'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Oh, I am "preaching" and you are not ?? Give me a break.Ya preachin too, Preach! It is like this. It makes a stronger rational for you to ignore His words if you can convince yourself that He wasn't talking to ANYBODY alive today.You want company in your rejection. This may come as a shock to you but the Bible is not a book of stuff just to tickle your intellectual curiosity. It is all about drawing close to God and receiving God. Evidence is there. Plenty of it. Jesus specified no number of years which had to limit when He would come again.And the reference to " some standing here" was concerning the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. The scope of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom is larger than the second coming of Christ. It includes the second coming but is not limited to it.So the Gospel writers intentionally follow that teaching with the scene of His transfiguration which He previewed His coming in His kingdom. Why do I have to specify a number of years when He did not ?Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole inhabted earth for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."Where is the verse saying that that cannot take more than X number of years ? He spoke beyond those he was addressing in space and in time also. Just as he says that Jesus did for all "us" Christians that we may live though Him. I pointed out that in the parable of the ten virgins, all drew drowsy and slept while the bridegroom prolonged his return. This certainly could be interpreted to mean that the original friends of the Bridegroom Jesus, would die before His second coming.If so I think you should admit that Jesus made precautions for the event that His second coming would be beyond the physical life spans of His original disciples.The number five, as in five foolish and five wise, speaks of responsibility. Whether we are alive or sleep in death, we Christains bear the responsibility to be ready for this second coming.The frequent usages of the word "you" in Matthew 24 cannot be insisted upon to mean ONLY the contemporary audience need take heed to the teaching.And there is no number of years specified beyond with which"you" no longer exist. Now if you do not want to be in the audience, that is a personal matter. It doesn't mean He is not talking to people who will listen in 2010 A.D.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Paul was not saying " I absolutely garuantee that I Paul will be living to witness this and will not be one of those who are asleep in Christ."He is not making that kind of garuantee about himself or the Thessalonians.If I say "We who are alive when man lands on Mars will see something great" I am not garuanteeing that I will be there to see it, though I may be.

So what? What's wrong with preaching ?
You do not have to sit passively in a pew and give me the floor with no comment. As you can plainly see you have every opportunity to challenge, refute, question, examine, rebut, and offer your own sermon as you have.So don't try to play the "preaching" card on me because I have no sense of shame about it. And I stand by the words. Because the more you try to insist the New Testament has nothing to do with subjective acceptance and subjective experience the more I will point out that it is not a book of purely objective trivia to tickle our curiosity.All the exhortations of both Christ and His apostles are aimed at penetrating into our personal experience. So what ?You're pretending that you have no personal vested interest in believing that the Second Coming of Christ need not be taken seriously.Playing the "preaching" card doesn't work with me. Like I said, this "preaching" gives you every opportunty to refute me. And I consider your brand of interpretation of Matthew 24 your own preaching. Somehow repeating that a second time is no more impressive then the erroneous first mention. I agree. However the kingdom of God as Jesus taught is in stages: "And He said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man cast seed on the earth, And sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and lengthens - how he does not know.

​

The earth bears fruit by itself: first a blade, then an ear, then full grain in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he sends forth the sickle, because the harvest has come." (Mark 4:26-29)In this parable the seed on the earth is the kingdom of God. The seed in its sprouting stage is also the kingdom of God. The sprout lengthening is also the kingdom of God. The seed bearing fruit is also the kingdom of God. The appearing of the blade is the kingdom of God. The appearing of the ear is also the kingdom of God. The full grain in the ear is also the kingdom of God. And the harvesting of the ripe fruit is also the kingdom of God.It is not only the climax that is the kingdom of God but the growth and development also. For this reason I said the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom is of wider scope then merely His second coming. But His coming in His kingdom certainly includes His second coming.Lets try it this way. Can you provide any evidence that Jesus is to return 2000 years later? This may be true that the sense of impending climax is there in the New Testament. But it is not to the exclusion of many other passages seeming to prepare the church for the long distant run rather than the sprint.No specific number of years is mentioned so any number you point out cannot be the wrong number of years.Now let me ask you. Is it not true that Jesus said that some saints would reign with Him as co-kings? Yes or No?If so, do you think it would be Christ's way that no matter what quality a Christian life one led that one would be granted such a priviledge? Do you think a backslidden Christian living in a bed of fornication will be magically endowed to be a co king with Jesus Christ when He returns?If you do believe that you have more faith than I do.So since Jesus is after QUALITY of disiciples to form His "cabinet" if you will, of co kings, then does He not need time? I mean no Christian really is forced to consecrate their lives to the Savior. So while it seems like He is delaying His coming He is actually accumulating a larger number of believers who volunteringly prepare themselves to reign with Jesus.So I definite see the delay in His return to also be His gathering a group of victorious overcomers among the larger majority. If you recall Gideon's little army of 300 in the book of Judges, you can see how God often used a remnant, a minority to accomplish some divine task on His heart.So as the years draw on, here and there are normal victorious overcoming Christians who live and fall asleep in Christ. At His second coming this remnant will be raised a corporate Manchild to reign with Him.And if you need more evidence of this it can be provided in Scripture. Your accounting of time is obviously not the same as God's accounting.When Peter said on Pentecost that the falling of the Holy Spirit was an answer to the prophecy of Joel, he could not really say that signs in the astronimical bodies accompanied the event. Nevertheless, Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit said: " For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is the third hour of the day;

​

But this is what is spoken through the prophet Joel: And is shall be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shal prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream things in dreams;

​

And indeed upon My slaves, both men and women, I will pour out of My Spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy.

​

And I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on earth beloww, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall beturned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord comes.

​

And is shall be that everyuone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:17-21 compare Joel 2:28-32)Certainly, at that Pentacostal event the believers had the Holy Spirit fall upon them. Certainly they prophesied and spoke in tongues the great things of God. And certainly whoever called upon the name of the Lord Jesus was saved.But Acts says nothing about the moon turning blood red or the sun being darkened as Joel had predicted. The astronomical events seem to mirror those spoken of in the book of Revelation at the opening of the sixth seal. Now that is quite a bit of time latter. At least it is 2,000 years latter.Now we do not believe that Peter was mistaken. We do not count that Peter wrongly applied the prophecy of Joel to the day of Pentacost. But we do regard the prophesy to be completely fulfilled over a longer period of time. Rather than jeer at this as a failure of prophecy we count it as a mercy to give more people time to repent and be saved.So God's accounting of time is not always the same as ours. From Pentacost to the opening of the sixth seal at the end times embraces the events of Joel 2:28-32.I don't agree because of too many other things which are uttered in connection to the second coming.However, I would grant you this. The failure of the church could prolong something longer than God may have desired.The trip from Egypt to Canaan should have taken only 11 days. The Hebrews drew it out to 40 years because of their stubburness and unbelief. In God's eyes is should only take 11 days. But because of the weakness of His people it is prolonged to be much longer.The original disciples did not spread the gospel beyond Jerusalem on their own. God had to raise up persecution to scatter them so that the gospel would be spread.So I will grant you that the Christian church has delayed Christ's return most likely just as the Hebrews prolonged to Exodus from Egypt to Canaan. But God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).You may level some blame on us the Christian church for Christ's delay of His second coming. Some of us will accept that.But His words indicate that He cannot fail to keep His promise. I take this to be simply erroneous interpretation.Look at the seven letters to the churches in the book of Revelation. No doubt Jesus was speaking to specific congregations. Yet at the end of each letter He adds this word: "He who has an ear to hear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (See Rev. 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6, 13,22) Likewise we have Him saying in Matt. 11:15 - He who has ears to hear let him hear."Now you and I are living in 2010 A.D. And if I ask you if you have an ear to hear Jesus, you will cry out "Preaching! Preaching!" But you see, it is really quite an intrinsic part of the context of the message.Then again after His parables in chapter 13 of Matthew He warns "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear" (Matt. 13:9)So what He says in Matthew 24 is indeed for those original disciples. But they are also for whoever and whenever other seekers of the truth, have an ear to hear Jesus. The question MAY INDEED have been WHEN. I agree. But how the Lord ANSWERS the question is what we have to deal with. And He pointed alot to spiritual condition rather than a date on the calender.Jesus did not always answer the question the way the disciples asked it. They asked Him if there would be few who would be saved. He did not answer them with a percentage. He did not say "Well, it would be about 46 percent."How did He answer the question "How many will be saved"? He replied by telling them to enter the narrow gate. This was not a mathematical answer. This was a moral and spiritual answer.So while I do agree with you that the disciples had it in their mind WHEN. And Jesus does give them some sign posts. He does not give them a certain number of years. So you cannot say that a certain number of years was incorrect.Now if we take the alternative view that Jesus was only talking to His twelve disciples then I think we would have no New Testament at all. It would be irrelevant what Jesus taught because we were not there on the elite inner circle of His immediate audience.Now that may be convenient for the skeptic. But for lots of us who love the Lord Jesus, it will never do. We regard Him ask speaking many many things for our benefit too.And Jesus prayed for the benefit of the listeners of the original apostles: "And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word, That they all may be one; even as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:20,21)It is 2010 A.D. And the prayer of Jesus is not only for His original 12 apostles but for some of us today who believed into Christ because of their word.They were 2000 years closer to the original speeches than you and I were. Had they understood that Matthew 24 only concerned them they would not have labored to preserve the teaching for future generations.Don't you think Peter knew the tone and intention of his Master ? And Peter writes about his own approaching death: "And I consider it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by a reminder, knowing that the putting off of my taberncale is imminent, even as also out Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.

​

Moreover I will also be dilignet that you may be able, after my exodus, to bring these things to mind at all times." (2 Peter 1:13-15) Peter's attitude here is not "It's all over. I am about to die and the second coming of Christ has not occured yet."Now he was closer to the sayings of Jesus, including Matthew 24, that you were. So why not take your que from him? I trust Peter's insight in this over Bart Eardman or the Jesus Seminar.And moreover in the very next passage Peter refers to the transfiguration as a preview of Christ's coming: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty.

​

For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to Him by the magnificent glory: This is My Son, My Belived, in whom I delight.

​

And this voice we heard being borne out of heaven while we were with Him in the holy mountain." (2 Peter 1:16-18)Since Peter refers here to the transfiguration of Christ in Matthew 17:1-10, as associated with "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" , we are justified to regard that event as a part of His coming. "Truly I say to you, There are some of those standing here who shall by no means taaste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:28)Peter, in his epistle reminds us before he dies, that he was an eyewitness to the power of Jesus' coming. He and James and John were eyewitnesses to Christ's divine glory. Titus the Roman general sacked Jerusalem. I know this.If you want to take that event as an indication that Jesus lied or is not coming, go ahead. Not me.You know when God told the Israelites that Moses was sent to them to deliver them from Egypt, the were happy. But after the first contest in which Moses was rebuked and their labors were made harder, they were disgusted and unbelieving. It was not until plagues 1 through 10 that they finally got convinced that God's word was true. And then they doubted again at the Red Sea and a number of times afterwards in the wilderness.I do not count the destruction of Titus on Jerusalem as the last word in Jesus' promises in Matthew 24. Preterists do. But many of us do not. I count delay in the full fulfillment of His prophecies often to indicative of His MERCY to allow more time for people to be reconciled to God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will try not to neglect any points of yours. But my answers will have to be brief as I have not too much time now. What particular verses in Romans 16 and Philippians are you refering to? I don't see anywhere in this passage the number of years spoken of until He comes with His angels, etc.Where do you get the idea from this passage that 2,000 years is the incorrect number of years for this event to be fulfilled ? I am not ignoring that. I am pointing out that no specific number of years is mentioned. My way of studying eschatology involves taking into account many many more passages then just Matthew 24.That is all I have time to remark at the moment. There is more involved in studying eschatology then only Matthew 24 and 1 thess. 4.For example, Christ does not deal with all people at the same time. And the throne of glory in Matthew 25 is at least 1,000 years before the great white throne judgment in Revelation 20.But that is another study. The main point here is that you cannot insist that Matthew 24 should be disregarded when the last person in that immediate crowd died.Did the rest of the New Testament seem to take it that way?
I say no. There is no note of disappointment when Peter speaks of his soon coming death. And that he says the Lord explicitly showed him. Where in this passage does it say it must occur before 20 or 30 years have elapsed? Where does it say 2,000 years is too many to pass before for this judgment is to commence? That may be your best argument. Its a good point.But what if they had not gone through all the cities as they had been instructed? Suppose they are human and shirked on their responsibility somewhat ?He had to force them to leave Jerusalem by persecution. So while I recognize the strength of the argument, it is not quite strong enough for me to conclude that Jesus decided not to come back.And there are many other things He said which seem to be a prepared contingency for a long distance race. Peter was in that circle of hearers. And Peter in his epistle does not give us the impression that because Jesus had not yet come, He probably would not or that He had lied or that He was mistaken.I think you should spend some equal time reading Peter's tone in his epistles. He was closer to the speech then you. And I don't think he needs to sit at the feet of Bart Eardhman to get a clearer interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. My time in this post is limited. But if you are going to quote Paul here, you should consider a whole plethora of other things he ALSO said.You see we do not just learn what the Bible says. We learn what the Bible ALSO says. There is simply too many passages from Paul preparing the church for the long haul.The giddy apostle obsessed with "Oh Boy. Jesus is coming next week I know" is a caricature. Paul is sober and preparing his audience for EVERY contigency including their having to continue long into the future with enduranace.Of course Paul wanted to be with the Lord in that climax way as soon as possible. That is his desire. That is not his prediction.Can you point out in any Pauline epistle the number of years to be expected before Jesus comes back on the clouds with His angels in glory ? The fact of the matter is that HE DIDN'T KNOW when the end would be. We have been feeding off of his wisdom for centries. And through his epistles that Lord has continued to build His body and bring people to salvation.You simpy err in assuming that Paul's expectation or even yearning for the soon second coming of Jesus was his prediction as to when the event would occur.Read Second Thessalonians again. The whole tone is a balance to the irresponsible and giddy obsession that because Jesus is coming right away, we can be sloppy and loose on Christian responsibility.He is making a contingency for the long haul because NO ONE KNOWS when the second coming will occur.He says in effect "Hold on now brothers. The Antichrist has not even been revealed yet. Don't drop your day job." Once again, Peter was in that circle of listners. What was Peter's attitude years latter about the end ? Let's check: "Knowing this first, that in the last of days mockers will come with mocking, going on according to their own lusts and saying, Where is the promise of His coming ?" (2 Peter. 3:3,4) Get ready for Jesus Seminar types brothers. Get ready for Bart Eardhman types coming along with mocking saying "Where is the promise of His second coming ? Its been so long. He's not coming."Then Peter says "But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand yasrs like one day.

​

The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long - suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance." (2 Peter 3:8,9) Peter was virtually the leader of the 12 disciples. If not officially, he was somewhat the one taking the lead.Should I take my que from Peter in this regard or assume that you have the better inside story ?Have to go now.

You want to dumb down the Gospel into a simplicity that will establish your argument.This is like me arguing with an astronomer, When he goes into some deeper explanation I say:"Keep it simple. Twinkle, twinkle little star. That is all we really have to know."You're frustrated because I would not dumb down the subject to a simplistic one sided biased view."Jesus was coming soon. That is ALL I know!" Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Let's cut to the chase directly hERICtic.Point out the number of years Christ foretold would elapse between His ascension and His second coming ?How many years did He teach it would be before His second coming ?I expect a NUMBER. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

heritic, Your nexr post should consist of number.You say "Jesus was coming soon. Jesus was coming soon. Jesus was coming soon." Okay heERICtic, give me the chapter and verse explicitly telling us how many years "soon" is ?Chapter, Verse, Number of years ...

Keep in mind that the New Testament had no chapters and verse numbers in its original writing. Those delineations were added years latter.The point here is that Christ's word that some would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom is always followed immediately by the experience of Peter, John, and James on the mountain of transfiguration.The writers therefore, evidentially intended this experience to follow His words previously spoken.
Matthew 16:28 - 17:8 (originally no chapter divisions)
Mark 9:1-8
Luke 9:27 - 36 Why do you suppose that all three gospels immediately follow Jesus' word about some living to see His coming in His kingdom, or the kingdom of God, etc. with the experience of His transfiguration ?Doesn't it seem their intention that the reader understand that this event of transfiguration is closely associated with Christ's promise ?Add to this evidence of its relevancy to Peter's word in his epistle: "Moreover I will also be diligent that you may be able AFTER MY EXODUS, to bring these things to mind.

​

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you THE POWER AND COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, but we were EYEWITNESSES OF THAT ONE"S MAJESTY.

​

... while we were with Him in the holy mountain" (My emphasis, See 2 Peter 1:14-18) As for me having to point out the number 2000 years, it is wholly not necessary. How do I know it will not be another 1000 years from today when Jesus touches down on the earth physically again?It is only necessary that I point out that He stressed that no one knew the day or the hour. Since it is open ended, 2000 years is not a wrong amount of time.It may be latter than you expected.

Grabarger, I do not have time to write much this morning. But I read through your last posts. After looking up the definitions of attrition I had no idea what you meant by a me waging a battle of attribution, other than the fact that I won't simply give up to your view and say you're right.But anyway, in this little quote above the Transfiguration, Crucifixion, the Ascension, and Pentecost, I agree may not be the main subject of Christ's discourse in Matthew 16,24,24. But they are not that far removed either.He says for His disciples to pick up thier "cross" and follow Him (Matt.16:24). Does this not imply something about His crucifixion?What else is a cross for?He says that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached in the entire inhabited earth (Matt. 24:14). Does that not imply His intention to send them to do so as He did at Pentacost ?He says He is coming in the glory with His holy angels, shining and in splendour (Matt.25:31; 24:30). Doesn't that suggest His exaltation and ascension ?Sure it does. If He being a typical man standing on the ground is coming in the future on heavenly clouds with heavenly glory He had to first be taken up there. So the ascension is implied.While the transfiguration, crucifixion, Pentacost, and ascension are not the direct subject matter of His discourse. They are each implied.I would also point out that there are some indicators in His discourse that the disciples should not be too soon led to believe that that time has come:1.) "See that you are not alarmed, for it must happen; but the end is not yet." (Matt. 24:6)2.) "All these are the beginning of birth pangs" (24:5)3.) "But he who has endured to the end, this one shall be saved." (24:13)4.) And in Luke 17:22 Jesus tells them that first there will be a time in which they will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man. "And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it." (Luke 17:22)Jesus therefore ALSO teaches that before those days of His second coming there will be days in which the disciples will long to SEE those days, and "WILL NOT SEE IT"I don't know if this is your alledged "battle of attrition" or not. But you should admit that Jesus Christ also tempered His prediction with psychologically preparing His disciples against expecting His coming TOO SOON.Must continue latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you think that this is just a coincidence ? Matthew, Mark, and Luke all follow this promise of the Christ with the transfiguration.WHY ??I believe that the transfiguration was a preview of Christ's coming in glory at the end of the age. His coming in His kingdom as promised includes this preview that a few disciples were previledged to witness AND His second coming.The way Matthew, Mark, and Luke preceed that transfiguration immediately with Christ's prediction about some standing and being living witnesses suggests strongly that they understood the event that way. No angels are mentioned in the transfiguration. We have Moses and Elijah and a majestic voice. And the absence of angels is not significant if we consider verse 28 not to be limited to verse 27 but to be larger in scope and include verse 27. Peter, James, and John were the disciples who did not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, That is in its preview display as the Transfiguration.After the promise that some would be alive to see the Son of Man coming in His kindom we have Matthew jumping right into the transfiguration: "And after six days Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother and brought them up to a high mountain. And He was transfigured ..." (17:1) Is it a coincidence that the promise is immediately followed by those three disciples witnessing the transfiguration ?In Mark immediately after the promise that "some standing here who shall by no means taste death until they see the kingdom of God having come in power" Mark jumps right into the transfiguration as well: "And after six days Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up alone into a high mountain privately. And He was transfigured before them." Is it a coincidence that Mark follows the promise immediately with the transfiguration ? And we see some additional words - the three came up "alone" and were shown the event "privately".Then Luke also follows the promise immediately with the transfiguration: " ... some standing here who shall by no means taste death until they see the kingdom of God. And about eight days after these words ..."Please notice the deliberateness now displayed in Luke's account - "AND ABOUT EIGHT DAYS AFTER THESE WORDS ..."It is the previous WORDS concerning the standing and living witnesses of the kingdom of God. "He took with Him Peter and John and James, and went up into the mountain to pray. And as He prayed, the appearance of His face became different, and His garment dazzling white." In all three instances Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus conversing with Him. The writers of the Gospels certainly intend for us to associate this transfiguration scene and the two old testament prophets as: "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt. 16:28)
"the kingdom of God having come in power" (Mark 9:1)
"the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27) The event does not necessitate that they drop believing that the Son of Man will come at end of the age with His angels. The transfiguration does not mean that the second coming will not occur. Rather it is a preview of it.And to ignore how deliberately the evangelists place the event immediately after Jesus' promise to the contemporary discipes is to go against the spirit of the writers. Since the transfiguration was only a preview not all events associated with Christ closing the age occur at that time.It should also be pointed out that Jesus ALSO predicted His redemptive death and resurrection. "From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised." (Matt. 16:21)Grab insists that there is nothing about the crucifixion in His discourse about His second coming. But I am curious. Does Grab believe Jesus was predicting His death and resurrection AFTER His second coming or before?I think He was predicting His rejection, death, and resurrection as occuring before His victorious glorious appearing to subdue the world. Does it make sense that after the glorified king takes control of the globe with His mighty angels, He is condemned and killed by the subjects of His own kingdom ?So a PREVIEW of His kingdom and His coming in glory was necessary to prepare the disciples for the tragic rejection and seeming defeat of His crucifixion. They needed to witness transfiguration to establish their faith against the coming onslaught of His total rejection by Israel.Christ and a select few of His disciples both witnessed a preview of the kingdom of God before they tasted death. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In Luke 17:22 Jesus says: "The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it."Could one of those days also consist of fleeing?
Could one of those days consist of persecution?
Could the Roman general Titus coming to destroy Jerusalem possibly have been one of those days ?In the last 2000 years where Christians have suffered for various reasons and longed for Christ to come immediately ... could those days also be days Jesus spoke of ?I think yes. Days will come BEFORE the coming of the Son of Man in glory, in which we disciples will long for His coming prematurely. We will desire to see one of His days and will not.Then the Lord says "But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation" (Luke 17:25)I say again, if you do not want to be in the audience to hear the words of Jesus, that is your business. His word of encouragement, endurance, and promise speaks to many of us who DO desire to be His audience.Don't tell us "But Jesus was not talking to you".If heaven and earth will pass away before the words of Jesus will pass away then the words of Jesus are for anyone who has an ear to hear from now until the universe itself wears away.What is 2,000 years ? That's nothing. I am sorry for you if you have nothing so faithful and solid to base your hope on. Have you read the record of God keeping His promises in the earlier books of the Bible ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In the midst of His predictions of all the terrible things that will come upon the disciples and upon the world, Jesus warns that days will come BEFOREHAND.He does not say how many days. And Grab and Heretic have no authority to dictate that 2,000 years or 3,000 or more years is not allowed.It is simply "DAYS" . God will take what time God needs to take to work Himself into His people and constitute them saturated with His holy nature.I do not say that there is no sense of immediacy in the words of Jesus in Matthew 24. But with these words we have also words not to jump the gun concerning the end times: He also prepared His church for a potential long distance run.Grab's and Heretic's complaint really should be against the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Had they understood that the words of Jesus were irrelevant to all but the immediate living audience present to hear Him, they should have never preserved the sayings for us.According to Matthew and John we get no impression that Jesus went away or is gone anywhere.Matthew closes his gospel that Emmanual "God with us" is "with us" until the consummation of the age however long that may take: "And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20) Does Matthew hang the final words of Jesus on His second coming? No. He closes with Jesus promising ALWAYS to be with His disciples. He never leaves them. His coming back is only His physical return. Throughout all the days He is EMMANUEL - God with us.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We will deal with the parables in Matthew 35:1-13, 25:14-30, and the prophecy of 25:31-46 latter.All three argue against hERICtic's and Grab's opinion that Jesus did nothing to indicate that He was speaking ALSO to disciples in the future of some unknown span of time.For instance, in the parable of the faithful servants (25:14-30) Jesus speaks of the master of the servants coming back after a "long time". Why not a very short time ? "But he who had received the one went off and dug in the earth and hid his master's money.

​

Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them" (25:18,19) Why in this parable did Jesus specifiy that the master did not return to settle accounts until after "A LONG TIME"Who can dictate how "long" is "a long time". Who can say "a long time" cannot be over 2,000 years ?The business man, the master, may for the sake of reaping a good profit, take as long to return as he wishes.And Jesus Christ, in reaping spiritual profit in His people, may also choose to prolong His physical absence for more time, to reap more spiritual profit.Some disciples will be living at that time when He returns. Some will have fallen "asleep" in faith not having seen the second coming in their lifetimes.Why should we expect that this would be the case? It is obvious in John's gospel that it would be the case for John speaks of the resurrection of the believers. But how can we see in the synoptic gospels that it would be the case? If the Lord Jesus predicts that some disciples will be put to death (v.16) yet not a hair on their head will perish (v.18) the strong implication is that He will resurrect them from the dead.So we can expect that some saints in His audience will die, whether by natural causes or by persecution. Some will die soon. Some may die latter. But not a hair on their head will perish because EVERY believer in Jesus Christ will be resurrected from the dead eventually.In His discourse of His second coming, He speaks of disciples being alive. No matter how long He takes there will still be believers upon the earth alive when He arrives. He said in chapter 16 that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His builded church.So some will have died. And some will be living at His return.Now we take a brief look at Matthew 25. This teaching cannot be related to Christians. And it has nothing to do with resurrection.1.) It apparently is related to the nations or Gentiles THEN living when Jesus comes again. That fact that there are nations living when He returns does NOT insist that His return would not be 2,000 or more years latter from His discourse.2.) Neither the SHEEP or the GOATS knew the Lord. So the Lord's disciples are of neither the SHEEP or the GOATS. Rather His disciples are in the THIRD group. That is "THESE the least of My brothers".There are three catagories of people in the teaching.1.) Sheep of the nations, who did not know Christ but were kind to these the least of His brothers.2.) Goats of the nations, who also did not know Christ but were mean to these the least of His brothers.3.) These the least of His brothers.So the reward given to the sheep which has been prepared for them from the foundation of the world, is not the reward of men who follow Jesus.It is to men and women who did not KNOW Jesus but did not follow Antichrist to persecute the people who DID know Jesus. They listened to their God created conscience. They did not worship Antichrist as god. They instead listened to the God created conscience. This is predicted in Revelation 14 with the angel preaching from heaven an eternal gospel to fear God the Creator.Heretic's opinion is that the reward to the sheep is in response to this promise of the Lord Jesus: The sheep and the goats are repaid. There is no argument there. However, we cannot say that the rewarded sheep are rewarded because they denied themselves to follow Jesus. They did not know who Jesus was.... "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, Lord, when have we seen You hungry and have fed You, or thirsty and have given You drink? And when have we seen You a stranger and have taken You in, or naked and have clothed You? (25:37-39) These "righteous" sheep of the then living nations, seem not to know anything about Jesus. They are not disciples of Jesus.By the same token, those goat of the nations seem not to know about Jesus too.That is all that I will write in this post. However, my point is that the reward of Matthew 25, though it be a reward, is not to be identified with the reward of Jesus to His disciples in Matthew 16:24-27).Now, remember, Jesus had said that the one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. How these people treated the ones who were the leasts of the Lord's brothers, perceiving that they were innocent people of God wrongly persecuted and destituted, hungry, ill-clothed, and imprisioned, determines how the King will reward them. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Above I wrote this which needs some clarifying: Is the reward given to the sheep nations the prophet's reward or not?I believe that this teaching shows a people whom Jesus will reward to enter into eternal life who were not saved through the gospel of grace preached in the church age. As they did it to these the least of the Lord Jesus' brothers, they unaware were doing it to Jesus the King.The disciples of Jesus are with the group being well treated - "Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of these, the least of My brothers, you have done it to Me." (v.40)The rewarded kind sheep on the right hand of Jesus are not His disciples. But they were considerate TO His disciples down to the least of them His "brothers". I think this includes persecuted Jews also in the end times.Now if you will think about this logically for a moment it should make sense. Jesus promises to have His believers reign with Him in His kingdom over the globe. Who are they to reign over?It does not seem logical that they will reign over each other. So there must be a people left on the planet for Jesus and His rewarded disciples to reign over. Those people are the people living at the time of His second coming who are transfered from the age of the church into the age of the Messianic King.Not all living peoples will be transfered. But some who seem to have been considerate in the final days when the Christians and the elect Jews, the least of the Lord Jesus' brothers, are under the terrible persecution.These sheep nations are restored to the state of Adam before his fall. Adam was created with an everlasting life and was blessed to enjoy a kingdom from the foundation of the world. We know he relinquished that right when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.What is the difference between the SONS OF GOD who are reigning and the SHEEP nations over whom they are reigning ?The sons of God enjoy a blessing prepared for them from "BEFORE the foundation of the world " (Eph. 1:4) . But the restored sheep of the nations enjoy a blessing prepared since the creation of man, the blessing of " the kingdom prepared for you FROM the foundation of the world".The former is a matter of God's eternal purpose to have sons from before the creation of the universe. The latter is a matter of the "very good" earth prepared for an innocent and neutral man from the foundation of the world.Now, what follows is definitely preachy. So if you hate to be preached to you should stop reading here.==============================================
==============================================Okay. For all you who can stand a little preaching listen to me. Some of you dear beloved skeptics need to be careful. The day may come when you will have to take sides to join in to persecute Christians or stand aloof at your own risk and assist them.This may be a time when there are no Bibles to be found. Maybe they will all be burned. The world will polarize. You will have to take a stand to rid the earth of these Jesus types or realize that it is wrong to harass them.If you do not see that day perhaps your children will see that day. Be careful that you are not swepted away by a current of anti Christian hysteria. For the Antichrist will come on a flood of near universal resentment of God and Christ and the word of God.Listen again to the words of Jesus, this time on the negative side: The Bible says that in the end times those who are not marked with a certain mark of the Beast will not be able to buy or sell anything. This will be a time when those not coming under the Antichrist's government will be destitute, starving, sick, in prison, and refugees.There may be a hysteria about [b]"We will rid the earth once and for all of these God and Jesus people. We will starve them out. If they don't want this government this planet is not rightfully theirs. They should not buy or eat or sell or have benefit of medicine and they should be confined and put in prison."The resentment towards Christians is growing, especially in Europe where the Antichrist is likely to arise.This teaching of Matthew 25:31-46 should be considered a extra warning. Be careful how you treat the Lord's brothers. Be careful how you treat even the least of them.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The transfiguration is not only the next thing recorded in all three gospel. But the link is established in all three cases by telling us the number of days, actual or approximate. "AFTER six days ..." (Matthew 17:1)
"AFTER six days ..." (Mark 9:2)
"And about eight days AFTER ..." (Luke 9:28)And I think Luke is the most obvious link because Luke says "And about eight days AFTER THESE WORDS" (my emphasis) specifying that the next event followed the particulat WORDS of Jesus on some "be no means" tasting death "until they see the kingdom of God"It puzzles me why hERItic cannot grasp that Luke intends the transfiguration to be a specimen of "the kingdom of God".And why not. Jesus had taught the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was in their midst. And Jesus was in their midst! "And when He was questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said. The kingdom of God does not come with observations; Nor will they say, Behold, here it is! or, There For behold the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." (Luke 17:20,21) The meaning seems to be that as Jesus was in their midst the kingdom of God was in their midst. Likewise, on the mountain of transfiguration three trusted disciples witnessed the Christ in their midst with the glory of God breaking through the hidden concealment of His flesh. The threefold repetition of the sequence and the stress in Luke that it was "AFTER THESE WORDS" is the evidence.You have no explained as of yet that it is more likely coincidental.The rest of this section of Eric's reply is his objection that ALL of the details mentioned in connection with the end of the church age are not occuring on the mountian of transfiguration. We simply differ on the significance of this.The Lord's words were "until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" in Matthew 16:28. All three synoptic gospel then specify an event that occured a certain number of days latter.The specified interval of time, I take, as not coincidental but deliberate to establish the link between His promise and His transfiguration. When Peter reviews the transfiguration He highlights what He considers the most important aspects of it: " ... we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus hrist, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty.

​

For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to Him by the magnificent glory: This is My Son, My Beloved, in whom I delight, And this voice we heard bbeing borne out of heaven whle we were with Him in the holy mountain" (2 Peter 1:16-18)Those objecting cannot deny that the Apostle Peter associates this transfiguration experience with "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" .If it was not the entire "power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" was a preview, a specimen of "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Chrust".It should be obvious that the Apostle Peter is confirming that he was one of those who was alive to be a living witness of the preview of "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".Yes, Peter mentions no angels at that time. And also Peter mentions what was NOT mentioned by Jesus, the majestic voice saying that Jesus was the Beloved Son of God. But making a fuss about these details is not seeing the forest for the trees. They got a glimpse of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. That is precisely my point. The link is established between Jesus' previous words and the transfiguration by the specificity of the number of days between.That is not coincidental. That shows the relationship between the promise and the transfiguration. And the specifying of the names of the three disciples as witnesses also shows the connection is deliberate. I am saying that in this instance, the association is pretty obvious. They not only mention it. They mention it with a link to His promise. It should be most evident in the account of Luke - "And about eight days AFTER THESE WORDS, He took with Him Peter and John and James."It is not simply mentioned benighly next. It is pointed out that it was after THESE WORDS on the promise of Jesus that some standing by and living would see, in Luke's account, "the kingdom of God". This is not terribly significant to get into, IMO. It is not that easy to reconstruct who copied who. While it is generally agreed that Mark wrote first it is also peculiar that Luke says the two events were separated by ABOUT EIGHT DAYS whereas Mark and Matthew mention SIX days. And Luke's account seems that he is elaborating on some additional details about Christ's praying. Is it not true that verse 28 about some "standing here who shall by no means taste death until ..." was fulfilled by Peter and James and John being alive to see the transfiguration?The fact of some others dying or not dying six days latter does not make it less true. I think your complaint really has to be against the Gospel writers who arranged the account the way they did for the reader and with the associative phrases. In a court of law I think this would not hold. All would die before the second coming. Some would be alive to see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom as a preview. The rewards of the kingdom for denying the self and following Christ were not at that time given. You are insisting that they have to be. I believe that they have to be eventually. They do not have to be for the foretaste, the preview of the Lord's glorious coming in His kingdom. This is like the relationship between the state of California and the United States. Everyone in California is in the United States. But not everyone in the United States is in California.The scope of the state is smaller than the scope of the country. Yet it is contained in the entire country. The coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom is larger in scope than the second coming. It includes the transfiguration on the mountain.In this analogy the Coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom is like the United States. And the second coming at the end of the church age is the state of California.The Coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom contains both the event on the mount of transfiguration and the second coming of Christ obviously some thousand some years latter. I meant that the synoptic gospels seem deliberately to link Christ's promise about some standing and living to see something special WITH the event on the mountian six days latter. (ABOUT eight days after the words according to Luke).I am saying that mentioning of the intervening time is deliberate and not coincidental. But there is the Son of Man coming in His kingdom in the transfiguration event. Peter, James, and John, three trusted discples of the inner circle witnessed a preview of the glorified Christ with Moses and Elijah.It is not that difficult to see this as a PREVIEW. In modern terms we might discribe it as a trailer. A sneak preview of the end of the age.And there is little getting around that the Apostle Peter writes of it in that way in His second epistle.In the same epistle Peter says that the believers are also "partakers of the divine nature" (1 Pet. 1:4) They are not to be simply spectators of the divine nature. They are to be participants and partakers of that divine nature.So Peter understands that God is still working our His plan that the glory in Christ is to be wrought into the disciples. God is taking the time from the PREVIEW to the END of the age to wrought Himself into His people. That is to dispense His divine nature into their beings that they may not only shine with God but live with God.This living by the divine nature needs many many years of testing from every angle that its quality and approvedness may be manifested. So Jesus did not end the age immediately.We are still in the stage of Him dispensing His divine nature into man. That is all I will say about that now.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.