Part 5
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
The main problem with the verses cited here in association with the Second Coming is that there is no general agreement that either of them actually refer to that event. A prominent view is that Matthew 16:28 should be linked with chapter 17 and refers to the Transfiguration. This is bolstered by the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke as well as the reference in 2 Peter 1:16-18. Another widely-held view is that the verse refers to the kingdom as it exists now, beginning with the Resurrection, Pentecost, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation 3:11, the only non-Gospel verse cited in the whole non-tract, has a number of possible interpretations, as does practically everything in that whole book. The most common view is that it is simply a word of encouragement to a persecuted but persevering church. It has also been expressed that Matthew 24:14 and similar verses make all of these types of statements conditional. Thus, the failure is perhaps our own in not reaching the goal sooner. Eschatology is a complex subject which cannot be adequately expressed, let alone debated, in a few sentences. The only thing that's clear is that no one knows enough to conclude that Jesus was unreliable in this area.
If you look at the text of Matthew 13:32 and Matthew 5:13, you can easily see that Jesus has not "claimed" anything about mustard or salt. It's not as if he was asked to name the smallest seed in the world or was offering a chemistry lecture. He simply makes references to them in a rhetorical context. In Jesus' time and place, the mustard seed was a common metaphor for smallness, and very well could have been the smallest seed known to his audience. As for the salt, the non-tract is incorrect in implying that salt cannot "lose its savour". The salt used then was seldom as pure as the salt we use today and could not always be stored in chemically inert containers (i.e. ceramic or glass). In such cases, the salt could become contaminated and worthless, not fit for its intended use.
The context of Matthew 5:22 is set up in the first part of the verse: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause". We also see from v. 23 and 24 that this situation is such that the "brother" is the offended party, and that "you" are required to make reconciliation. The "brother" has apparently done nothing to earn the title of "fool", or the contempt with which it is said. This is not the case in Matthew 23:17. Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and teachers of the law for leading people directly away from God and not even knowing it. Jesus was expressing what we call "righteous indignation" in a perfectly accurate manner. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
The purported conflict between John 5:31 and John 8:14 is a classic textbook example of how removing verses from their contexts can completely change their meaning. The full passages use slightly different rhetorical techniques to make the exact same point. Underlying each of the passages is the concept that, in Jewish law, at least two witnesses were required to prove a matter. In John 5, Jesus presents himself as the first witness, who could not validate himself. But, he then goes on to invoke John the Baptist (v. 32-25), the Father (v. 36-38), the Scriptures (v. 39-40), and Moses (v. 45-47). In John 8, however, Jesus is functioning as the second witness on his own behalf. Jesus can state that his "record is true" because, as we see in the second half of the verse, he knows something the Pharisees don't. He has a "surprise witness", springing the Father on them in v. 15-18. In both cases, Jesus is stating that he has the required number of witnesses to verify his identity, authority, and mission. The only reason it appears any differently is that v. 14 is taken out if its context and only partially quoted.
It should be clear that none of the cited verses here support the assertion that Jesus was unreliable. Most of the apparent conflicts disappear when the relevant verses are examined within their context. Any unreliability in the remaining issue (concerning the Second Coming) is most likely our own, and cannot be attributed to Jesus.