judge

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.

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

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

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

: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

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 article that explains away the failed prophecies of Christ's return.

aa5874

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

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

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

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

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