Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unregistered_user_1 · 12-14-2002, 04:09 AM

OK, this is going to be a long post, but I've saw this on the Rapture Ready board. Does Adventus have a legit point here?

<a href="http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=e93aea6d5b745f7a6a48b0774d9fefe1& threadid=55762&pagenumber=8" target="_blank">another question for atheists and agnostics-see posts between "billy bob" and "Adventus"</a>

Quote:

from Adventus way up in that thread: Regarding to the "not taste death" scripture (Matthew 16:27 - 28 for reference.) This scripture refers not to the rapture of the Church alone (though it does allude to it; as you will see in the commentary link that I'll post), but also to Jesus' transfiguration six days later which occurred in the presence of Peter, James and John (Matt. 17: 1 - 5.) So it only took six days for this one to be fulfilled.

<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Mat_17.html" target="_blank">Here is the commentary</a>

Quote:

from Adventus:
Via a concordance I looked up the OG (original greek, heh) words that were used in that verse, this is what I found. The word for kingdom used in this passage is basileia and these are all the definitions listed for that word on the Blue Letter Bible website:

1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule
1a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the
right or authority to rule over a kingdom
1b) of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah
1c) of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the
Messiah's kingdom
2) a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king
3) used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

Now given that the New Testament used this word to refer to the reign of the Messiah, and given the fact that definitions 1 - 1c refer to a right rather than an actual place, we sort of need to rule out definition 2. Therefore, it seems to me that the verse was referring to Jesus' authority over Heaven and Earth, which was affirmed by His transfiguration, as well as His death and resurrection, and the establishment of the church.

I've not studied the Bible as much as some so my understanding of the original vocabulary is not as strong as others. But, given the fact that I know in my heart that this is what the verse is reffering to, and the fact that every commentary I've looked up on the subject agree, I think it's fair to say that it was indeed referring to the transfiguration.

Quote:

from billy bob:
OK, suppose I buy all that, there is still the little problem of context. In the first verse, christ is mentioning that with his coming, there'll be angels and judgement, and in the very next verse he says that some will not die before he comes. Why, if he was talking about the transfiguration in the second verse, did he not at least hint at a change of topic? Let's face it, claiming rulership and actually taking it are two different, though related things.

quote: But, given the fact that I know in my heart that this is what the verse is reffering to, and the fact that every commentary I've looked up on the subject agree, I think it's fair to say that it was indeed referring to the transfiguration.
With all due (serious) respect: If I say that "given the fact that I know in my heart that this is not what the verse is referring to, and the fact that every commentary I've looked up on the subject agree, (here ), I think it's fair to say that it was indeed not referring to the transfiguration", would that make it true?

Lets face it, we have to look at context. Which would include this:
John 21:23 (Morgan has the NIV version which has this in verse 22, but anyway): Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" apparently speaking of one of disciples. Note that jesus did not actually SAY that the disciple would be alive to see him coming, but that he may come before he died. If he was referring to the transfiguration here, the disciple being alive would be a foregone conclusion, don't you think? He wouldn't have needed to say it. It's apparent even here that he's referring to his actual claiming (with angels et al).

Quote:

from Adventus: billy-bob, for someone who at one point was telling me not to get hung up on the verse divisions, you sure are resting a great deal of your argument on the verse divisions. If you would like a wider seperation, head over to Mark 9:1, and you'll find the same information as Matthew 16:28. So, one chapter of the Mark ends with the end times prophecy of Jesus coming with the angels to judge us, and the next begins with the transfiguration. As I said, He gave His disciples this prophecy in part to reassure them that the one prior to it (in verse 27) would come to pass.

Let's try a little bit of rephrasing: Matthew 16:28 could be rephrased as saying, "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 royal power (or kingship, or reign, or rule.) Since those are the other english equivalents of the greek word [ibasileia they are all valid, especially since that word is used this way in the NT.

Now, that is a totally different concept than coming to give judgement, but it does reaffirm Christ's right to do so, therefore, it is a prelude to the previous prophecy, so it is related, but not the same.

semyaza · 12-14-2002, 06:58 AM

A lot seems to depend on the definition of 'kingdom'. The Christians seem to assert that it refers to a royal 'right', and not a physical monarchy. I think it is important to see how Matthew used the word.

Quote:

Matthew 13:41
The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers...

It seems to me that this verse only makes sense if we assume an actual monarchy. How does one toss evil-doers out of a 'royal right'?

Have a look at the parable of the debtors that starts Matthew 18:23. Again, this parable makes no sense if 'kingdom' does not refer to a physical institution. In Matthew 20:21, an argument erupts as to which of the disciples should rule at Jesus' right hand. Agaian, a clear reference to a monarchy.

The most telling piece of evidence, however, occurs in Matthew 26:63-65. Here, the High Priest asks Jesus if he is the Messiah. Jesus replies by quoting a verse from Daniel.

Quote:

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

This is important, because it is the same language that Jesus used in Matthew 16:27-28:

Quote:

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

The Daniel passage reads as follows:

Quote:

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

It should be pretty obvious that Daniel is referring to a physical kingdom. (Read Daniel 7 in context). The High Priest obviously understood the import, because he immediatly charges Jesus with blasphemy (Matthew 26:65).

Given the above, it seems pretty clear that Matt 16:28 cannot be a reference to the Transfiguration.

unregistered_user_1 · 12-28-2002, 10:17 PM

well, this is the reply I got, although you will notice that he didn't answer any of the other points that you brought up:

Quote:

Let my try to address this from another angle. Matthew 16:28 reads: "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."

Now, if we use your interpretation of this scripture (being that "kingdom" refers to the second coming which is referenced in verse 27) the implication is that those whom Jesus was speaking to wouldn't die until after the second coming. However, since there will be no death for the followers of Christ after He returns, this interpretation makes no sense. Therefore verse 28 cannot be referring to verse 27 which speaks of Christ's second coming.

With that in mind, I believe that verse 28 was indeed referring specifically to the transfiguration because this was first time (even including His baptism in Mark) that Jesus drew back the veil of His humanity and revealed His Glory to anyone. More broadly, I believe it refers to His resurrection (wherein He defeated Sin and death) and the establishment of the gospel church. Either way, it cannot mean the second coming and therefore is a fulfilled prophecy.

from: here

-DM- · 12-28-2002, 11:18 PM

See The Lowdown on God's Showdown by Ed Babinski.

-Don-

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-29-2002, 10:28 AM

Hello, folks,

It seems pretty clear to me that the Transfiguration scene was a late creation, and that it was added to where it is currently for a purpose. And this purpose was to take the heat off the apocalyptic tone of the earliest movement.

Quote:

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."

IMHO, this verse represents a very early layer in the gospels. But when the end-of-the-world didn't arrive by ca 100 CE, they had a problem on their hands -- just like the Jehovah's Witnesses when their predictions didn't pan out.

So what did they do? They added the Transfiguration scene as a way to deal with Mt 16:28, and other such verses!

Cheers,

Yuri.

12-29-2002, 12:43 PM

Tranfiguration is evidence of the hypostatic union and the end of the world for those that were in it. The end of the world will not be a universal event for all but only for whose who are called by name.

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

12-28-2002, 11:18 PM	#4
-DM- Honorary Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Coast Posts: 5,714	See The Lowdown on God's Showdown by Ed Babinski. -Don-

12-29-2002, 12:43 PM	#6
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Tranfiguration is evidence of the hypostatic union and the end of the world for those that were in it. The end of the world will not be a universal event for all but only for whose who are called by name.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.