MortalWombat

If his death and resurrection are to be considered "coming into his kingdom", then why was the phrase "there are some standing here who will not taste of death" used, if the event occurred relatively soon after it was uttered?

It sounds to me like whoever wrote that phrase was talking about something that was going to happen far enough into the future that most of the people listening would be dead by then. Which was certainly not the case if we're just talking about the resurrection.

Magus55

Those verses aren't referring to His ressurection, they are referring to His Transfiguration.

MortalWombat

That's even worse then, because according to Matthew, the transfiguration occurred only six days after this "prophecy" was uttered.

So there was an expectation that most of the people hearing the prophecy wouldn't live long enough to see the son of man coming into power a mere six days later? Maybe he thought most of the people would die from radiation exposure that occurred during the transfiguration.

Casper

If a single historical person is possible, then why not two contemporaries separated by geography? Three?

Or separated not by geography but by time, in short enough intervals that they later came to be percieved as one?

Or separate people separated by both time and geography?

Any nominations?

Magus55

Or maybe He just wanted to reassure them that they were completely safe from anything until the Transfiguration?

Gooch's dad

Completely safe? He didn't even assure them of that.

""there are some standing here who will not taste of death"

So some standing there might taste of death in the next 6 days? That's hardly an assurance that they were "completely safe", now is it?

doubtingthomas

But why would he talk about angels and rewards in the verse directly before it?

Dr_Paine

The general consensus among even liberal scholars is that the man Jesus existed; whether as a sage, populist, insurrectionist, or a divine messenger is another story.

I see no reason to assert that Jesus did not exist in some form. I have yet to see any credible evidence that he did not exist. Of course, I realize that theoretically to prove non-existence is an unfair, if not impossible, task.

Perhaps, the argument for non-existence is the result of overzealous rejection of Christianity; yet, surely one can reject Christianity and affirm the possibility or even probability of the existence of Jesus, the man.

If there is evidence for non-existence? I would sure like to know. As always, my view is tentative - subject to change in response to credible evidence.

Amaleq13

It is the pattern of the existing evidence that leads to thoughts of myth. The earliest evidence (Paul and similarly dated epistles) says far more about the Risen Christ than any living man to the point where some question if there ever was one.

The earliest evidence that clearly describes a man (Gospels) appears to rely heavily on the Hebrew Bible for the details of the story. Even the early Church Fathers described the suffering of Jesus by referring to Hebrew Scripture rather than any "oral tradition" passed on by the men who were supposed to have been there.

I used to assume there was some sort of historical figure from the beginning then I became persuaded by arguments like Doherty's and became almost completely convinced that no such figure existed. I'm currently only convinced that the evidence is such a pathetic mess that a reliable conclusion is virtually impossible which has earned me the designation of "agnostic" on the subject.

Yet it is a discussion I continue to enjoy. I prefer not to consider the psychological implications of that.

Dr_Paine

Maybe, I'll look into Earl Doherty's arguments; it sounds intriguing. The iconoclast in me loves debunking myths and slaughtering sacred cows.

Still, I'd say the question of Jesus' existence is not essential to a rejection of Christianity; IMO, it is implausible either way.

But why? When you were a child, did.......... Don't answer that!