|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 6, 2010 0:00:22 GMT -5
First, let's get rid of the falacy of the "second coming of Christ." That term is found nowhere in scripture, at least not in reputable translations. It is not that I don't believe in the coming of Christ, I do. It's a matter of timing. I believe the coming of Christ had already occurred. The Bible is an historical book. It was not written to or about anyone living today. It was written specifically to the people of that time and for their understanding and edification. So, how would they have understood it. They probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. And they were right. II Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." Peter was dealing with those who have been upsetting early Christendom by questioning the Lord's promise to return. People fully expected His return in their lifetime. Now, why would the people of that time expect the return or coming of Christ in their lifetime? Because it was part of the Apostolic message. James 5:7&8 states, "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord IS AT HAND." The imminent return of Christ was taught by the apostles. My first question for you is this, "Did the apostles lie?" Now, let's look at some of the words of Jesus. Matthew 16:27&28 states, "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who SHALL NOT TASTE death till they see the Son of Man COMING in His Kingdom." This indicates that the coming of Christ in His kingdom would be in the lifetime of SOME of the disciples. Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Here's what we have so far; 1) The apostles taught the immenent return of Christ in their lifetime. 2) Jesus indicated that His coming would be in the lifetime of some of His disciples. But, now we come to Matthew 24. Jesus had just been in the temple in Jerusalem condemning the scribes and the Pharisees, for all their wickedness down through the years. And at the end of this diatribe, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." - 23:36. Now, when Jesus said, "this generation," do you suppose he was referring to some far off distant generation? He just got finished condemning them for all their wickedness, and then He says, their punishment wouldn't occur till some far off generation. Yeah right. 23:37 established that they were in fact in Jerusalem. And that is where Matthew 24 begins. Matthew 24 starts with Jesus and the disciples leaving the temple. Jesus showed them the temple, and told them it would be destroyed. They asked this question, "when will these things be ? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" Jesus then told them of unprecedented great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Not, America. And, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS, the sun would be darkened, etc. Then you will see the sign of the Son of Man... then they will see the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM, not thousands of years later, but immediately after the great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Well, that great tribulation did occur just as Jesus foretold, culminating in the desecration and destruction of the temple in 70 AD. There you have it, the case for the coming of Christ in 70 AD. However, there is much more in Scripture that confirms what is written here. This little article simply is the beginning. However, I do believe this is enough to establish the fact that the coming of Christ did indeed take place in 70AD. Now it's your turn.  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 7, 2010 6:59:27 GMT -5
Now, let's look at some of the words of Jesus. Matthew 16:27&28 states, "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who SHALL NOT TASTE death till they see the Son of Man COMING in His Kingdom." This indicates that the coming of Christ in His kingdom would be in the lifetime of SOME of the disciples. Oh come one. You don't know that. That is it. Allyn, please delete my profile. What disciples are you talking about here? Think this time before reacting... |
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Mar 7, 2010 15:50:24 GMT -5
Most people don't realize that there were more than just the 12 with Him at the transfiguration. I have often wondered why the other accounts don't include this nugget that Mark does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 11, 2010 21:17:37 GMT -5
First, let's get rid of the falacy of the "second coming of Christ." That term is found nowhere in scripture, at least not in reputable translations. It is not that I don't believe in the coming of Christ, I do. It's a matter of timing. I believe the coming of Christ had already occurred. The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. Does that prove the doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical? Hardly! Jesus has come many times, far more than just two times. In fact, Jesus comes in judgment every time church discipline is correctly practiced (Matt. 18:15-20, especially v. 20). So in what sense is it that Jesus will only come exactly two times? From Heb. 9:27-28 & Acts 1:11, Jesus will only come two times in His flesh and bone body. The first time began at His conception, and ended with His resurrection appearances back in the first century. The Second Coming will be when "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven," when He returns in His physical body, and raises/transforms everyone's physical bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 11, 2010 22:30:47 GMT -5
So in what sense is it that Jesus will only come exactly two times? From Heb. 9:27-28 & Acts 1:11, Jesus will only come two times in His flesh and bone body. The first time began at His conception, and ended with His resurrection appearances back in the first century. The Second Coming will be when "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven," when He returns in His physical body, and raises/transforms everyone's physical bodies. You know Theophilus, I hear this so many times but never is Scripture associated with such claims. Would you mind giving us your exact and precise Scriptural support for your physical, bodily return of the Lord Jesus? Anything you said regarding this is just your opinion since it did not come supported with Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 11, 2010 23:22:48 GMT -5
mellontes, reread your last post. Pay careful attention to the part where you quote me.
How can you say we "Second Coming folks" never reference Scripture?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 11, 2010 23:51:07 GMT -5
mellontes, reread your last post. Pay careful attention to the part where you quote me. How can you say we "Second Coming folks" never reference Scripture? I reread my post and took special care in reading your quote as you requested. Can you please direct me to the spot where it mentions a " PHYSICAL, BODILY" coming? Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 12, 2010 17:37:38 GMT -5
Ah, now I see. I was discussing matters of substance, whereas you want to argue over semantics.
I'll stick to more substantive matters, such as Acts 17 and John 11 that refute full-preterism, and leave the semantic stuff to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 12, 2010 18:42:19 GMT -5
Theo,
Remember, faith is the substance of things not seen. Spiritual matters are substantive, through faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 12, 2010 22:07:50 GMT -5
Ah, now I see. I was discussing matters of substance, whereas you want to argue over semantics. I'll stick to more substantive matters, such as Acts 17 and John 11 that refute full-preterism, and leave the semantic stuff to you. No need to be rude my friend. You were the one who introduced the "physical and bodily" phrase. I just want the Scriptures that you use for your assertion. Is that too much to ask? I feel there is no need to deflect away from my inquiries. Please explain how you see physical and bodily in those passages you quoted (Hebrews 9:27-28 and Acts 1:11). If you don't wish to or are unable to, that is okay, but please don't throw up deflection using buzz words that do not edify in any way. You are in disagreement with our view and we are in disagreement with your view. I know this because I held to your view for more than 20 years. What have you got to lose by explaining how you get "physical and bodily" from those verses. Enlighten us. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 13, 2010 9:43:10 GMT -5
mellontes, you claimed people like me never give scriptural support for our belief in the Second Coming. You said I did not give any scriptural support, when in fact I had already done so! Jesus has come many times, far more than just two times. In fact, Jesus comes in judgment every time church discipline is correctly practiced (Matt. 18:15-20, especially v. 20). So in what sense is it that Jesus will only come exactly two times? From Heb. 9:27-28 & Acts 1:11, Jesus will only come two times in His flesh and bone body. The first time began at His conception, and ended with His resurrection appearances back in the first century. The Second Coming will be when "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven," when He returns in His physical body, and raises/transforms everyone's physical bodies. There are three scriptural references right there, along with a summary of one of my arguments. There are more Scriptures and arguments to be sure, but don't tell me I never supplied any. But what is more important, rather than arguing about Heb. 9 & Acts 1, is discussing Acts 17 & John 11. That is because Acts 17 & John 11 definitely prove your view on eschatology is incorrect. That is why people here want to argue with me on 1 Cor. 15, that is, every part of that chapter except Paul's insult in v. 36. And that is because the insult cannot be explained under the full-preterist's interpretation. What is the point in arguing back and forth over this passage and that passage, when there are certain passages that demolish your interpretation? For full-preterism to be correct, it has to be right 100% of the time. And as I have demonstrated on the Why Partial Preterism Is Correct thread, it is not. Thus partial-preterism prevails. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the arguments that clearly refute your interpretation? |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 13, 2010 15:29:32 GMT -5
1 Cor 15:35 - But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1 Cor 15:36 - Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
Is this merely an insult on Paul's part towards this hypothetical person or a statement of fact? Because the construct is an adjective being used as a noun which discribes the person who says such things as being without understanding.
And by his initial answer it would seem the fallacy of the question was in assuming the souls who had died were not 'really' dead but only in need of another body. Which is pretty much what the Greeks taught only they didn't think any body was needed after death for only the soul lived on believing it was immortal. But the bible clearly refutes that idea by saying that no man can keep alive his own soul. Hence Paul's argument firmly confirms that the soul that dies is in fact dead and very much in need of a resurrection in order live again - in any sense of the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 13, 2010 15:48:33 GMT -5
1 Cor 15:35 - But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 1 Cor 15:36 - Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: Is this merely an insult on Paul's part towards this hypothetical person or a statement of fact? Because the construct is an adjective being used as a noun which discribes the person who says such things as being without understanding. The NIV chose to translate it as an adjective: 1 Cor 15:36 - How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 13, 2010 15:58:10 GMT -5
Hi Bev,
The CLV says imprudent one and YLT says unwise. Any way you look at it, it was a question offered by one who was still ignorant of the purposes of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 13, 2010 20:47:18 GMT -5
Is this merely an insult on Paul's part towards this hypothetical person or a statement of fact? You fool! Paul is using an insult.  (I hope y'all understand I am not actually calling you a fool, but illustrating a point). Isn't that a shocking response to a legitimate question? After all, the questions posed in 1 Cor. 15:35 are perfectly legitimate questions. Because the construct is an adjective being used as a noun which discribes the person who says such things as being without understanding. The word in question is - aphron. According to Thayer's, it means "without reason, senseless, foolish, stupid; without reflection or intelligence, acting rashly." It is used in Luke 11:40, Luke 12:20, Rom. 2:20, 2 Cor. 11:16, 2 Cor. 11:19, 2 Cor. 12:6, 2 Cor. 12:11, Eph. 5:17, 1 Pet. 2:15. This is in contrast to another word Paul has used in other passages - anontos, which means "not understanding, unwise, foolish." It is less harsh than aphron, as is seen in the other verses it is used in: Luke 24:25, Rom. 1:14, Gal. 3:1, Gal. 3:3, Tit. 3:3, 1 Tim. 6:9. If how y'all characterize Paul's response is correct, he should have used this word instead of the one he did. Undoubtedly, many translations soften Paul's language in 1 Cor. 15:36 because they do not think it is appropriate to answer a legitimate question with an insult. But that is what he did. Many people today, religious people, even, do not realize that Paul and Jesus could be quite vicious in their language. I remember a famous TV commentator claiming Jesus would never call someone a name. Even though Jesus basically calls the religious leaders of His day, to their face, in front of crowds, practically every name in the book! Even if Paul was stating a fact (and he was!), it is nevertheless a great insult. Would you ever respond like that to someone who sincerely asked a legitimate question? No way! Nor would I! But Paul did! Or did he? The question Paul was responding to implied more than just the mere questions themselves. And by his initial answer it would seem the fallacy of the question was in assuming the souls who had died were not 'really' dead but only in need of another body. Which is pretty much what the Greeks taught only they didn't think any body was needed after death for only the soul lived on believing it was immortal. Say what?! The Greeks did not believe a spirit needed a body. Jesus confirmed that the spirits of the dead continue to exist after death, and before the resurrection (Matt. 22:31-32). So the Bible also teaches that spirits do not need bodies in order to exist. The position of folks here is that the spirit acquires a body, except the body isn't a body, it is a spirit. Huh?! But the bible clearly refutes that idea by saying that no man can keep alive his own soul. Hence Paul's argument firmly confirms that the soul that dies is in fact dead and very much in need of a resurrection in order live again - in any sense of the word. Physical death has nothing to do with spiritual death. Physically dying does not impact the life/death of your spirit. It merely ends your chance to repent. 1 Cor. 15:36ff has to do with what you sow, into the ground, which is the body, when you die. One's spirit doesn't die when you physically die, it dies the first time you sin, "for the wages of sin is death." As James says, "When sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." But the Christian never had to be buried in the dirt in order to be made spiritually alive. Christians became spiritually alive the moment they were baptized into Christ! Getting back to 1 Cor. 15, since the Greeks didn't believe in a physical afterlife, their opposition would have been to a physical resurrection body. Which is what the Jews of Paul's day believed. Paul uses the Pharisee's method of explaining the resurrection! Which has been what Christianity has taught and believed from the beginning. But some lame theory, developed centuries later, forces people to ignore the overwhelming context, assume everyone is wrong, and yet there is mysteriously no trace of Jesus & the Apostles disagreeing with this commonly held view among the Jews of their day. This is why they have come up with such bizarre notions as a "spirit body" that isn't really a body. That is why people have to play games with Acts 17:30-32. That is why people have to ignore the overwhelming context of John 11, which clearly teaches a physical resurrection to come.If Paul taught a purely spirit afterlife, they would have never asked such a question as "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" Furthermore, Paul's response was insulting! Why? Because he must have understood it as mocking the resurrection, which is easy to see if Paul was speaking of a physical resurrection. How can those questions be considered mockery if Paul taught a spirit resurrection? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 14, 2010 7:01:20 GMT -5
This is not precisely on topic, but I thought it interesting. If you have e-Sword, read Adam Clarke's commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 15:47.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 14, 2010 19:13:23 GMT -5
Theo, Our problems in communication seem to have to do with how we comprehend what we read. You find Paul and Jesus vicious, but that is not a word I would have picked! As for Paul's hypothetical question being 'legitimate', you need to look that word up too, because what Paul is going on to describe is what makes it NOT legitimate but the question of an ignorant fool who has no understanding of spiritual things. From Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/viciousvi·cious /ˈvɪʃəs/ Show Spelled[vish-uhs] Show IPA –adjective 1.addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate: a vicious life. 2.given or readily disposed to evil: a vicious criminal. 3.reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong: a vicious deception. 4.spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack. 5.unpleasantly severe: a vicious headache. 6.characterized or marred by faults or defects; faulty; unsound: vicious reasoning. 7.savage; ferocious: They all feared his vicious temper. 8.(of an animal) having bad habits or a cruel or fierce disposition: a vicious bull. 9.Archaic. morbid, foul, or noxious. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin: 1300–50; ME (< AF) < L vitiôsus, equiv. to viti(um) fault, vice1 + -ôsus -ous —Can be confused: vicious, viscose, viscous. —Synonyms 1. abandoned, corrupt, iniquitous, sinful. 4. malevolent. —Antonyms 1. moral. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 14, 2010 22:35:58 GMT -5
Hi there, I am sorry for bringing us back to something as mundane as the coming of Christ. But that is what this thread use to be about. Mo, in your last reply, you talked about the problems with communication. I think the reason some folks don't understand what they read is because they don't want to. I know, preterists and futurists that are that way. In recent days, I have seen the term "hyper-preterism" tossed around the internet. I don't what they call hyper-preterism, but I define it as, "the acute need to prove preterism." People who have this problem will lie, mix scriptures together that don't belong together topically, and pick on futurists they don't like just to make themselves feel good. This the same reason I left the "preterist movement" within a year of joining it. Now I see the same thing, but this time, I find some good people who are just trying to find out the truth, and that is a refreshing change. Hence, when I left, Iwas going to leave the whole thing behind. But, there are truth-seekers, like me in this movement, and perhaps we can help each other. But, I don't need the arrogance of the people I call hyper-preterists, and I will do my best to avoid those. There is a simple solution to all this. Just accept what is written. If you don't know a word, use a dictionary. Or, find an easier translation. For example, I like the New Century Version. In this version Matthew 16.28 reads like this, "I tell you the truth, some people standing here will see the see the Son of Man coming with His kingdom before they die." And if that's not simple enough, there's the New Living Translation, which reads, "And I assure you that some of you standing here right now will not die before you see Me, the Son of Man, coming in My Kingdom."Now why is this verse so hard to understand? Answer - it's not. A moron or an idiot might not be able to understand this verse. But anyone with normal intelligence certainly should understand this verse. If someone can't comprehend this verse, it's because they don't want to. That is why what kind of death is important, just to cloud up the issue. That fact is, it doesn't matter what kind of death it is since to whom Jesus was addressing, some of them would not experience it one way or the other. Oh know, I feel something pulling on me...............  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 14, 2010 23:54:39 GMT -5
Hey Didy, Nice controversial passage you picked! Which is why proof texting doesn't really help much. Take a look at Mat 16:27 too from my Apostolic Bible: For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall recompense each according to his actions. Now what did the Lord tell the apostles just before He ascended to the throne? To wait for the power of the Spirit - who was going to give gifts to men! Then take a look at Dan 7:13-14, and perhaps v 28 will look more like the ascension of Jesus that the apostles were going to witness. <- Jesus |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 15, 2010 2:06:25 GMT -5
Hey Didy, Nice controversial passage you picked! Which is why proof texting doesn't really help much. Take a look at Mat 16:27 too from my Apostolic Bible: For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall recompense each according to his actions. Now what did the Lord tell the apostles just before He ascended to the throne? To wait for the power of the Spirit - who was going to give gifts to men! Then take a look at Dan 7:13-14, and perhaps v 28 will look more like the ascension of Jesus that the apostles were going to witness. <- Jesus If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Matthew 16.27 & 28 are talking about the ascension, and not the coming. No way. I really don't understand why this simple verse is so difficult to understand. Jesus said, SOME would not die. At that point, of the disciples that was "standing" there, only Judas died. There is just no way the ascension fits what Jesus said in Mt. 16. Sorry, it just doesn't.  One could hope. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Mar 15, 2010 8:09:45 GMT -5
Hey Didy, Nice controversial passage you picked! Which is why proof texting doesn't really help much. Take a look at Mat 16:27 too from my Apostolic Bible: For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall recompense each according to his actions. Now what did the Lord tell the apostles just before He ascended to the throne? To wait for the power of the Spirit - who was going to give gifts to men! Then take a look at Dan 7:13-14, and perhaps v 28 will look more like the ascension of Jesus that the apostles were going to witness. <- Jesus I agree with you Robin. The word used for "come" can be used for either direction. It fits perfectly with Daniel 7 and Matthew 25:31 as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 9:16:12 GMT -5
Bold mine: You find Paul and Jesus vicious, but that is not a word I would have picked! ... From Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/viciousvi·cious /ˈvɪʃəs/ Show Spelled[vish-uhs] Show IPA –adjective 1.addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate: a vicious life. 2.given or readily disposed to evil: a vicious criminal. 3.reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong: a vicious deception. 4.spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack. 5.unpleasantly severe: a vicious headache. Paul, speaking of the false teachers in Galatia, as rendered in the NIV, Paul says "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"Should we characterize that as "sunshine and rainbows," or as "unpleasantly severe"? Jesus, in front of the crowds at the Temple, said to the religious leaders: "Woe to you... make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." "Woe to you, blind guides..." "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites..." " You are of your father the devil..." Ah, but that is enough "pleasantries" for one day! |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 15, 2010 13:24:39 GMT -5
I react that way because you should already know that answer. But since you won't be satisfied till you get an answer, Jesus was talking to His disciples. The term His disciples refers to the 12.
Is that satisfactory Mr. Mellon.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 15, 2010 13:30:51 GMT -5
Hey Didy, Nice controversial passage you picked! Which is why proof texting doesn't really help much. Take a look at Mat 16:27 too from my Apostolic Bible: For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall recompense each according to his actions. Now what did the Lord tell the apostles just before He ascended to the throne? To wait for the power of the Spirit - who was going to give gifts to men! Then take a look at Dan 7:13-14, and perhaps v 28 will look more like the ascension of Jesus that the apostles were going to witness. <- Jesus I agree with you Robin. The word used for "come" can be used for either direction. It fits perfectly with Daniel 7 and Matthew 25:31 as well. Allyn, it is true, the word, parousia, can be taken both ways. But, does the ascension fit in the case of "Jesus coming in His Kingdom"? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 15, 2010 21:54:52 GMT -5
How does the number of people "standing there" make a difference? The time frame of His coming, or the presence of the kingdom is still within their lifetime.
So, why didn't you just make your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 15, 2010 22:35:13 GMT -5
How does the number of people "standing there" make a difference? The time frame of His coming, or the presence of the kingdom is still within their lifetime. So, why didn't you just make your point? Because making my point would be unnecessary if you and I were agreed as to what you meant. It also could have created strife by "assuming" that you and I were in disagreement. That is why I asked the question. I had no idea that you were going to respond in the way you did. I totally regret asking you the question. I have learned... But the real point of fact comes to the actual number of the 12 disciples alive when 70 AD rolled around. I cannot think of one source where I have read where more than one disciple was alive then. John is the one that is usually referred to as being alive. "Some" not tasting death would seem to indicate a minimum of 3. This poses absolutely no problem at all if you add a bunch of people with the disciples also...as Mark 8:34 clearly stipulates. Your argument is invalid if only the 12 disciples are the audience. Those opposed to preterism will be quick to use this against you and against preterism in general... Wouldn't you agree? Clarity is everything. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 15, 2010 23:02:14 GMT -5
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Matthew 16.27 & 28 are talking about the ascension, and not the coming. No way. I really don't understand why this simple verse is so difficult to understand. Jesus said, SOME would not die. At that point, of the disciples that was "standing" there, only Judas died. There is just no way the ascension fits what Jesus said in Mt. 16. Sorry, it just doesn't. One could hope. Well except that you have Jesus talking here about coming from heaven to claim an earthly kingdom before He even entered glory to receive it. First things first...first He had to go away for a little while and then come back to commission His disciples and then rise to take His throne so that He could rule over His kingdom from heaven while He worked thru His apostles in the earth to subdue it. And when it was finished, He came back with angels to gather the dead to heaven and destroy the earthly monument that signified it was done. It seems simple to me that in order to come to earth from heaven, He first must enter heaven. That is what to come in His Father's glory is, since that is where the Father resides - you know heaven is My throne...so first He had to return to the glory He had with the Father before the world began. And that would be His heavenly glory not His present earthly glory. And btw Judas did die in just a little while too, whereas it was rumored that Lazarus would never die because Jesus had said he would remain to see His coming. All in all it would seem this generation to which Jesus did make a visible appearance would be the ones who would witness ALL these things Jesus did. Which is why we are blessed to believe their testimony. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 16, 2010 13:10:00 GMT -5
Hi MoGrace,
I have read your post several times, and I just don't get it!
Are you separating verse 27, and 28?
I ask because I see Matthew 16:27, as being the same coming as Matthew 24:30; Matthew 25:31; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 22:12, and if Matthew 16: 27 is the ascension then so are they.
Sower~
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 16, 2010 21:51:18 GMT -5
Hi MoGrace, I have read your post several times, and I just don't get it! Are you separating verse 27, and 28? I ask because I see Matthew 16:27, as being the same coming as Matthew 24:30; Matthew 25:31; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 22:12, and if Matthew 16: 27 is the ascension then so are they. Sower~ Thank you Sower, this is my thinking as well, I just couldn't put it into words.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 17, 2010 21:41:30 GMT -5
Hey Didy, Nice controversial passage you picked! Which is why proof texting doesn't really help much. Take a look at Mat 16:27 too from my Apostolic Bible: For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall recompense each according to his actions. Now what did the Lord tell the apostles just before He ascended to the throne? To wait for the power of the Spirit - who was going to give gifts to men! Then take a look at Dan 7:13-14, and perhaps v 28 will look more like the ascension of Jesus that the apostles were going to witness. <- Jesus If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Matthew 16.27 & 28 are talking about the ascension, and not the coming. No way. I really don't understand why this simple verse is so difficult to understand. Jesus said, SOME would not die. At that point, of the disciples that was "standing" there, only Judas died. There is just no way the ascension fits what Jesus said in Mt. 16. Sorry, it just doesn't. One could hope. , but not so unlikely if another 40 years is the time frame... (ESV) Mar 8:34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Note: Do the verses above and below sound like he was addressing His 12 disciples who already had left everything and were following Him? Mar 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. Mar 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Mar 8:37 For what can a man give in return for his soul? Mar 8:38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mar 9:1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." |
|
