Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Decypher · 05-29-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Decypher · 05-29-2008, 04:11 PM

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 · 05-29-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

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 · 05-30-2008, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 05-30-2008, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 · 05-30-2008, 06:01 AM

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 · 05-30-2008, 01:37 PM

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 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 · 05-31-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

I was just reading "Have a Nice Doomsday (or via: amazon.co.uk)" 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 · 05-31-2008, 06:20 AM

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 · 05-31-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2008, 04:11 PM	#22
Decypher Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: England Posts: 688	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?

05-30-2008, 06:01 AM	#26
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	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).

05-30-2008, 01:37 PM	#27
Newfie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,457	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 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.

05-31-2008, 06:20 AM	#29
d-ray Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 288	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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.