Jesus' prophecy concerning the end

[d-ray]

I was just reading "Have a Nice Doomsday" by Nicholas Guyatt, a good (but discouraging) read about the prophets of doom currently active in the U.S. In the last chapter Guyatt focusses on Joel Rosenburg, a man who is supposed to be uncannily correct in his predictions and who, like many others, is convinced the end is at hand.
Quoting Guyatt (p. 306) who quotes Rosenburg: "...Joel [Rosenburg] admits that Israel's rebirth is the 'super sign', the most tangible piece of evidence which persuades prophecy enthusiasts that the end is nigh. 'Jesus is clear--once you see the birth of Israel and all of these other things happening, he said this generation will not pass away until you see my coming. So I think the clock started in 1948, although it may have started in 1967...'"
Now this is surely rubbish. Guyatt and Rosenburg were specifically referring to the 24th chapter of Matthew, which passage I have re-read and re-read, as well the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21. As regards the birth of Israel, Jesus was not clear on this point--as a matter of fact, he said nothing at all about it, at least not that I can find.
It's hard to discuss all three passages at once, since there are considerable variations among them, but in all them Jesus lists signs of the coming end: wars and rumors of wars, false prophets, increase of lawlessness, famines, earthquakes, the stars falling from the sky, etc. But no mention of any rebirth of Israel.
He then goes on to say that people will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; he will gather his elect on the four winds, sky and earth will pass away, and "In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place."That is, Jesus was predicting the end during his own generation, not ours. The clock didn't start in 1948 or 1967; it was already ticking back then.
Now I have always found this passage clear enough. Of all the passages of prophecy in the Bible, this one is perhaps the most straightforward. It clearly creates serious problems for Christian believers, and I have seen various strategies employed to make it appear that Jesus wasn't saying what he was saying.
E.g., the editors of the Jerusalem Bible say that when he said "before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place," he was referring to the destruction of the Temple, not to the end times. I don't buy this. "All these things" means "all these things", and the destruction of the Temple was merely one more sign of the end, which was imminent.
Add to this what Jesus is on record as saying in Matthew 16:27-28: "For the Son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his behavior. In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom." Now what could be clearer than that?
For me the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus was convinced that the end was coming before everyone then alive had died.
Unless I'm reading all of this all wrong. Perhaps someone can comment, especially those who know some Greek, in case the exact wording of what Jesus was saying is important.

[motorhead]

You will hear all manner of twisted explanation from Christians on how to explain this away but none of them are sound. It's not just Jesus in the canonical gospels predicting his imminent return. It's all through the NT, even in Paul's writings. Clearly, Jesus predicted his imminent return, and his early followers preached his imminent return. It wasn't until late in the 1st century that Christians started to question if the return was going to happen any time soon. In fact, there's a verse in one of the late 1st century NT books where the author attempts to answer people who were probably mocking Christians because Jesus was a no show. The author wrote a day is like 1000 years to God, or something like that. So, if I say Jesus will return in 2 days, it actually means 2,000 years.

[Keith&Co.]

The author wrote a day is like 1000 years to God, or something like that. So, if I say Jesus will return in 2 days, it actually means 2,000 years.He wrote that a day is as 1000 years, and 1000 years is as a day.
It means that God is timeless. He is removed from our concepts of duration and separation of events. Ideally, god works to his own schedule and cannot be held accountable to a contracted completion time we made up.

On the other hand, Jesus was speaking to mortals. And if the defense for the Flat Earth imagery in The Books is that biblical terms were couched in the understanding of the time, then 'soon' or 'before y'all taste death' would also be couched in the usage of the audience.

[thedistillers]

What's the point to come on Earth, resurrect, ascend to Heaven to come back right after?

If Jesus didn't stay with us after he resurrected, surely he wasn't planning to come back "soon".

Or maybe the Jesus story is bogus.

[driver8]

I was just reading "Have a Nice Doomsday" by Nicholas Guyatt, a good (but discouraging) read about the prophets of doom currently active in the U.S. In the last chapter Guyatt focusses on Joel Rosenburg, a man who is supposed to be uncannily correct in his predictions and who, like many others, is convinced the end is at hand.

Indeed. Looks like this rapture list (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rapture.html) needs updating.

[judge]

Add to this what Jesus is on record as saying in Matthew 16:27-28: "For the Son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his behavior. In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom." Now what could be clearer than that?
.

Yes what could be clearer?

There is a bit of a resurgence around in Preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) today, and if it catches on I suspect the result can only be good.
After all if the insitutional church has been so woefully wrong about this, then there will be a strong imperative to ask about what else they may be wrong about.
For example all christian teachings about hell and condemnation are closely tied in to eschatology in general, so any rethinking must mean a rethinking of these doctrines as well.

[Decypher]

Now this is surely rubbish. Guyatt and Rosenburg were specifically referring to the 24th chapter of Matthew, which passage I have re-read and re-read, as well the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21. As regards the birth of Israel, Jesus was not clear on this point--as a matter of fact, he said nothing at all about it, at least not that I can find.



Some Christians think the "fig tree" is a reference to Israel. But that looks like rubbish as you say. The "fig tree" was simply used as an analogy for witnessing the events described in the chapter. And also, the version of Luke says: "Behold the fig tree, and all the trees".

[sschlichter]

I was just reading "Have a Nice Doomsday" by Nicholas Guyatt, a good (but discouraging) read about the prophets of doom currently active in the U.S. In the last chapter Guyatt focusses on Joel Rosenburg, a man who is supposed to be uncannily correct in his predictions and who, like many others, is convinced the end is at hand.

Indeed. Looks like this rapture list (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rapture.html) needs updating.

Perhaps, before updating the rapture list you should read on to Matt 17, to read the event that followed this prediction in every gospel. (and is the intended fulfillment.)

Peter's take on the prediction and the event in Matt 17 can be found in 2 Pet 1:16-17.

~Steve

[thentian]

Obviously, since Jesus said that, somebody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew) from his generation must still be alive! :Cheeky:

Cheers! :)

[Solo]

The belief in the imminent collapse of the world and the saviour's return, appears to originate in depressive psychosis. Severe episodes carry with them the hyper-anxious sense of immediate expiry, which in an individual whose boundary of self and the world is severely impaired, projects as the end of the world.

Lk 21:25-26 And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth a distress of a nation in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear and foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

It is clear that the Early Christians started as a doomsday cult in which the shared experience of paranormal states served as a template for eschatological speculation. It is a given, which simply cannot be argued away, that the ideas of the end of the world originate in psychopathology. Mentally healthy people do not exhibit attachment to morbid ideas.

Jiri

[judge]

Add to this what Jesus is on record as saying in Matthew 16:27-28: "For the Son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his behavior. In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom." Now what could be clearer than that?
For me the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus was convinced that the end was coming before everyone then alive had died.
.

What do you mean when you say "the end was coming" ?

All the verse you have quoted above indicated is that Jesus was to come with his Kingdom.
And if it can be shown that the end of the world was at hand, would the ancients have meant the same thing we might mean by those words?

IOW what might they have meant by "the world".

[Joan of Bark]

Another Hal Lindsay is out there? Isn't one enough?

A couple of points here:

1) Jesus also said that the end was not coming with signs to be observed by man, and that no-one -- even Jesus -- knows when the end is coming. Another Biblical contradiction.

2) For a good examination of Biblical doomsday prophesies throughout the last 2000 years, check out Jonathan Kirsch's A History of the End of the World (http://www.jonathankirsch.com/).

[Equinox]

Motorhead wrote:
It's all through the NT, even in Paul's writings.

A good example (it helps when alluding to something in one of the Bibles to mention the verse), is 1Th 4:15-17

According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Note that 1 Th is an authentic Pauline letter, and that he appears to know that Jesus said "In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom."

Now, contrast that with 2nd Th, a forgery which was likely written after it became clear that the end wasn't coming anytime soon, perhaps written to replace or correct 1Th. Here is 2Th 2:1-5

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?

That last line reminds me of how the forger practically trips over himself to claim that he's Paul. Here's how 2Th ends:

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

:rolling:

It's interesting to have a good example of this process right in the new testament itself. :) Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that the many Christians who expect the end any time can be helped by that fact.:banghead:

Have a fun day-

Equinox

[Leelee]

You will hear all manner of twisted explanation from Christians on how to explain this away but none of them are sound. It's not just Jesus in the canonical gospels predicting his imminent return. It's all through the NT, even in Paul's writings. Clearly, Jesus predicted his imminent return, and his early followers preached his imminent return. It wasn't until late in the 1st century that Christians started to question if the return was going to happen any time soon. In fact, there's a verse in one of the late 1st century NT books where the author attempts to answer people who were probably mocking Christians because Jesus was a no show. The author wrote a day is like 1000 years to God, or something like that. So, if I say Jesus will return in 2 days, it actually means 2,000 years.Yes, there are many ways Christians try to explain away this problem. One of them is Preterism, which is the position held by the author ofthis (www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html) article that explains away the failed prophecies of Christ's return.

[aa5874]

Note that 1 Th is an authentic Pauline letter, and that he appears to know that Jesus said "In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom."

Now, contrast that with 2nd Th, a forgery which was likely written after it became clear that the end wasn't coming anytime soon, perhaps written to replace or correct 1Th. Here is 2Th 2:1-5


Why would a person write a forged letter to Christian churches purporting to be "Paul" when he was not, and the real "Paul" is still alive?

Why would a person in that same forged letter contradict the words of "Paul" to the same Christian churches?

Why didn't the early Christian churches recognise the forgeries?

Why did not the real "Paul" notify the Christian churches that there were forged letters?



Because all the "Pauls" of the 1st century were not real. They are all fakes.

And there were no early Christian church as described by the "Pauline Epistles, based on the extant writings of Justin Martyr.

[sschlichter]

Another Hal Lindsay is out there? Isn't one enough?

A couple of points here:

1) Jesus also said that the end was not coming with signs to be observed by man, and that no-one -- even Jesus -- knows when the end is coming. Another Biblical contradiction.

2) For a good examination of Biblical doomsday prophesies throughout the last 2000 years, check out Jonathan Kirsch's A History of the End of the World (http://www.jonathankirsch.com/).

Cannot say for sure, but judging by the other posts in this thread, the Hal Lindsey comment is referring to me. :)

In actuality, I agree with Martin Luther that if I thought the world was about to end, "I would plant a tree". I raise an eyebrow when anyone tries to display a handle on end times prophecy. (x-ians and otherwise.)

However, my post was to point out that if you are going to have an end times list of unfulfilled predictions, it would be best if you used predictions that were actually referring to the end times. Matt 16:28 is not, it is referring to the transfiguration. (those that will get a sneak peek at the trailer before they die).

However, since Isreal has not been a nation for 2000 years, it should be easy to debunk all prophecies related to the nation of Isreal.

On the other hand, all the Christians that died in AD 70 in Jerusalem wish they had listened to crazy end times talk. Oh wait, they left Jerusalem right before that for some strange reason. (hmm)

~Steve

[judge]

However, my post was to point out that if you are going to have an end times list of unfulfilled predictions, it would be best if you used predictions that were actually referring to the end times. Matt 16:28 is not, it is referring to the transfiguration. (those that will get a sneak peek at the trailer before they die).


~Steve

If Matthew 16:27-28 is referring to the transfiguration then how come Jesus did not come with angels and rewards for every man at the transfiguration?

27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom

Secondly all of them were alive a few days later not just some of them.

It doesn't seem to fit.

[sschlichter]

However, my post was to point out that if you are going to have an end times list of unfulfilled predictions, it would be best if you used predictions that were actually referring to the end times. Matt 16:28 is not, it is referring to the transfiguration. (those that will get a sneak peek at the trailer before they die).


~Steve

If Matthew 16:27-28 is referring to the transfiguration then how come Jesus did not come with angels and rewards for every man at the transfiguration?

27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom

Secondly all of them were alive a few days later not just some of them.

It doesn't seem to fit.

I have an answer but at the same time I do admit it is a sticking point. it is just that I feel it is evident that it refers to the transfiguration.

The first sentence and the second are two different thoughts.

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done

this prediction stands alone. There is nothing that ties it together to the other besides it is part of the same topic.

the second prediction starts with a "I tell you the truth" or a King James Verily. This is a flag to mean that the part coming is an emphatic truth. (like, you can bet on this or take this to the bank). It seems to adequately separate the two statements.

The next statement,

some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom

Simply says that some of the immediate hearers will see the son of man coming in his kingdom before they die. The others will not.

The author put this statement right before the transfiguration intentionally. (IMO)

[d-ray]

I would agree with Judge just above that the transfiguration has nothing to do with Matthew 16:27-28, and for exactly the reasons given there.
Disagreeing with sschlichter, I would say that your dividing these two verses is very artificial and unconvincing. Some people try to divide Matthew 24 in this way to separate the prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple from the prophecy concerning the end times.
I have never found such efforts convincing. Matthew 24, like Matthew 16:27-28, is of a piece, and the only reason that I can see to divide either is to bail Jesus out of a failed prophecy. If Jesus was wrong, then he was wrong, and I adjust my views about him accordingly.

[sschlichter]

I would agree with Judge just above that the transfiguration has nothing to do with Matthew 16:27-28, and for exactly the reasons given there.
Disagreeing with sschlichter, I would say that your dividing these two verses is very artificial and unconvincing. Some people try to divide Matthew 24 in this way to separate the prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple from the prophecy concerning the end times.
I have never found such efforts convincing. Matthew 24, like Matthew 16:27-28, is of a piece, and the only reason that I can see to divide either is to bail Jesus out of a failed prophecy. If Jesus was wrong, then he was wrong, and I adjust my views about him accordingly.

so, what do you think is the purpose in the break (verily) in the thoughts.

[Decypher]

so, what do you think is the purpose in the break (verily) in the thoughts.

I looked at a couple of examples from Matthew 5:


[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


[25] Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
[26] Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

The "verily I say unto you" verse is still on the same subject as the previous verse.

[Decypher]

Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material.

So why should we think that Matthew 16:28 has suddenly changed the subject?

[Solo]

If Matthew 16:27-28 is referring to the transfiguration then how come Jesus did not come with angels and rewards for every man at the transfiguration?

27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom

Secondly all of them were alive a few days later not just some of them.

It doesn't seem to fit.

I have an answer but at the same time I do admit it is a sticking point. it is just that I feel it is evident that it refers to the transfiguration.

The first sentence and the second are two different thoughts.

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done

this prediction stands alone. There is nothing that ties it together to the other besides it is part of the same topic.

the second prediction starts with a "I tell you the truth" or a King James Verily. This is a flag to mean that the part coming is an emphatic truth. (like, you can bet on this or take this to the bank). It seems to adequately separate the two statements.

The next statement,

some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom

Simply says that some of the immediate hearers will see the son of man coming in his kingdom before they die. The others will not.

The author put this statement right before the transfiguration intentionally. (IMO)

Matthew only slightly expands on Mark and the statement has a specific function within the Markan resurrection. Mark did not know Jesus rising in the flesh: he sticks to Paul's bodily transformation. It was the OBE peak experience that the Paulines interpreted as the glorious body of the risen Lord to be acquired by the faithful before (as preview) or after they die. So when Mark says in 9:1, that some of you will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God has come with power, he throws a mystical curve ball. The reference is both to the experience of the risen Lord (for those to whom it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God/risen Christ), and to the spiritial cash-in after death to the rest of the faithful. The statement is placed before the transfiguration on purpose, because the "event" on the mountain is a demonstration of the resurrected Jesus to Peter and the Zebedees - which they don't get.

Matthew read well the Markan structure and kept most of it, however since his resurrected Jesus disported himself in flesh before the disciples, he messed up the intent of the transfiguration. Mark built on a 'participation mystique' for the gnostic reader. The gnostic would have immediately understood the import of the transfiguration: it was a vision of the son of man coming in his kingdom, i.e. the magistral eschatological event. But Matthew asserted a different kind of resurrected Jesus, so his copying of Mark leaves some large cognitive gaps behind. Mark's gospel was written with the underlying assumption that the resurrected Lord was an experience available in the community. In Matthew, Jesus after death makes a cameo appearance to a select few and gets permanently beamed up - until parousia. This makes the the Matthean "some who will not taste death" of 16:28 harder to pinpoint.

Jiri

[Joan of Bark]

Another Hal Lindsay is out there? Isn't one enough?

A couple of points here:

1) Jesus also said that the end was not coming with signs to be observed by man, and that no-one -- even Jesus -- knows when the end is coming. Another Biblical contradiction.

2) For a good examination of Biblical doomsday prophesies throughout the last 2000 years, check out Jonathan Kirsch's A History of the End of the World (http://www.jonathankirsch.com/).

Cannot say for sure, but judging by the other posts in this thread, the Hal Lindsey comment is referring to me. :)



Actually, it was referring to this Joel Rosenburg nutcase character.

[sschlichter]

Cannot say for sure, but judging by the other posts in this thread, the Hal Lindsey comment is referring to me. :)



Actually, it was referring to this Joel Rosenburg nutcase character.

good, I feel much better.

[gregor]

I've never read this parsing of phrases excuse for the failure of the Olivet Discourse.

It might be termed "preterism lite" - in that rather than the fall of the Temple being fulfillment, it was the transfiguration some 72 hours later that was fulfillment - although some apostles apparently died from too much partying during the three-day weekend.

I think preterism lite still falls down in the face of 2 Peter 3 (a 150 CE lament on the failure of Jesus to return).

[Newfie]

Regarding the belief that the Gospel of Jesus had to be preached to the “Four Corners of the Earth” before the end time, meaning that all of humanity had to have heard about Jesus, thus able to decide upon accepting him prior to his return, makes this little bit of news (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a7KiEmlgepRA&refer=canada) about uncontacted Amazon tribes somewhat timely.

I sure hope that some overzealous missionaries don’t take it into their heads to ‘speed things up a might’ by going on a search, or by helping the effort to burn down the rainforests.

[sugarhitman]

I was just reading "Have a Nice Doomsday" by Nicholas Guyatt, a good (but discouraging) read about the prophets of doom currently active in the U.S. In the last chapter Guyatt focusses on Joel Rosenburg, a man who is supposed to be uncannily correct in his predictions and who, like many others, is convinced the end is at hand.
Quoting Guyatt (p. 306) who quotes Rosenburg: "...Joel [Rosenburg] admits that Israel's rebirth is the 'super sign', the most tangible piece of evidence which persuades prophecy enthusiasts that the end is nigh. 'Jesus is clear--once you see the birth of Israel and all of these other things happening, he said this generation will not pass away until you see my coming. So I think the clock started in 1948, although it may have started in 1967...'"
Now this is surely rubbish. Guyatt and Rosenburg were specifically referring to the 24th chapter of Matthew, which passage I have re-read and re-read, as well the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21. As regards the birth of Israel, Jesus was not clear on this point--as a matter of fact, he said nothing at all about it, at least not that I can find.
It's hard to discuss all three passages at once, since there are considerable variations among them, but in all them Jesus lists signs of the coming end: wars and rumors of wars, false prophets, increase of lawlessness, famines, earthquakes, the stars falling from the sky, etc. But no mention of any rebirth of Israel.
He then goes on to say that people will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; he will gather his elect on the four winds, sky and earth will pass away, and "In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place."That is, Jesus was predicting the end during his own generation, not ours. The clock didn't start in 1948 or 1967; it was already ticking back then.
Now I have always found this passage clear enough. Of all the passages of prophecy in the Bible, this one is perhaps the most straightforward. It clearly creates serious problems for Christian believers, and I have seen various strategies employed to make it appear that Jesus wasn't saying what he was saying.
E.g., the editors of the Jerusalem Bible say that when he said "before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place," he was referring to the destruction of the Temple, not to the end times. I don't buy this. "All these things" means "all these things", and the destruction of the Temple was merely one more sign of the end, which was imminent.
Add to this what Jesus is on record as saying in Matthew 16:27-28: "For the Son of man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his behavior. In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom." Now what could be clearer than that?
For me the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus was convinced that the end was coming before everyone then alive had died.
Unless I'm reading all of this all wrong. Perhaps someone can comment, especially those who know some Greek, in case the exact wording of what Jesus was saying is important.


You are correct in saying that Jesus did not mention a restored Israel in Matthew (even I wonder why some bible students make this up). However Jesus does testify a destruction of Israel and Jerusalem to happen two more times. In one account he foretold the coming destruction of the Temple which was done by the Romans, and a future attack against Israel by the "Gentiles" and the "Abomination that causes desolation" (the Anti-Christ). How can the end time war called Aremegeddon happen if Israel is already destroyed by the Romans? This is a no brainer.....Israel has to be restored in order for the end time prophecies to be fulfilled. Which is in line with OT Prophecies like Joel:


"For behold in those days and in that time, when I shall bring AGAIN (Restoration of Israel) the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, WHOM THEY HAVE SCATTERED AMONG THE NATIONS AND DIVIDED UP MY LAND."

This is Aremegeddon...and it happens after a final restoration of Israel.


In Ezekiel we see an attack by a prince called Gog (another name for the Beast) who attacks Israel after a long desolation that is restored:


....in the latter years you shall come into the land that is brought BACK FROM THE SWORD, AND IS GATHERED OUT OF MANY PEOPLE, AGAINST THE MOUNTIANS OF ISRAEL WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WASTE (I.E. A LONG DESOLATION) BUT IT IS BROUGHT FORTH OUT OF THE NATIONS, AND THEY SHALL DWELL SAFELY ALL OF THEM." (I.E. THE JEWS WILL BE LIVING IN A FALSE PEACE MANUFACTORED BY THE BEAST BUT AS DANIEL SAYS "AND THROUGH PEACE HE SHALL DESTROY MANY")



Israel after 1900 years of dispersion is back. Revelation, the unsealed book of Daniel is all about Israel. These prophecies cannot happen unless Israel is restored....the clock is indeed ticking and here are the signs:


1. Israel restored

2. Dispute over land and Jerusalem resulting in division of land between opposing parties.
3. World uniting against Israel

4. Wars that will utimately lead to Aremegeddon an attempt to destroy Israel to destroy anything connected to the biblical God....Jews and Christians.



The restoration of Israel is a HUGE sign that "the times of the Gentiles are at hand."


which Paul says that God will deal with Israel "after the full numbers of the Gentiles are brought in" that is when the full number of Gentiles come to salvation Aremegeddon will occur to punish Israel and destroy those nations hostile to Israel and God.


"Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand"---Jesus Christ....Indeed it is.




P.S. Jesus did not say "before this generation has passed away" He siad "This generation shall not pass until till all these things are fulfilled." The generation in which the signs appear in is the generation that will not pass away.....the generation which goes through the tribulation. :)

[d-ray]

I am not concerned with any prophecies that come from Joel, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Revelation or anyone else. I am concerned with Jesus' prophecy and his alone. It is not valid to combine prophecies from many different sources, since that assumes that Jesus agreed with everything that his predecessors thought. This would be like saying that Plotinus must have agreed with what Plato said, or with what every Greek philosopher before him said.
Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.

[sschlichter]

so, what do you think is the purpose in the break (verily) in the thoughts.

I looked at a couple of examples from Matthew 5:


[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


[25] Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
[26] Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

The "verily I say unto you" verse is still on the same subject as the previous verse.

yes, same topic is all they share. (I stated that in my post.). 5:17-18 seem to illustrate the same thing.

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. Much is fulfilled before heaven and earth pass away.

[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"However", "verily", "tell you what", "here is something emphatically true". The law will not pass away until ALL is fulfilled.

Much is filled before, but I tell you the truth the law will stay until all is fulfilled.

Just as "the son of man will come in all his glory, but tell you what, some of you will see that glory firsthand."

The emphatic insertion, is not a change in topic, it is an attention getter. The topic (glorification of christ) stayed the same but those chosen were going to get a preview before they died (and I expect they needed it since they were going to die in similar manner).

2 Pet 1:16-17 is in accord with this interpretation. Peter, himself referred to the same event as advancing the same purpose.

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.
2 Pe 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted."

The phrase underlined is the phrase used by God in the transfiguration. Peter seemed to understand the purpose of the transfiguration in the same context as Matthew.

~Steve

[sschlichter]

I am not concerned with any prophecies that come from Joel, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Revelation or anyone else. I am concerned with Jesus' prophecy and his alone. It is not valid to combine prophecies from many different sources, since that assumes that Jesus agreed with everything that his predecessors thought. This would be like saying that Plotinus must have agreed with what Plato said, or with what every Greek philosopher before him said.
Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.

really,

You think scholars would recommend not bothering understanding 1st century Judaism including their books in an effort to understand Jesus' prophecies??? Even with the goal of debunking, wouldn't that be a prudent place to start.

Perhaps many Christians became Christians because they found a harmony. Some also beleive God reveals himself and that revelation is progressive.

Since you are not interested in this, how would you know whether it is true. Perhaps Platonis agreed with Plato. Wouldn't you have to understand both of them to determine if they do not. Of course, if you presumed they do not, then you would not bother trying to understand either. This presumption is actually what would keep you from finding out if presumption is accurate.

~Steve

[arnoldo]

Unless I'm reading all of this all wrong.

Yes, you are :) The disciples were also expecting the Kingdom of Israel to be fully restored and even argued amongst themselves who would be sitting on the thrones however as it turned out Yeshua was executed and the disciples were scattered. According to christian theology, or mythology, the world will not end however the Kingdom of Israel will be fully established, as per the Abrahamic covenant, and will rule all of the nations during the millenium.

[arnoldo]

Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.


The first century writers of the New Testament thought it was absolutely valid to mix different passages from the OT since the reality of Yeshua transcended everything else. Perhaps Venard Eller in his book: War and Peace from Genesis to Revelations says it more eloquently.

.....They gave no thought to the difference between Isaih, Deutero-Isaiah, or the third part of Isaiah. In fact they gave little or not thought to the difference between one prophetic book and another. A not at all uncommon occurrence in the New Testament is to find an author saying, "As it is written in the prophets," and giving a quotation that is constructed out of lines taken from a number of different prophets."

[Decypher]

yes, same topic is all they share....

Just as "the son of man will come in all his glory, but tell you what, some of you will see that glory firsthand."

The emphatic insertion, is not a change in topic, it is an attention getter. The topic (glorification of christ) stayed the same but those chosen were going to get a preview before they died (and I expect they needed it since they were going to die in similar manner).

2 Pet 1:16-17 is in accord with this interpretation. Peter, himself referred to the same event as advancing the same purpose.

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.
2 Pe 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted."

The phrase underlined is the phrase used by God in the transfiguration. Peter seemed to understand the purpose of the transfiguration in the same context as Matthew.

~Steve

As I said:

"Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material."

Now why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

Also, Matthew 16:27-28 is not really talking about the "glorification of Jesus". Matthew 16:27 does say, "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father...", but that doesn't mean the verses are focused on "glorification". And Matthew 16:28 doesn't say anything about "glory" or "glorification".

Matthew 16:28 is talking about the "kingdom of God". In the descriptions of the Transfiguration, it never says anything about the kingdom of God. I know some Christians will say that they witnessed a "preview" of the kingdom. But it doesn't say that in the Bible. It doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Such interpretations are highly speculative.

[sugarhitman]

I am not concerned with any prophecies that come from Joel, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Revelation or anyone else. I am concerned with Jesus' prophecy and his alone. It is not valid to combine prophecies from many different sources, since that assumes that Jesus agreed with everything that his predecessors thought. This would be like saying that Plotinus must have agreed with what Plato said, or with what every Greek philosopher before him said.
Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.

Then you will never understand, for all the Prophets are in agreement concerning the Messiah and the nation of Israel.....if you can find one contradiction concerning these two things then the prohets do not agree. But ill let you in on something....you wont.

[sschlichter]

yes, same topic is all they share....

Just as "the son of man will come in all his glory, but tell you what, some of you will see that glory firsthand."

The emphatic insertion, is not a change in topic, it is an attention getter. The topic (glorification of christ) stayed the same but those chosen were going to get a preview before they died (and I expect they needed it since they were going to die in similar manner).

2 Pet 1:16-17 is in accord with this interpretation. Peter, himself referred to the same event as advancing the same purpose.

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.
2 Pe 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted."

The phrase underlined is the phrase used by God in the transfiguration. Peter seemed to understand the purpose of the transfiguration in the same context as Matthew.

~Steve

As I said:

"Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material."

Now why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

Also, Matthew 16:27-28 is not really talking about the "glorification of Jesus". Matthew 16:27 does say, "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father...", but that doesn't mean the verses are focused on "glorification". And Matthew 16:28 doesn't say anything about "glory" or "glorification".

Matthew 16:28 is talking about the "kingdom of God". In the descriptions of the Transfiguration, it never says anything about the kingdom of God. I know some Christians will say that they witnessed a "preview" of the kingdom. But it doesn't say that in the Bible. It doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Such interpretations are highly speculative.

Zoom out a little in Matt 16, Mark 8, Luke 8. It is not about Jerusalem at all. he is talking about his death and resurrection and the cost of following him. The cost being worth it because the Son of Man will be exalted and here is a peek for those chosen. All 3 synoptics go right from this phrase to the transfiguration. The authors all launch into the transfiguration directly from this phrase.

~Steve

[Decypher]

Zoom out a little in Matt 16, Mark 8, Luke 8. It is not about Jerusalem at all. he is talking about his death and resurrection and the cost of following him.


Yes.

And I will point out that this material (one verse of it) is also mixed up with Olivet Discourse material in Luke 17.


The cost being worth it because the Son of Man will be exalted


Where does it say that?

and here is a peek for those chosen.

Where does it say that?


All 3 synoptics go right from this phrase to the transfiguration.


What phrase?

The Transfiguration comes after "There be some standing here...", but that doesn't prove much.

[Decypher]

Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material.

Why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

[Joan of Bark]

"Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand"---Jesus Christ....Indeed it is.




P.S. Jesus did not say "before this generation has passed away" He siad "This generation shall not pass until till all these things are fulfilled." The generation in which the signs appear in is the generation that will not pass away.....the generation which goes through the tribulation. :)

Then the apostle Paul and the disciples were all idiots for not noticing what Jesus really meant, huh?

Read A History of the End of the World sugarhitman and you will learn that you are just another in the long line of deluded Christians who think that the end of the world is near. Every generation since Jesus has had nutjobs making this claim ... and every one of them was wrong.

If I thought I could trust you (and had more disposable income), I would make you a simple wager: I will pay you $1000 every year until, oh ... say, 2020 (or whatever year you believe will be the upper limit for the end of the world). When that year arrives, you will pay me ten times that amount. You would obviously accept this offer, since what have you got to lose? The world will end and you won't have to pay up!

[jules?]

I know it probably flamming, and naughty but... believing that it will all kick off in the near future based on some half baked ideas from 2000 years ago is mental illness. It is so so clear in an historical context.

The exilled Jews wrote of a return, perhaps they looked forward for it to be a more equal society, perhaps they really thought they had the ear of God. they would return and would be great again.

they did return only to spend a few decades with self rule but conquest brought oppresion that brought hope that their day would come

The day, the end time, judgement for 'gods' people, and they believed this with such conviction that they went to war with the greatest military machine of the day and almost won.

The Temple was destroyed, again but even despite such a set back a new 'Star' rose up to wack the forces of kittem in 135 to fail again.

Jesus [I will avoid the historical issue] represents a JEWISH response to defeat, the messiah defeated death rather than the Roman Empire, not bad really so either the end of the world has happened

= Catholicism, the defeat of death, the conquest of the world by the 'star', a 1000 years reign of god on earth [the body of church being the ressurected body of christ] new Jerusalem being Rome etc.

Or B/ there was never [i.e not for a few more billion years] going to be an end time and the prophets were talking bollocks which was finally exposed in 135 with the complete destruction of the Jewish homeland.

either way all the mental talk of 'end time' and 'judgement day' is a complete waste of time at best but really does drive madman with planes into skyscapers at worst.

sorry for the out burst.

[sugarhitman]

"Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand"---Jesus Christ....Indeed it is.




P.S. Jesus did not say "before this generation has passed away" He siad "This generation shall not pass until till all these things are fulfilled." The generation in which the signs appear in is the generation that will not pass away.....the generation which goes through the tribulation. :)

Then the apostle Paul and the disciples were all idiots for not noticing what Jesus really meant, huh?

Read A History of the End of the World sugarhitman and you will learn that you are just another in the long line of deluded Christians who think that the end of the world is near. Every generation since Jesus has had nutjobs making this claim ... and every one of them was wrong.

If I thought I could trust you (and had more disposable income), I would make you a simple wager: I will pay you $1000 every year until, oh ... say, 2020 (or whatever year you believe will be the upper limit for the end of the world). When that year arrives, you will pay me ten times that amount. You would obviously accept this offer, since what have you got to lose? The world will end and you won't have to pay up!



"When they therefore were come together, they asked Him (Jesus), saying, LORD WILL YOU AT THIS TIME RESTORE AGAIN THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL? AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW THE TIMES OR THE SEASONS, WHICH THE FATHER HAVE PUT IN HIS OWN POWER (I.E. ONLY GOD KNOWS)." Acts 1:6


"But of that day and hour NO MAN KNOWS, NO NOT THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN, BUT MY FATHER ONLY."


The diciples did not know when Jesus would return....and neither does anyone else. Jesus only said that when those signs appear then the time was near (hey that ryhmes :)).


Many have in their attempts to predict the arrival of Christ failed due to one reason.....disobeying what Jesus said....for no man knows the day nor hour.


But the Generation which witness the rise of Anti-Christ (as Paul clearly wrote) will be the generation who witness Jesus return. He is the ultimate sign of the end.



And um, men failures concerning Christ return does nothing to hurt the bible. Because the bible is against date setting. :)

[Sheshbazzar]

"The generation (Israel of Jesus's time) of Jesus's time as He hinted at would be destroyed as a nation. The generation who witness the signs (The restoration of Israel, The Anti-Christ, Armegeddon) will not pass away. A generation as I understand is a 120 years. Israel was restored in 1948, nations are trying to seize Israel's land, there is a dispute over Jerusalem, World Goverment is taking place, Europe (the nations who made up the Roman Empire) are unifying. We are that generation."
1948 + 120 years = 2068

edited to add.
This has been extensively discussed in previous "prophecy threads".
A refresher for preachers with a short memory.
www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

[sschlichter]

Zoom out a little in Matt 16, Mark 8, Luke 8. It is not about Jerusalem at all. he is talking about his death and resurrection and the cost of following him.


Yes.

And I will point out that this material (one verse of it) is also mixed up with Olivet Discourse material in Luke 17.



Where does it say that?



Where does it say that?


All 3 synoptics go right from this phrase to the transfiguration.


What phrase?

The Transfiguration comes after "There be some standing here...", but that doesn't prove much.

hmm, we do not seem to be getting anywhere.

try reading it all together. Mat 16:24-28

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
Matt 16:25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Matt 16:26 For what does it benefit a person if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life? Or what can a person give in exchange for his life?
Matt 16:27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.
Matt 16:28 I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

I highlighted the words that answer the where does it say that questions.

The phrase I am referring to is the last phrase that you say is referring to the Olivet Discourse. However(Matt 16:28), it is obviously referring to the transfiguration. The topic is the son of Man coming in his glory. I would agree that the Olivet discourse is part of the same topic and obviously (to Mark, Matthew, Luke, Peter, and myself) the transfiguration is the also part of the same topic. That is why it followed this phrase (referring to Matt 16:28) in all 3 gospels.

~Steve

[Decypher]

I highlighted the words that answer the where does it say that questions.


You may think so. I can't see anything like that in the text.


The phrase I am referring to is the last phrase that you say is referring to the Olivet Discourse. However(Matt 16:28), it is obviously referring to the transfiguration. The topic is the son of Man coming in his glory. I would agree that the Olivet discourse is part of the same topic and obviously (to Mark, Matthew, Luke, Peter, and myself) the transfiguration is the also part of the same topic. That is why it followed this phrase (referring to Matt 16:28) in all 3 gospels.

~Steve

That the Transfiguration comes next is not a proof of anything.

As I said:

"Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material.

Why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?"


Everything in those verses fits with the Olivet Discourse. You can go through them, and match it all up with the Olivet Discourse. But those verses do not really fit with the descriptions of the Transfiguration. For example, in the descriptions of the Transfiguration, it never mentions the kingdom. And it never says that they "See the son of man coming".

It's a fact that Matthew 16:27-28 has a greater correspondence with the Olivet Discourse material than with anything else.

I will quote from a preterist site which gets it correct:


The key elements are the same:

(1) The Son of Man coming in power and glory;
(2) Redemption (reward for the righteous);
(3) The Kingdom of God;
(4) The timing stated emphatically: “Truly I say to you…”;
(5) A first-century arrival: “this generation”;
(6) Christ accompanied by angels;
(7) The Judgment.

To suggest the coming in Matt. 16:26-28 refers to an entirely different event from the coming described in virtually identical terms in the Olivet Prophecy is grossly inconsistent. If we “let the Bible interpret the Bible,” then we should let the Olivet Prophecy tell us the meaning of Matt. 16:26-28. Result: Verse 28 refers to the Second Coming, not the Transfiguration. Those who insist on abandoning the natural meaning of the text are motivated only by the presupposition that Jesus could not possibly have returned in the first century, not by the details recorded in the Transfiguration accounts.

Of course, if one really strains, some relationship between the two passages can be found. For instance, some argue that Moses and Elijah will be in the Kingdom; therefore, the Transfiguration was a preview of the Kingdom. However, such feeble arguments are based only on a desperate desire to defend the futurist presupposition, not on sound hermeneutical principles.

http://www.preterism.info/



For reasons of religious dogma, you probably aren't going to be able to accept any of this however.

[sugarhitman]

More misconceptions I see.


1. Jesus says the generation which the signs appear in will be the generation which see His return. He had already told the diciples "no man, nor angels know the day or hour."
2. When the diciples in Acts 1:6 asked Jesus if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel He replied that it was not for them to know the time for this event.

3. "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death *TILL*they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom." Note the key word till UNTIL. The only people standing there were the diciples. The word until shows that they would die after witnessing this event. When Jesus actually comes no believer is to die but to live with Him for eternity. Contradiction? No. For some of the diciples did indeed see His return BUT IN VISIONS and died afterwards. The keys to understanding this is the word *until* and the fact that no believer dies after Christ's return.


Ive noticed a similier mistake of critics when accusing Jesus of lying when He said that He would not go up to Jerusalem (He told His brothers this) then afterwards went up....it seems they have missed the word *YET.* (MOST OF THE NEW VERSIONS OMIT THIS WORD MAKING JESUS OUT TO BE A LIAR.)



Conclusion: No man not even the diciples knew the actual date of Jesus return as their writings testify. And critics have no understanding of what Jesus meant.

Thanks.

[Joan of Bark]

Y'know, sugarhitman, if I'm ever in court defending my breaking of a contract, I'd want a Christian like you representing me. By the time you're done, the wording of the contract would be meaningless.


This is the NIV version:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Visions counts now? Or maybe Jesus meant they will see Him in their minds' eye ... or in their memories, or in some drawing someone made when he was preaching once. See! There are never any contradictions where Jesus is concerned.

[Solo]

The diciples did not know when Jesus would return....and neither does anyone else. Jesus only said that when those signs appear then the time was near (hey that ryhmes :)).


And then Jesus, I swear, from way on high,
cried to them:
"Dyslexics of the world, untie !" :)

Jiri

[sschlichter]

I highlighted the words that answer the where does it say that questions.


You may think so. I can't see anything like that in the text.



That the Transfiguration comes next is not a proof of anything.

As I said:

"Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material.

Why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?"


Everything in those verses fits with the Olivet Discourse. You can go through them, and match it all up with the Olivet Discourse. But those verses do not really fit with the descriptions of the Transfiguration. For example, in the descriptions of the Transfiguration, it never mentions the kingdom. And it never says that they "See the son of man coming".

It's a fact that Matthew 16:27-28 has a greater correspondence with the Olivet Discourse material than with anything else.

I will quote from a preterist site which gets it correct:


The key elements are the same:

(1) The Son of Man coming in power and glory;
(2) Redemption (reward for the righteous);
(3) The Kingdom of God;
(4) The timing stated emphatically: “Truly I say to you…”;
(5) A first-century arrival: “this generation”;
(6) Christ accompanied by angels;
(7) The Judgment.

To suggest the coming in Matt. 16:26-28 refers to an entirely different event from the coming described in virtually identical terms in the Olivet Prophecy is grossly inconsistent. If we “let the Bible interpret the Bible,” then we should let the Olivet Prophecy tell us the meaning of Matt. 16:26-28. Result: Verse 28 refers to the Second Coming, not the Transfiguration. Those who insist on abandoning the natural meaning of the text are motivated only by the presupposition that Jesus could not possibly have returned in the first century, not by the details recorded in the Transfiguration accounts.

Of course, if one really strains, some relationship between the two passages can be found. For instance, some argue that Moses and Elijah will be in the Kingdom; therefore, the Transfiguration was a preview of the Kingdom. However, such feeble arguments are based only on a desperate desire to defend the futurist presupposition, not on sound hermeneutical principles.

http://www.preterism.info/



For reasons of religious dogma, you probably aren't going to be able to accept any of this however.

Those are themes of the Olivet Discourse, the Transfiguration, and the entire gospel of Matt. As I said, same topic. I think you will find that most of the book of Matthew has these themes at it's core.

Why would the Olivet discourse have to be the pivot point of any references to the Kingdom? Christ does not say, in the Olivet Discourse that it represents everything he has to say about his Kingdom. It is certainly not intended to be the complete thought on the Kingdom of God. It is a facet of the same topic.

When Christ says some of you will see before you die and then takes them up to a hill and reveals his Kingdom to them, it is intentionally chronologically linked so the reader will see the immediate fulfillment in all 3 gospels.

There are hundreds of references to the Kingdom of God in the gospels. These are not to be interpreted thru an Olivet Discourse filter either.

~Steve

[sugarhitman]

Y'know, sugarhitman, if I'm ever in court defending my breaking of a contract, I'd want a Christian like you representing me. By the time you're done, the wording of the contract would be meaningless.


This is the NIV version:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Visions counts now? Or maybe Jesus meant they will see Him in their minds' eye ... or in their memories, or in some drawing someone made when he was preaching once. See! There are never any contradictions where Jesus is concerned.




Ahhh the corrupt NIV critics are fond of qouting from these modern corrupt texts.


But anyway the key words are SEE and UNTIL. Those who would SEE His return would die afterwards


"There are some standing here (the diciples were the only ones there) who will not taste death UNTIL they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom."
KJV

That word clearly shows that some of the diciples would see this event and die afterwards....which some of them did and died afterwards.


A vision is a revelation of something that is going to happen given in advance. In other words some of the disciples saw in ADVANCE the coming of Jesus in His kingdom just as He promised....as some of the Disciples testified witnessing this in their writings.



No believer is to die AFTER the coming of Jesus this is CONTRARY to the GOSPEL.


Also I'm beginning to see a pattern with our skeptic friends. Any time you confront thier error suscessfully....it thens becomes a "contradiction" rather then a "failure" oh how they love to worm.

[aa5874]

When Christ says some of you will see before you die and then takes them up to a hill and reveals his Kingdom to them, it is intentionally chronologically linked so the reader will see the immediate fulfillment in all 3 gospels.

~Steve

I find it extremely amusing that you will claim that the Transfiguration, a completely fictitious event, fulfilled prophecy or the words of the authors of the Gospels.

[sschlichter]

When Christ says some of you will see before you die and then takes them up to a hill and reveals his Kingdom to them, it is intentionally chronologically linked so the reader will see the immediate fulfillment in all 3 gospels.

~Steve

I find it extremely amusing that you will claim that the Transfiguration, a completely fictitious event, fulfilled prophecy or the words of the authors of the Gospels.

If I agreed that it was a completely fictitious event then I would agree with your statement.

[Trout]

Man there's nothing like a bunch of nuts sitting around pouring through obscure, cryptic (aka meaingless) scibblings from the grand old age of no running water and life expectancies of 35 to debate when a god who never existed is going to drop down from the other god/same god's sky condo to visit us all over again especially when other jeezes culters of the same ilk have been doing the same thing for literally thousands of years with zip for results.

Just FYI, life is short and there's no reward for doing this so spend your weekends more wisely.

[sschlichter]

Man there's nothing like a bunch of nuts sitting around pouring through obscure, cryptic (aka meaingless) scibblings from the grand old age of no running water and life expectancies of 35 to debate when a god who never existed is going to drop down from the other god/same god's sky condo to visit us all over again especially when other jeezes culters of the same ilk have been doing the same thing for literally thousands of years with zip for results.

Just FYI, life is short and there's no reward for doing this so spend your weekends more wisely.

I am glad you got that off your chest. It was very constructive.

the only thing that seems nuttier to me is to pour thru the same scribblings when you know they are not true.

[Trout]

I am glad you got that off your chest. It was very constructive.

Thanks. Oddly enough, I think it was the most constructive piece of advice so far in this thread. Feel free to ignore it though as you have now been subjected to the "real" True Word and can only be saved through your own actions.

Muuuhahahaha!

the only thing that seems nuttier to me is to pour thru the same scribblings when you know they are not true.

I'm not pouring through anything if you mean me. That would be like debating the merits of the obviously deep mataphorical truths of "three blind mice" as opposed to "little bo peep" and well, that really seems sort of pointless and silly.

[Sheshbazzar]

Y'know, sugarhitman, if I'm ever in court defending my breaking of a contract, I'd want a Christian like you representing me. By the time you're done, the wording of the contract would be meaningless.


This is the NIV version:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Visions counts now? Or maybe Jesus meant they will see Him in their minds' eye ... or in their memories, or in some drawing someone made when he was preaching once. See! There are never any contradictions where Jesus is concerned.

Christianity being what Christianity is, the evidence of all of history, and of their now present testimony, tells us that Christians have always had "visions" of their icon, some report seeing him revealed to them on burnt tortillas, or in the oil slicks on mud puddles, or through staring at the sun, or at cloud formations until their beleaguered eyes and minds interpret what they want to see, into being what they want to see, then attempting to convince others that the "vision" that they claim to have "seen" or to have "understood" has some basis in reality outside of those delusions and convictions that are fabricated within their own minds, and are being aided and abetted by other like minded practitioners within their cult.

[sschlichter]

I am glad you got that off your chest. It was very constructive.

Thanks. Oddly enough, I think it was the most constructive piece of advice so far in this thread. Feel free to ignore it though as you have now been subjected to the "real" True Word and can only be saved through your own actions.

Muuuhahahaha!

the only thing that seems nuttier to me is to pour thru the same scribblings when you know they are not true.

I'm not pouring through anything if you mean me. That would be like debating the merits of the obviously deep mataphorical truths of "three blind mice" as opposed to "little bo peep" and well, that really seems sort of pointless and silly.


yet, here you are in the biblical criticism and histiry forum. :)

[Trout]

yet, here you are in the biblical criticism and histiry forum. :)

True. I just can't help bringing the truth and the light to people sometimes I guess. Call me a missionary for reality perhaps? :D

[sschlichter]

yet, here you are in the biblical criticism and histiry forum. :)

True. I just can't help bringing the truth and the light to people sometimes I guess. Call me a missionary for reality perhaps? :D

ah! the apostle to the nuts.

[Amaleq13]

Man there's nothing like a bunch of nuts sitting around pouring through obscure, cryptic (aka meaingless) scibblings from the grand old age of no running water and life expectancies of 35 to debate when a god who never existed is going to drop down from the other god/same god's sky condo to visit us all over again especially when other jeezes culters of the same ilk have been doing the same thing for literally thousands of years with zip for results.

Just FYI, life is short and there's no reward for doing this so spend your weekends more wisely.

Sounds like you wandered into the wrong forum, amigo. Given this viewpoint, one wonders why you bother to read the threads here, let alone post. If you have nothing of substance or relevance, please avoid cluttering up the threads for those who do.

Thanks in advance,


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

[Trout]

ah! the apostle to the nuts.

Better parties though I guarantee it.

But I'll scamper off to clutter elsewhere

[Decypher]

Those are themes of the Olivet Discourse, the Transfiguration, and the entire gospel of Matt. As I said, same topic. I think you will find that most of the book of Matthew has these themes at it's core.

Why would the Olivet discourse have to be the pivot point of any references to the Kingdom?


Everything in Matthew 16:27 connects with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 connects with the Olivet Discourse. Not just the reference to the kingdom of God.


When Christ says some of you will see before you die and then takes them up to a hill and reveals his Kingdom to them, it is intentionally chronologically linked so the reader will see the immediate fulfillment in all 3 gospels.


The Transfiguration stories don't mention the kingdom.

And you are just making the assertion that "it is intentionally chronologically linked". You haven't given any argument for that.


There are hundreds of references to the Kingdom of God in the gospels. These are not to be interpreted thru an Olivet Discourse filter either.



As I said, everything in Matthew 16:27-28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Because everything fits, it is very likely to be talking about the same event.

[Decypher]

As I said, everything in Matthew 16:27-28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Because everything fits, it is very likely to be talking about the same event.

And please note: you will not find anything else in the NT that it fits with, in such a strong way.

[sschlichter]

As I said, everything in Matthew 16:27-28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Because everything fits, it is very likely to be talking about the same event.

And please note: you will not find anything else in the NT that it fits with, in such a strong way.

well, the transfiguration fits in a strong way, but I expect we are just going to disagree unless you have another point.

enjoyed the discussion.

~Steve

[apatura_iris]

Mt 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is referring to the Aharit Ha-Yamin ("End of Times") which in Jewish eschatology will usher in the Olam Haba ("World to Come" i.e. the messianic age), a paradisaical age when Torah statutes will no longer be in effect (i.e. "not one jot or tittle" (Mt 5:18) of the Torah statues will be changed until then-- jot/ tittle meaning letter strokes in the Torah.)

For me the inescapable conclusion is that Jesus was convinced that the end was coming before everyone then alive had died.
Unless I'm reading all of this all wrong. Perhaps someone can comment, especially those who know some Greek, in case the exact wording of what Jesus was saying is important.

Jesus was not convinced that the End of Days was at hand, but I believe he thought he could possibly force it into occurrence. He would not be the last Jewish "mystic" to try to force the Messianic age-- there are a few others who attempted like Josef de la Reina and Sabbatai Zvi.

The reason I say Jesus was not convinced is because he expressed doubt and even rage, at points, that Israel was not ready for the messiah. If you remember when he curses the fig tree (a long standing Jewish metaphor for Israel), he curses it because it was not "ripe;" i.e., not "ripe" for the messianic age. Notice the Mt 24 passage you cite is preceded by a parable of a fig tree-- "When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh--" summer being the messianic age.

It was also understood at the time that if the nation was deserving, the messiah would appear "riding the clouds" (Dan 7:13) but if it is not worthy the messiah would appear riding a donkey (Zech 9:9-- behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.)

From Sanhedrin 98a:

R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst it is written, lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.

While Jesus says that he will appear riding the clouds of heaven, he in fact ends up entering Jerusalem upon a donkey. So he seems to have understood that the messianic age likely would not occur, despite his efforts.

I have no idea how a Christian would interpret that or try to justify it, but one thing is clear: we are not currently living in a messianic age by any definition. In fact one could argue that Jesus' mission eventually brought untold suffering to Jews, while one would expect Jews to benefit from their messiah, obviously.

[apatura_iris]

Some Christians think the "fig tree" is a reference to Israel. But that looks like rubbish as you say. The "fig tree" was simply used as an analogy for witnessing the events described in the chapter. And also, the version of Luke says: "Behold the fig tree, and all the trees".

The fig tree is definitely a metaphor for Israel and the Torah in Jewish tradition. I'm not sure what the fig tree is thought to signify in mainstream Christianity.

from (Talmud) Eiruvin 54a/b (brackets added):

R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan expounded: With reference to the Scriptural text [Pr 27:18]: Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof, why were the words of the Torah compared to the ‘fig tree’? As with the fig tree the more one searches it the more figs one finds in it so it is with the words of the Torah; the more one studies them the more relish he finds in them.

[judge]

I have no idea how a Christian would interpret that or try to justify it, but one thing is clear: we are not currently living in a messianic age by any definition. In fact one could argue that Jesus' mission eventually brought untold suffering to Jews, while one would expect Jews to benefit from their messiah, obviously.

Well I expect christians would look for both parts of the Hebrew Bible to be fulfilled in one person, rather than taking the particular apologetic approach of the rabbi you mention.

But if the NT is true then there really are no more jews any more. As Paul said "there is neither jew nor greek".
There are just people who have been indoctrinated to believe they are jews, that there is some divine purpose to them being jews.
But we are all just people, who get indoctrinated to think we are different or separate.

Quite a radical thing really for Paul (a pharisee) to come and preach .."there is neither jew nor gentile".

[sschlichter]

I have no idea how a Christian would interpret that or try to justify it, but one thing is clear: we are not currently living in a messianic age by any definition. In fact one could argue that Jesus' mission eventually brought untold suffering to Jews, while one would expect Jews to benefit from their messiah, obviously.

Well I expect christians would look for both parts of the Hebrew Bible to be fulfilled in one person, rather than taking the particular apologetic approach of the rabbi you mention.

But if the NT is true then there really are no more jews any more. As Paul said "there is neither jew nor greek".
There are just people who have been indoctrinated to believe they are jews, that there is some divine purpose to them being jews.
But we are all just people, who get indoctrinated to think we are different or separate.

Quite a radical thing really for Paul (a pharisee) to come and preach .."there is neither jew nor gentile".

I beleive you are proof-texting a little. He also said in the same passage there is neither male nor female, slave nor free. He was referring to equality of everyone in the Body of Christ. He was not saying that there is no such thing as Jews.

~Steve

[judge]

I beleive you are proof-texting a little. He also said in the same passage there is neither male nor female, slave nor free. He was referring to equality of everyone in the Body of Christ. He was not saying that there is no such thing as Jews.

~Steve

Maybe. I tend to take a very universalist approach to the NT.

But if the NT be true then there are other reasons. The obvious one being that if the old covenant has passed away then there can be no group defined by that covenant. They can't exist in the terms outlined in the Hebrew bible itself.
Abraham and his 318 fighting men , we are told, became covenant people by being circumcised not by being a particular ethnicity.

[apatura_iris]

Well I expect christians would look for both parts of the Hebrew Bible to be fulfilled in one person, rather than taking the particular apologetic approach of the rabbi you mention.

It is not just the opinion of a rabbi, it is from the Talmud, so it's considered "rabbinic tradition" (the tradition from which Jesus arose-- the so-called rabbinic "golden age" spanning roughly 100 BCE to 200 CE) authoritative within Judaism at least and not necessarily just an opinion (to a believer, that is).

But if the NT is true then there really are no more jews any more. As Paul said "there is neither jew nor greek".
There are just people who have been indoctrinated to believe they are jews, that there is some divine purpose to them being jews.
But we are all just people, who get indoctrinated to think we are different or separate.

Quite a radical thing really for Paul (a pharisee) to come and preach .."there is neither jew nor gentile".

Then we have to deal with the can of worms of the glaring contradictions between Paul and Jesus. Only Paul repudiated the Torah and its statutes, not Jesus.

[sschlichter]

I beleive you are proof-texting a little. He also said in the same passage there is neither male nor female, slave nor free. He was referring to equality of everyone in the Body of Christ. He was not saying that there is no such thing as Jews.

~Steve

Maybe. I tend to take a very universalist approach to the NT.

But if the NT be true then there are other reasons. The obvious one being that if the old covenant has passed away then there can be no group defined by that covenant. They can't exist in the terms outlined in the Hebrew bible itself.
Abraham and his 318 fighting men , we are told, became covenant people by being circumcised not by being a particular ethnicity.
I agree that ethnicity was certainly not the focus. It is interesting that the author of Genesis makes sure we know there are prostitutes and Moabites in the line. (not a common practice). I think ethnicity was simply a way to communicate. Ie. the seed of Abraham was an ethnic line, but the purpose was to bless all nations (Gen 12:1-6), not just be blessed as a people.

but actually, not by being circumcised but by beleiving God (Gen 15:6) in the promise of the covenant thru a son. This was before circumcision, which as only a sign of the covenant. The covenant was first outlined in Gen 12, which included God blessing all nations thru Arbraham.

Paul's argument might have sounded similar to yours.

[Decypher]

And please note: you will not find anything else in the NT that it fits with, in such a strong way.

well, the transfiguration fits in a strong way, but I expect we are just going to disagree unless you have another point.

enjoyed the discussion.

~Steve

Would you like to show how it fits with the Transfiguration?

If so, go through the parts of Matthew 16:27-28 (and parallel verses) and match up what you can with the Transfiguration accounts.

I will then try to do the same, but comparing Matthew 16:27-28 with the Olivet Discourse.

[sschlichter]

well, the transfiguration fits in a strong way, but I expect we are just going to disagree unless you have another point.

enjoyed the discussion.

~Steve

Would you like to show how it fits with the Transfiguration?

If so, go through the parts of Matthew 16:27-28 (and parallel verses) and match up what you can with the Transfiguration accounts.

I will then try to do the same, but comparing Matthew 16:27-28 with the Olivet Discourse.

why would you separate out 27 and 28 from rest of the passage. Is there any reason to think that 26,25,24,23,22 are not part of the same thought as 27. If we are going to be selective then why not just do verse 28 alone.

~Steve

[Decypher]

More misconceptions I see.


1. Jesus says the generation which the signs appear in will be the generation which see His return. He had already told the diciples "no man, nor angels know the day or hour."
2. When the diciples in Acts 1:6 asked Jesus if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel He replied that it was not for them to know the time for this event.

3. "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death *TILL*they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom." Note the key word till UNTIL. The only people standing there were the diciples. The word until shows that they would die after witnessing this event. When Jesus actually comes no believer is to die but to live with Him for eternity. Contradiction? No. For some of the diciples did indeed see His return BUT IN VISIONS and died afterwards. The keys to understanding this is the word *until* and the fact that no believer dies after Christ's return.


Ive noticed a similier mistake of critics when accusing Jesus of lying when He said that He would not go up to Jerusalem (He told His brothers this) then afterwards went up....it seems they have missed the word *YET.* (MOST OF THE NEW VERSIONS OMIT THIS WORD MAKING JESUS OUT TO BE A LIAR.)



Conclusion: No man not even the diciples knew the actual date of Jesus return as their writings testify. And critics have no understanding of what Jesus meant.

Thanks.

Lets look at one thing you said:

"The only people standing there were the diciples"

The version of Mark has:


Mark 8

[34] And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[35] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
[36] For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
[37] Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[38] Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Mark 9

[1] And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.


So Jesus wasn't only with the disciples. Not in the version of Mark at least.

You want to talk about "misconceptions", but it seems your the one guilty of them.

[Decypher]

why would you separate out 27 and 28 from rest of the passage. Is there any reason to think that 26,25,24,23,22 are not part of the same thought as 27. If we are going to be selective then why not just do verse 28 alone.




If you look at the verses that are immediately before:


Matthew 16:24-26

[24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?


These verses may have a connection to 27 and 28, but there is a distinction between them. Matthew 16:24-26 is giving religious instruction. It isn't talking about an event. In Matthew 16:27-28 it is talking about an event where the "son of man" will come.

[sschlichter]

why would you separate out 27 and 28 from rest of the passage. Is there any reason to think that 26,25,24,23,22 are not part of the same thought as 27. If we are going to be selective then why not just do verse 28 alone.




If you look at the verses that are immediately before:


Matthew 16:24-26

[24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?


These verses may have a connection to 27 and 28, but there is a distinction between them. Matthew 16:24-26 is giving religious instruction. It isn't talking about an event. In Matthew 16:27-28 it is talking about an event where the "son of man" will come.

I think your desire to link this too forcibly with the Olivet Discourse is making you think that. The religious instruction is completely on-topic. I.e. the cost of kingdom living. ie picking up your cross and following. Both the Olivet Discourse, the transfiguration, and this passage are about the Kingdom. To separate out the last 2 verses because they fit your argument makes no sense. Again, why not just separate out the last one because it fits the transfiguration better.

Follow me, because I am going to enter into my Kingdom, but the cost is high. However, rest assured I will enter into my Kingdom. Tell you what, let me show you 3 what I mean...(end scene) (cue Elijah) next scene. transfiguration.

~steve

[Decypher]

The religious instruction is completely on-topic. I.e. the cost of kingdom living. ie picking up your cross and following.


I didn't deny there could be a connection between verses 24/25/26 with verses 27/28, but there is also a distinction as I said. Verses 27/28 are talking about an event where the "Son of man" comes. The previous verses aren't talking about that, even if there is a subject connection.


Both the Olivet Discourse, the transfiguration, and this passage are about the Kingdom. To separate out the last 2 verses because they fit your argument makes no sense.


I'm separating the last two verses, because they are both talking about an event where the "Son of man" comes.


Again, why not just separate out the last one because it fits the transfiguration better.


Actually, even if you take verse 28 by itself, it still fits with the Olivet Discourse better. But as verse 27 also fits with the Olivet Discourse, I see them as connected and talking about the same event. That is why I consider the two verses together.

[Decypher]

Follow me, because I am going to enter into my Kingdom, but the cost is high. However, rest assured I will enter into my Kingdom. Tell you what, let me show you 3 what I mean...(end scene) (cue Elijah) next scene. transfiguration.




Lets do a comparison using only Matthew 16:28 and its parallel verse Mark 9:1, and compare it with the Olivet Discourse material, (Matthew 24/25, Mark 13, Luke 21). I am going to look at the different elements of the verse (and its parallel) and show that they line up very well with the Olivet Discourse.

(1) People will "see the Son of man coming".


Matthew 16:28

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.



Matthew 24:30

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.



(2) Timing is stated emphatically (as the preterism article said). "Verily I say unto you..."


Matthew 16:28

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.



Matthew 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.



(3) An equivalent kind of prediction is given about the time of the event. (I know the meaning of Matthew 24:34 "this generation" is controverisal. I am using a plausible interpretation of it.)


Matthew 16:28

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.



Matthew 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (KJV)

Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died. (GNT)


(4) The Kingdom of God will come.


Mark 9:1

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.



Luke 21:31

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.


(5) The Kingdom will come with power


Mark 9:1

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.



Mark 13:26

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.



I don't think I missed anything. I think everything in Matthew 16:28 connects with the Olivet Discourse.

I would be interested to see you match up those things with the Transfiguration accounts. And I don't mean you speculating and saying that you think the kingdom came at the Transfiguration. I would like to see verses which clearly say that the kingdom came, that it came with power etc.

And lets also look at Matthew 16:27.


Matthew 16:27

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works




Matthew 25:31-41

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...

[d-ray]

Last night I was re-reading the Apocalypse of Peter from Ehrman's "Lost Scriptures". This is the "proto-orthodox" Apocalypse of Peter, not to be confused with the Coptic/Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (could Peter never make up his mind?). This apocalypse gives a version of the Olivet Discourse,and I noted that the statement, "In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will happen" (or however it's worded in your translation) was absent.
Perhaps a later writer was a bit bothered by the fact that this prophecy hadn't been fulfilled? As to the date of this writing, the best indication I found was 2nd century, but nothing more precise than that. The text itself gives a clue: referring to the Jews, "And when they perceive the wickedness of their deeds, they shall turn away and deny him whom our fathers praised, the first Christ whom they crucified and therein sinned a great sin." (Trans. J.K. Elliott) Make of this what you can, especially since it's Jesus speaking here.

[sschlichter]

I would be interested to see you match up those things with the Transfiguration accounts.


(1) People will "see the Son of man coming".

erkomenon = accompany, appear, come. I am not arguing against the word “coming” but notice that the greek word can have the flavor of the word appear as well. coming works as well but I wanted to point that out. I think you will see that the Kingdom is referred to in the New Testament as already come as well. the only use of the word is not future physical Kingdom.

This is where Jesus appeared "bright shining" to 'those who will not see death'. This was a preview of his coming Kingdom

Matt 17:2
Mark 9:2
Luke 9:29

(2) Timing is stated emphatically (as the preterism article said). "Verily I say unto you..."

Has nothing to do with the content and refers emphatically to whatever is the case in #1. Emphatics are used all through the NT and all through English. This I know to be true, the use of an emphatic occurs outside of the context of the Olivet Discourse.

(3) An equivalent kind of prediction is given about the time of the event.

“Equivalent kind of” is an oxymoron. It is a similar kind of prediction which is fulfilled for those individuals in question.

(4) The Kingdom of God will come.

Matt 17:3. Then Moses and Elijah also appeared before them, talking with him. The appearance of the ‘sum of the prophets’ was meant to indicate fulfillment of the promised Kingdom.

(5) The Kingdom will come with power

“like the sun” Matt 17:3
“bright cloud overshadowed them” Matt 17:5
“voice from the cloud” Matt 17:5
Power caused disciples to be ”overwhelmed with fear” Matt 17:6

And lets also look at Matthew 16:27. Let’s also do the same for the verse that comes right after Matt 16:28.

I would like to know what you consider the authors intention is in Matt 17 , if not an a preview of the kingdom and fulfillment of the immediately preceding statement in all 3 gospels.

~Steve

[Decypher]

I would be interested to see you match up those things with the Transfiguration accounts.


(1) People will "see the Son of man coming".

erkomenon = accompany, appear, come. I am not arguing against the word “coming” but notice that the greek word can have the flavor of the word appear as well. coming works as well but I wanted to point that out. I think you will see that the Kingdom is referred to in the New Testament as already come as well. the only use of the word is not future physical Kingdom.


Could you produce a verse, from the Transfiguration accounts, which says they "see the Son of man coming"?

I agree that "kingdom" may be used in more than one way in the NT. How it is used in Matthew 16:28, we can look at the context, and see that it fits with the Olivet Discourse.


This is where Jesus appeared "bright shining" to 'those who will not see death'. This was a preview of his coming Kingdom

Matt 17:2
Mark 9:2
Luke 9:29


Lets look at them:

Matthew 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Luke 9:29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

This doesn't mention the kingdom, or a "preview" of the kingdom. As I said, I'm not interested in your own speculations about what the verses involve. I am only interested in what the Bible clearly says itself. I am asking for verses which clearly say that the kingdom came etc.


(2) Timing is stated emphatically (as the preterism article said). "Verily I say unto you..."

Has nothing to do with the content and refers emphatically to whatever is the case in #1. Emphatics are used all through the NT and all through English. This I know to be true, the use of an emphatic occurs outside of the context of the Olivet Discourse.


Of course you can find "Verily I say unto you" used all through the NT. But in the case of Matthew 16:28, and the Olivet Discourse, the timing is stated emphatically, and an equivalent kind of prediction is given about the time of the event. That is a significant correspondence between them.


(3) An equivalent kind of prediction is given about the time of the event.

“Equivalent kind of” is an oxymoron. It is a similar kind of prediction which is fulfilled for those individuals in question.


How is it an oxymoron?


(4) The Kingdom of God will come.

Matt 17:3. Then Moses and Elijah also appeared before them, talking with him. The appearance of the ‘sum of the prophets’ was meant to indicate fulfillment of the promised Kingdom.


Again, I'm not interested in your own speculation. I am after a verse which uses the words "kingdom of God", "we witnessed the kingdom of God come", something like that.

When I did the comparison with the Olivet Discourse, I produced a verse which clearly mentions the kingdom of God. I'm asking you if you can do the same.


(5) The Kingdom will come with power

“like the sun” Matt 17:3
“bright cloud overshadowed them” Matt 17:5
“voice from the cloud” Matt 17:5
Power caused disciples to be ”overwhelmed with fear” Matt 17:6


No clear mention of "coming with power" in any of this. The last verse you mentioned:

Matthew 17

[5] While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
[6] And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

The disciples were scared by a talking cloud. It doesn't mention "power" in the text.


I would like to know what you consider the authors intention is in Matt 17 , if not an a preview of the kingdom and fulfillment of the immediately preceding statement in all 3 gospels.


From the plain meaning, I would say that it's intended as a divine endorsement of Jesus. I would also suspect that putting him with Moses is a way of trying to give him legitimacy.

[sschlichter]

From the plain meaning, I would say that it's intended as a divine endorsement of Jesus. I would also suspect that putting him with Moses is a way of trying to give him legitimacy.

Divine endorsement of what? What did God's endorsement mean to a 1st century Jew? How did Moses and Elijah give him legitimacy? Why was this passage following the prediction?

Steve Schlichter

[Decypher]

Divine endorsement of what?


Of Jesus. Of Jesus being a true prophet or whatever.


What did God's endorsement mean to a 1st century Jew?


The same as it would mean today? If God endorses someone, then that person is a true prophet of God.


How did Moses and Elijah give him legitimacy?


Putting him with Moses could be a way of trying to give him legitimacy, because of course Moses had legitimacy in that tradition. Moses was a true prophet of God.


Why was this passage following the prediction?


Well if the prediction isn't talking about the Transfiguration, then it just happens to be the case that the Transfiguration comes next. That it comes next, isn't much of an argument from context that Matthew 16:28 has to be talking about it.

[sschlichter]

Of Jesus. Of Jesus being a true prophet or whatever.

Well if the prediction isn't talking about the Transfiguration, then it just happens to be the case that the Transfiguration comes next. That it comes next, isn't much of an argument from context that Matthew 16:28 has to be talking about it.

It is strange to me that you do not feel immediate textual context is relevant. I cannot imagine you read any other book in this fashion. It is not only an argument, but it is how you get the argument of the author.

It is also strange to me that your "or whatever" description is a lack of regard for cultural context as well. I am not sure removing the authors intentions and the condition of the audience is a good way to get any meaning out of a text. There is quite an extensive list of differences between a prophet and the "promised one" of the OT. The anointed one is a King and a King usually has a Kingdom. A Kingdom, as you know is also the subject of the verses prior to the transfiguration. I think you will find the "scary cloud" and other images in the story convey parallels to some of the other concepts you might have thought are peculiar to the Olivet Discourse.

No need to develop a new eschatology on the basis of impatience, your preterist friends just need to read the text.

~Steve

[Decypher]

It is strange to me that you do not feel immediate textual context is relevant. I cannot imagine you read any other book in this fashion. It is not only an argument, but it is how you get the argument of the author.


The immediate context is often important in understanding the meaning of something. But in the case we are talking about, you do not have much of an argument from context. The fact that something comes next in the story, it does not follow that the previous verse has to be talking about it.

What I am saying here, it would apply to the Bible and also any other book. I am not reading the Bible differently to how I would read other books.


It is also strange to me that your "or whatever" description is a lack of regard for cultural context as well. I am not sure removing the authors intentions and the condition of the audience is a good way to get any meaning out of a text. There is quite an extensive list of differences between a prophet and the "promised one" of the OT. The anointed one is a King and a King usually has a Kingdom. A Kingdom, as you know is also the subject of the verses prior to the transfiguration. I think you will find the "scary cloud" and other images in the story convey parallels to some of the other concepts you might have thought are peculiar to the Olivet Discourse.

No need to develop a new eschatology on the basis of impatience, your preterist friends just need to read the text.



I did a comparison with the Olivet Discourse, and I was able to show a strong correspondence between them.

You did a comparison with the Transfiguration, and you completely failed to show a correspondence. All you could give is your own speculations that such and such means something about the kingdom, such and such means that it had "come with power". But you can't produce verses which clearly say so.

If a Christian can't accept preterism, or can't accept that Jesus is a false prophet, then they have to make up something for those verses. They have to pretend that the verses (or 28 at least) are talking about the Transfiguration, or Pentecost etc.

But the verses match up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse, so it is obvious enough what they are talking about.

[sschlichter]

It is strange to me that you do not feel immediate textual context is relevant. I cannot imagine you read any other book in this fashion. It is not only an argument, but it is how you get the argument of the author.


The immediate context is often important in understanding the meaning of something. But in the case we are talking about, you do not have much of an argument from context. The fact that something comes next in the story, it does not follow that the previous verse has to be talking about it.

What I am saying here, it would apply to the Bible and also any other book. I am not reading the Bible differently to how I would read other books.


It is also strange to me that your "or whatever" description is a lack of regard for cultural context as well. I am not sure removing the authors intentions and the condition of the audience is a good way to get any meaning out of a text. There is quite an extensive list of differences between a prophet and the "promised one" of the OT. The anointed one is