Talk:Second Coming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

most biblical sources irrelevant[edit]

most biblical sources at the beginning of the article refer to assension to heaven or the kingdom of god, not the second coming. check them out. unless i don't know of some kind of connection between all those that makes them the same. even if some kind of logic makes the same it has to be addressed. without it, they are logically different things.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:10, April 20, 2006

It is relevant because that was when He promised to return.

Imbalanced Representation[edit]

Each paragraph outlining basic religious beliefs has at least a sizable paragraph summarizing the beliefs the religious set of ideas, with one exception. May I suggest adding a few summarizing points about the beliefs of the Latter-day Saint beliefs on the second coming, rather than leaving it saying that the Latter-day Saints have many notable distinctive and specific beliefs? Just because there are many differences in Latter-day Saint beliefs and the specificity of those beliefs does not mean that they are not worth summarizing as is done with every other group. I would suggest at least a few points so that readers have some idea of what those distinctions are, not just knowing that there is a distinction. If we're going for brevity, let's be brief across the board and say that each group simply has distinctive beliefs. I would be happy to attempt a Latter-day Saint summary if there is agreement. Thank you.

Quality: I hope, I hope....[edit]

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)

Impossible to prove[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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. (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 ( (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)

Specific date predictions & WP:Fringe - proposed Split[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Joseph Smith 1899[edit]

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. (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)

Hinduism section, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT?[edit]

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.[1] 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.[2] 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. "[3]

  1. ^ "Krishna and Jesus Christ". Retrieved 2009-11-21. 
  2. ^ Yogananda, Paramahansa. The Second Coming of Christ: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You. Self-Realization Fellowship, 2004. ISBN 978-0876125557
  3. ^
ends here In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Second Coming of Christ or the second coming of Christ?[edit]

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. (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)

Requested move[edit]

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 ChristSecond 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)
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[edit]

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)

When it will happen[edit]

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)

'Messiah's Temple' will be 4th Temple[edit]

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[edit]

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 [1] 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)

Second coming of Christ[edit]

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