your resurrection, until you come."
• In addition, as the article on "Mysterium fidei" states, the Church has not specified what the words "Mystery of Faith" refer to. Still less has the Church specified that this mystery can be equated with "Christ has died", etc.
• Because of these problems, I will remove the somewhat confused reference to Catholic teaching. Since this section is about mainstream Protestantism, this should not substantially affect the quality of the article. If the semtence is similarly problematic with regard to the other Christian confessions named, it may be best to strike the sentence altogether, but I leave that question to editors with more knowledge about the Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist traditions. Chonak (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of Enoch

Some people believe that the expression Son of Man really means Enoch. Therefore, the correct term would then be the return of Enoch (aka Count Saint Germain). ADM (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

2 Corinthians 10:10 reference

The Bible itself lends understanding to the meaning of parousia at 2 Corinthians 10:10, where the writer Paul uses parousia to describe his being with the believers in Corinth: "For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (King James Version)

In regards to this quotation, and reading this verse in context with the other verses around it, it's my understanding that Paul is in fact talking about himself and his presence amongst the Corinthians, rather than Jesus (although Jesus is indeed the central focus of all his writings). Paul's appearance and manner in person is lowly and timid, yet somehow his words carry weight and power as he writes to them. I'm not quite sure that this verse is applicable to the second coming of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.64.105 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Layout

I know some folks are big on esthetics, but Wikipedia articles have a standard layout. I have removed a lot of the extremely unorthodox markup language here and reverted the layout to a normal format, complete with the ToC the way most long articles have it. Please do not revert this without discussing it on this page first. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have created overlapping tables which is disruptive when read. Please use sandbox the next time you change table layouts.Roger Zoel (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

? There are no overlapping tables that I can see. Where do you see overlapping tables? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's none now because I re-fixed them once again. Parse with wikitable results in better page layout. Overlapping may not occur in your browser software, but does in others and this has been noted in history of edits. Please review [or if you have a better way of cross-browser friendliness layout] < - - omitted rest of sentence unintentionally Roger Zoel (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted edit of removing spaces in section heading. According to MOS, this is optional. And when you add a new section using the "new section" tab, the spaces are added automatically! Roger Zoel (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who deleted those, but it wasn't me; I always put in the leading and trailing spaces myself! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I confused you with Afaprof01. Roger Zoel (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled event?

Maybe it's expected if you're a Christian. But scheduled? I thought the time was known only to God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.196.221 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe it is in his filofax? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias.

Some sections of this article are un-sourced, and written from a specific perspective from within Christianity, using terms such as "self identified" or "true" Christians, these terms are massively inappropriate for this type of article. Also there are several unreferenced sections which should be deleted unless a verifiable source can be found. Rjbonacolta 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that you complain the article is unsourced while changing this unsourced sentence "The vast majority of those self-identified as Christians (an exception is Full Preterism) look forward to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and do not consider it symbolic of the individual's spiritual rebirth." Into another unsourced sentence "The vast majority of Christians look forward to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and consider it symbolic of the individual's spiritual rebirth." Jstanierm 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting this sentence as I have found a source (from a preterist website even) wherein they themselves claim to be a minority viewpoint. A quick google search shows preterism is a minority view and to claim otherwise would be to ignore overwhelming evidence. Jstanierm 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem comes from the specific use of the term "self identified...Christians" the term in inherently derisive. Vast majority of those self-identified as Christians" (full quote) I also went through and cleaned up the rest of the paragraph, which still had large sections of personal opinion and could benefit from more sources. Rjbonacolta 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The section on Jehova's Witnesses claims that they are not "true christians" and also accuses them of having a "lack of knowledge." There is obviously a blatant loss of neutrality. Not chill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.84.19 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Second coming?

If we read Paul literally, there is a distinct impression that this will be Jesus' First and only coming. For example, the following:

• Philippians 1:6 "The One (i.e. God) who started the good work in you will bring it to completion by the Day of Jesus Christ."
• Philippians 3:20 "We are citizens of heaven, and from heaven we expect our deliver to come, the Lord Jesus Christ."
• 2 Thessalonians 1:7 "(God will send relief to us) when our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in blazing fire".
• 1 Peter 1:7 "...so that your faith may prove itself worthy when Jesus Christ is revealed."

These examples are due to Doherty; I don't presume to edit this article, but wish to mention it. Perhaps a "Controvesies" section would be worth adding? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.156.119.51 (talk)11:28, 14 Jan 2011 (UTC).

None of these suggest it is his first and only coming. To say someone is going to come in the future does not in any way mean that they did not also come at some point in the past! How could it mean that anyway? Paul is obviously not denying that Jesus has already lived on the earth.86.156.119.51 (talk)

Removal of the Biblical references to the claimed time of Christ's return

I think having a section on "Timing" is important as there is a great deal of evidence that the New Testament authors claimed Jesus would return in the lifetimes of his contemporaries. This is uncomfortable to the common Protestant viewpoint on the matter, and Willfults is clearly conducting damage control on their behalf. In this diff you can see much of what has been removed or merged [2]. If any of this section has been updated before it was again deleted, please post a link to the latest versions. I've noticed only that the section on Preterism has been merged with Catholicism. (Preterism is the only Christian viewpoint that I am aware of which admits that the New Testament claims Christ would return within his generation.)

Some of the original "Timing" section contained orginal research but most was sourced by the New Testament itself. I don't want to get into a revert war, as I can see this is how Willfults has been reacting to the restoration of this material. I will restore the section on "The epistles and early Christian beliefs" but put it in the Views section, to start. This is not original research as it has sources. If there is an argument to be made for wp:syn please make the argument here. Lumenos (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor's interpretation of the NT is original research. We would need reliable sources in the form of people qualified to interpret the Bible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how stretched the "interpretation" is. It is often easier to judge the reliablity of a claim (or reach consensus on the matter) rather than using an argument from authority. Lumenos (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it is that, if these interpretations are really that obvious, you should be able to find a reliable source that references these verses specifically for this purpose. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm okay I try. Google scollar is littered with books by Kool Aid drinkers. [3] I tried an .edu search with worse result [4]. ~ Lumenos 04:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your job to support your claims. If you can't, you need to revert your insertions. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my job to document the arguments made by "experts". That is fine. Many supported claims and descriptions of "expert" opinions, were deleted. I don't think I have added them all back yet. For example, the many verses saying how soon Jesus should have come. ~ Lumenos 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend finding the citations before inserting the text. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The citations are what is being deleted. When an English Bible translation is quoted, the source is the translator. This is apart from the question of interpretation. The "problem" is that the verses relating to the Second Coming state that it would happen within the lifetimes of Jesus contemporaries, and Willfults claims this is "Preterist leaning". As you can see from this diff, they deleted both the translated verses and the supporting citations of a lexicon and another scholar, and the links to related articles. ~ Lumenos 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream contemporary scholars say that Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the crew expected the apocalypse within their lifetimes or the lifetimes of their contemporaries. Some scholars say that Jesus didn't actually preach about the apocalypse, but most say he did, and that he expected it soon. Leadwind (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is convenient when we agree with mainstream contemporary scholars but who really bothers to measure their reliability? Wikipedia's policy allows the inclusion of the opinions of published religious commentators and quotes of the Bible translations themselves are likely to be most relevant to the reader. ~ Lumenos 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows many things that are not necessarily appropriate in all cases. For example, we certainly are allowed to quote translations of the Bible, but that's a primary source and we must prefer secondary and even tertiary sources. We are also obligated to reflect the mainstream view and not fringe views. Please read the rules again. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with how these terms are used. Perhaps a translation is what we call a "primary source"?

Here is what I restored. I don't know about the links at the top of the section, but it includes commentary by a lexicon and another scholar on the term "this generation". That is appropriate, is it not? Are we not supposed to post the verse that a scholar comments on?

We are not obligated to reflect "mainstream views" we are obligated to include anything supported by reliable sources, especially if they disagree with one another. That is the essence of wp:NPOV. Creationism may be a popular or "mainstream view" (in the United States, for example) but it is not supported by "reliable sources" and the article makes this clear. It is appropriate to use unreliable sources (such as a Bible translation or religiously motivated commentary) to document beliefs and claims. I'm not sure if you are objecting to merely including the verses that mention the time of the Second Coming. I would think these verses are very relevant to the section on the time of Christ's return, and there is nothing I would call "interpretation" included there presently. I think this better represents a neutral point of view, compared with having only opinions of a secular scholars. ~ Lumenos 07:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Policies on primary sources

In response to this edit comment "12:55, 4 November 2010 Dylan Flaherty (removed section dominated by primary source; we can't just fill the article with random Bible quotes)".[5]

(I'm assuming a translation is a primary source.) Quoting the policy on primary sources: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." There are not interpretive claims being made. The first section has a few quotes relating to the promised time of the Second Coming. (Dylan's edit comment did not explain the reason for moving the quote of 1st John back to another section.) The article is not based on primary sources. ~ Lumenos 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As you said, these are not random quotes. Random would have been better!

Instead, they're quotes you selected as being relevant to the second coming, while ignoring other quotes that didn't happen to support your views. This sort of synthesis is the reason we need a secondary source that references these quotes and endorses their relevancy.

Even then, it would usually be more appropriate to just mention chapter and verse, linking to it. This avoids many issues, including the choice of translations.

As it stands, the quotes are in violation of policy, so they will need to be removed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dylan's point that verse links are more appropriate. The links that you use should also have broad acceptance as specifically supporting the subject. ^rossnixon 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What have I ignored? I don't know of any verses that suggest that Christ should be coming any later; do you? I wouldn't delete them if someone added them. These verses may appear to support the idea that Christ should have come already, but that is a matter of interpretation, isn't it? I'm not interpreting it for you, I'm merely showing you some verses that mention the time frame.

You deleted not only the verses but the secondary sources, such as the lexicon. Were these not reliable sources in your opinion?

Upon reflection I thought perhaps it is a matter of interpretation that one of the verses indeed refers to the Second Coming. I put a synthesis tag on it. You kept the verse and removed the tag. Are you actually reading what you are restoring? ~ Lumenos 06:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Specific date predictions

The table is about "Specific date predictions." Each line represents a predicted date before that date, and information about the prediction. William Miller made the prediction, and the Millerites don't believe the second coming of Christ actually occurred on that date. However, the Baha'is believe Miller's prediction was correct. The Baha'is themselves did not make the prediction. Separating the lines doesn't make semantic sense because the Baha'is didn't make the prediction themselves. Each line has to be about the prediction, and not about a specific group. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

bibleref2 tag: "he was the son of karan bajaj"

There seems to be a problem with the bibleref2 tag not limited to this article which results in the text "he was the son of karan bajaj" being inserted following the tag's citation link. Because the offending text is associated with the tag and doesn't appear on the article edit page, it cannot be remedied by grunt-level editors. Gbsrd (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality: I hope, I hope....

I hope when Christ returns in the 2nd coming, he will somehow be busy with other things and not get to see this page. Quality here is so low, it would be embarrassing for the human race. I will not edit this page, but you guys who do edit it should do something to improve it before the event. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith 1899

Removed as this was obviously not a widely held belief of the church at the time by practicing members of that faith, and quote taken out of context. 75.167.169.73 (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so obvious.

• I take it you don't dispute the reliability of the source, true?
• What was the context of the quote?
• Do you have a conflict of interest in this?

Jojalozzo 15:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific date predictions & WP:Fringe - proposed Split

I just saw this amazing section! WP:Fringe was written for this. This type of item just pushes Wikipedia down the ladder of respect and makes it loo like a joke. I suggest deleting the entire section, since it is not part of general Christian teachings what some of these yoyos said. It should probably get thrown into a page by itself, marked as fringe theories. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very much with you History2007. I would also encourage further critical review on recent additions/changes in several Christianity-related articles during the last few months. Hoverfish Talk 14:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Split discussion

I went ahead and suggested a split of the section into a new article. Please discuss. Hoverfish Talk 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support As stated above, these items are best kept separate in a "want to read about fringe" type article, for they are modern day, far less than scholarly, additions and get in the way of the theological and scholarly issues that the topic needs to address. History2007 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that there has been no objection after 3 weeks, I think we can just do it. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Second Coming of Christ or the second coming of Christ?

Please see Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Christianity#Application of MOS guidelines on capitalization in articles on Christianity. Jojalozzo 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not second coming of Christ? Because this is a proper noun, hence the correct form is: Second Coming of Christ. 75.14.220.131 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it a proper noun? WP:CAPS. I've just noticed this example too. WP:RM to move to small c? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism section, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT?

Copied here. Inclined to delete entire section... but wait on comments Hinduism In modern times some traditional Indian religious leaders have since moved to embrace Jesus as an Avatar, or incarnation, of God. In light of this, the Indian guru Paramahansa Yogananda, author of Autobiography of a Yogi, scribed an extensive commentary on the Gospels published in the two-volume set The Second Coming of Christ: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You. In the tradition of the Gnostic Gospels, the book offers a mystical interpretation of the Second Coming in which it is understood to be an inner experience, something that takes place within the individual heart.

Stating that "Paramahansa Yogananda was sent to the West by Jesus Christ himself" with the said intent to "restore the original Christian teachings among his followers", in Revelations of Christ Swami Kriyananda, Yogananda's disciple and Ex-minister of the Self-Realization Fellowship, provides a distilled commentary on the life and teachings of Christ, all of which is meant to serve as an anticipatory primer to Yogananda's more philosophically nuanced treatment in The Second Coming of Christ. Turning directly to The Bible, Kriyananda argues for a more scripturally mature Christianity in which The Second Coming is treated not in terms of a profane materialism - one which favors a literal, physical and subsequently anti-spiritual resurrection - but rather unfolds in accordance with the more spiritual aspirations of The Book of Luke; for "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

Thus Hinduism's consideration of itself as an Eastern extension of the Christian Gospel, however, is neither unique to Yogananda or his disciple, Swami Kriyananda. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada, author Bhagavad Gita As It Is and founder of the Hare Krishna Movement, has propounded the same pluralistic, nonsecular view: that "'Christ' is another way of saying Krsta and Krsta is another way of pronouncing Krishna, the name of God." Stating that "A son may call his father 'Father', but the father also has a specific name. Similarly, God is the general name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose specific name is Krishna", "Therefore", he writes, "whether you call God 'Christ', 'Krsta', or 'Krishna', ultimately you are addressing the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. "

ends here In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Second Coming. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Second Coming of Christ → Second coming of Christ – Per WP:CAPS and as per WP:RS usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - nominator has withdrawn proposal in favour of simpler proposal by Kauffner below In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. But shouldn't it be "second coming", per Britannica, A Dictionary of the Bible, and World Encyclopedia? Kauffner (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it probably should really. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two of the three links above listed by Kauffner capitalize both words. So I'm not really convinced by any evidence that has been provided so far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Only 1 of 3 of Kauffner's links - Britannica - shows capitalized in text. It is both ways in post 1980 books, but the more scholarly tend not to capitalize inside normal text. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Dictionary of the Bible doesn't even use the term in sentence text. It's only use is the entry head, which is at "Second Coming" with the capitalization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Move to Second Coming, per Merriam Webster, Oxford, and American Heritage. Kauffner (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Change own proposal to support Kauffner's better recommendation - Second Coming - this makes sense. If "of Christ" is removed, capitalisation is more common, not surprisingly. If "of Christ" is there then capitalisation is less common, again, not surprisingly. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support "Second Coming" (was opposed to initial proposal above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Specifics Please

Statements are made in banner at top that article contains “weasel words…” and “lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies….” These critiques are too vague to know what their editor is referring to. Please provide specifics or delete the comments.Future777 (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PS The "Undue Weight" banner and critique also appears in the "Esoteric Christian Teaching" section. The same critique applies.Future777 (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph contains the sentence "where he sits at the right hand of God, to earth." This is certainly unverifiable and POV.Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That quote was only a fragment, not the sentence, which begins with the qualifying words: "In Christianity..." The second sentence begins with the words "This belief..." referring back to the previous sentence, so obviously the questioned fragment is part of a belief within Christianity. That there is such a belief is verifiable. There does need to be something in the article body to that effect if that fragment is to remain in the lede/intro though. (Anyone up to it? :)

As for the Undue and Weasel tags, since the editor(s) who placed them didn't identify any particular problem, here on the talk page, the tags should be removed. Anyone think we should keep them? Inline tags should be used for weasel words, and any undue weight issues should be brought up here on the talk page. The Undue tag in the Esoteric section is valid. That section needs to be trimmed down to a single paragraph written from a neutral point of view. Maybe the excess content here can be shifted over to the See Also page the section references?
—Telpardec  TALK  00:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Scratch one tag. The esoteric section didn't begin to address the second coming until the 3rd paragraph, the first parts were introductory to general teachings. I grabbed the bare essentials from the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and spliced that into the 3rd paragraph. Please feel free to further edit if necessary.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  01:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor(s) who placed the "Undue" and "weasel" tags has still not provided specifics, so I am removing the two tags.Future777 (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Future777 (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

'Messiah's Temple' will be 4th Temple

Solomon's Temple was the '1st Temple'. Zerubbabel's Temple was the '2nd Temple'. King Herod I's Temple was the '3rd Temple'. The Messiah's Temple - whether it's the '1st Coming' or the '2nd Coming' - will be the 4th Temple. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Herod's Temple is considered to still be the Second Temple, just modified and expanded. Editor2020 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Brad, please read WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern commentary moved into Non-Christian views

I felt comfortable enough to revert the article back to Ujongbakuto's revision based on these factors:

1. The section deals with one religious philosophy only. Not a grouping of different modern commentaries.
2. These are the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda, founded on Kriya Yoga, based in Hinduism.
3. The references sited in the section indicate that the author's view is that Christ is an Avatar of Krishna, the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu in Hinduism.
4. Hinduism is not usually considered a Christian religion
5. Additional references correlate the resurrection of Christ to self realization.

If there is enough of a consensus that this is not the correct move than lets look at how we can change the section more appropriately. Dromidaon (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

1. when you say section which section are you referring to?
2. Paramahansa Yogananda teachings is not based on Hinduism - some people think this because he came from India and teaches meditation techniques.
3. I hadn't seen the reference spam and just removed it - that reference has nothing to do with this commentary- therefore your number #3 does not apply.
4. Again yogananda's teachings is not Hinduism
5. Self-Realization is a state of Christ Consciousness and refers to Jesus the Christ - who had Christ Consciousness while alive and when resurrecting.

If we decide that we cannot create a modern commentary section and include other commentaries [6] which i think is entirely possible then we should change the name of the section -Non Christian Views- to something like Other Views or commentaries. We as editors have no idea if they are non christian or not - and who are we to judge. Look up the definition of Christian on Wikipedia - "...The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like." I think it is much better to change the name of the section to a neutral name.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, I think it was obvious that Dromidaon was referring to your previous "Modern commentary" section, which only had one religious philosophy, i.e. Paramahansa Yogananda's; so the section heading, "Modern commentary", was not suitable since the content under it was not "a grouping of different modern commentaries", and I agree. I don't mind changing "Non-Christian" to "Other", but Yogananda's commentary is obviously not the only "Second Coming of Christ Commentary", especially since it comes under "Other views and commentaries" about the Second Coming, right? So I've changed it to "Paramahansa Yogananda's commentary", since you don't seem to like to use "Kriya Yoga" as the section heading for his commentary. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I think we are in agreement until if and when more commentaries are brought to the page. I also agree with changing it to Paramahansa Yogananda's commentary. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

When it will happen

It seems the main detail is missing. Jesus tells the disciples it will all happen during their lifetime (Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32). Shouldn't this be mentioned in the introduction? Piechjo (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be expanded to cover what was said about the timing, what has happened, and what various interpretations biblical scholars and other reliable sources have made of it. But I do not agree that this should be handled by simply putting a modern-day English translation of ancient Greek text into the lead without any mention of this associated analysis and interpretation, it's far too simplistic as to be misleading, and we don't want that to be in the lead. For this reason I'm reverting this addition. Zad68 13:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Lord is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in 70 AD, and of the World's End in one breath - or almost, for He adds: "But that day and that hour, noone knows, etc.". The end of the world as they knew it, as it were. --2001:A60:15CB:4F01:7C3F:8905:6746:91C4 (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus said to His disciples: " You must not know the times and dates the Father has planned". So, now you know why there isn't any details Cat Christian (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Christianity

Regarding the Christian idea that these prophecies will be fulfilled during a "second coming",...<---- Who says that such a thing is a Christian idea? While it is true that the Jews who wrote the Gospels, (particularly those who wrote the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke), often resorted to the "prophesy fulfilment argument" in promoting Jesus as "the Messiah", prophesy fulfilment is not an issue with most Gentile Christians; Jesus is regarded as the spiritual Saviour, not the earthly political saviour that the OT prophets were expecting. There is no real conflict: Jews rightly do not see Jesus as their Messiah mainly because he did not defeat the Roman oppressors, and most Christians understand that. Very few Christians worldwide are "Biblical literalists", despite the US fundamentalists' acceptance of that modern innovation. The traditional Christian view is that Jesus saved the believers from evil and spiritual death, despite being physically killed, and thus regard the Crucifixion and Resurrection as a victory, not a defeat. The belief is that Jesus appears to Christians after physical death, so that the "Second Coming" is a spiritual event. Note that including the Book of Revelation in the NT was hotly debated at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, due to the fact that it is written in surrealistic imagery that can be decoded in numerous (and mostly mistaken) ways, and a literal view of a "Second Coming" as a future physical event in history is seen as a fringe view that is not even discussed outside the world of the new evangelical denominations invented in the US in the 1800s.77Mike77 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Second coming of Christ

This article is great. It includes scripture text. I totally recommend it Cat Christian (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Kind 4musatov (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Impossible to prove

There are no hard facts supporting the second coming of christ or any other religious deity, therefore the entire page should be presented as fiction. Until you provide hard evidence of a deity returning to earth, edits claiming that this has no basis in reality should be preserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangover72 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be presented as fiction nor a scientific fact, but rather as a religious concept and I believe this how it is currently.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Hangover72, Wikipedia isn't interested in truth or fact. It is only interested in if a topic can be supported by reliable sources about the topic. So, no one is interested in your opinion about it being fiction or no. Keep your POV to yourself. It is a topic of note because millions of people believe in it. All that needs to be done here is present the topic as reported by various sources. 8een4Tfor (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If this or any other religious topic deserves a fiction tag due to the POV of people who don't agree with it, then you'll have to also throw a fiction tag on anything to do with evolution because there are a lot of people who don't agree with that, either. One's personal belief or disbelief is not the measuring stick for Wikipedia. 152.133.13.2 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not saying lots of people disagree he's saying theres no factual evidence to back up christs second coming. Evolution has plenty of factual evidence, whether or not people believe in it for religious reasons. 87.115.207.219 (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact, though, that the New Testament authors wrote about a return of Christ. This is easy to prove. It is impossible to prove that beliefs in predicted, or future, events are true, but it can be proved that Christians wrote that Christ was going to return. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't hold any fact, evolution never happened nor it will, everything was already made perfect and looks the same as it looked 1000s of years ago. During evolution, the bone structure has to change, the muscle structure, the eyes have to change. It's all simply an atheistic fiction. Meanwhile Christ has plenty of reasons to return because there is great injustice, bloodshed, famine, natural disasters, satanism and all kinds of evil in general are on Earth right now, and from what we see on the news it's gonna get worse. On top of all, Christ promised Himself that He will return, let's see if He would dare not to keep His promise, I doubt it (178.221.228.167 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Per WP:V it is a "Christian teaching" and should be just presented as such - a teaching and a belief. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not what we have proven, but what might be true most valuable to those who seek intelligence.

4musatov (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Coming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=3952
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990508221018/http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/ to http://www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2019 lede

The Returned Christ must produce the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals", unite with his Bride, and "pass Judgment on everyone according to their actions"

I added this to the introduction... the Bible is clear in The Revelation of Jesus Christ 5:1 that the Christ must produce the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals". The Christ unites with his bride (Revelation 19:7) and "passes Judgment on everyone according to their actions" - Rev 20:12, 22:12. 73.85.207.95 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Bible Prophecies

I added... There are several Bible prophesies concerning the return of the Christ: (A) "Coming at the end of the age" - Matthew 24:3-14. Many regard December 21, 2012 as the end of the Age of Pisces and beginning of the New Age/Messianic Age/Age of Aquarius. (B) 1 Thessalonians 4:17 may be a prediction of a time of airplanes and helicopters. (C) According to Revelation 5:1, the 2nd Coming must produce the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals." (D) The Bride of Christ refers to the joining of the 2nd Coming and the Church. (E) The Christ returns to "Judge everyone according to their actions". - Revelation 20:12-13, 22:12 2601:580:100:E99A:FD18:9CDA:15CD:B327 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Revelation of Christ" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Revelation of Christ. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

“Rastafarianism” “Baha’ism”

It is needless to add splinter groups from the original Christian and Islamic faiths, or mixtures of the two.

Islamic central belief and Christian central belief directly influence the splinter faiths. A start-up religion that believes in the second coming got the canonical information from elsewhere; not from within itself. JasonMoore (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Revelation 5:1, only the "Lion"/"Lamb" can produce the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals" - This triggers "plagues, natural catastrophies, economic collapse, etc."

I added... According to Revelation 5:1, only the "Lion"/"Lamb" can produce the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals". This triggers "plagues, natural catastrophies, economic collapse, etc." 2601:589:4801:5660:4993:9931:C173:EB7F (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Islamic contradictions

According to the article: How can Jesus be THE Messiah but also only A prophet? THE puts him above all others while A prophet is just one figure among many. How can Muslims believe that Mary was a virgin while being pregnant with Jesus while denying him the title "son of God"?? If Jesus has no biological father which Christians and Muslims both agree on who else could be the father to Jesus other than God? Clearly if you believe that Mary was a virgin you have to accept God as father and creator of Jesus. 93.206.54.181 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Link to German article?

The German article Parusie https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parusie lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parousia as English equivalent, which forwards to Second Coming. There is no path back from Second Coming to Parusie through the language menu. 78.102.93.178 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)