'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

I am expounding a portion of a parable related to the subject of the second coming of Christ. Not all mankind is the servant of Jesus Christ. So it relates to His servants which are His believers.The unbeliever is not the servant of Jesus. Right. And one of the points is that of endurance because the Master took a long time to come back. This is another discussion I sense beginning. And I would discuss it with you. But right now I only wish to emphasize that the whole human race is NOT the servants of Jesus Christ trading with His talents.The parable is about His disciples, those who believe into Him as Lord and Savior. The unbeliever does not own Jesus as his or her Master.The parable is not about all mankind. It is about that portion of mankind who has embraced Jesus as their Lord and Master. They serve Jesus. Mankind in as a whole does not. Yet He came to save all and be Savior of all. But all will not believe into Him or live unto Him to serve Him.This parable is not about Jesus settling accounts with those who have rejected Him for themselves as their Master. So how many years is not "near". And by what authority do you pronounce that so many years is not "nearby"?The parable I was expounding consists of the words from verse 14 to 30. Context is important. And your reference to "near" I think goes back to the previous chapter.All well and good. The parable should be considered in context. No problem. But who are you to dictate that a certain number of years cannot be "near" in God's mind ?There is no way, I think, that you can deny that in the same discussions about the nearness of Christ's second coming, there are also words which equip the believers for a possible long distance race.Otherwise, why would the Lord in His parable say that the master returned after a long time ? Whether short in man's eyes or long in man's eyes He still seeks the quality of spiritual life. And that I think you overlook in favor of pinpointing a timetable calender. The reward to the sheep and the goats is about HOW they treated the Christians. In that regard it is about how Christians were treated not about how they acted.And there is absolutely no mention of resurrection in the teaching of Matthew 25:31-46. When it says He gathers the nations He means the nations LIVING at that time. He will divide them into the sheep and the goats.Christ is the judge of the living and the dead (1 Peter 4:5; Acts 10:42; 17:33; 2 Tim. 4:1)Here in Matthew 25:31-46 He is judging the living. This is not the last judgment recorded in Revelation 20. That judgment of all the dead happens 1,000 years after the judgment of the living goats and sheep.You're problem probably is that you have an over simplified view of the judgments of God and Christ over different catagories of people. There is more than one judgment. And Matthew 25 is the judgment of the nations living at the time of the establishing of His millennial kingdom from Jerusalem.One thousands years latter at least is the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20. Yes. No. The ones who followed Jesus are the third group His brothers --"these the least of My brothers". The sheep and the goats are non-Christians who are judged according to how they treated the brothers of Jesus.If they are the brothers of Jesus, they would not have opportunity to do good because they are sick, in prison, naked, ill treated.So the sheep and the goats are outsiders to the household of Christian faith. The last three and a half years of this age are a time of transition. In this transition stage some are justified not according to the gospel preached for instance by Christians but by another criteria.I will not elaborate more on this now. Suffice it to say that the Christians are the brothers down to the least of them. And the sheep and the goats are outsiders to the household of Christian faith. What is examined is how they TREATED the members of the household of faith, the brothers of the Lord Jesus.Now I do not understand everything about this teaching. But I think I understand that this is not the same as a judgment upon man according to whether or not he believed into the Savior and Lord Jesus.We are told in Revelation 14 that at the end of this age when Antichrist insists that he is God and puts down every religion, the angel in the air will announce an eternal gospel. And the contents of that eternal gospel is about God the Creator. See Revelation 14:6,7.A supernatural announcement during those days must neutralize Antichrist's declaration that he is god. The Christians will be refugees, harassed and under terrible persecution.It is my firm opinion at this time that Antichrist will have a sphere of enfluence from which refugees will be fleeing. Other nations will accept or reject them. And I think that how they treat them will be important to how Jesus decides the destiny of these peoples in His earthly kingdom.At any rate, the judgment of Matthew 25:31-46 is not about His reward to His disciples but His reward to those according to how they treated His disciples. Explain why it is "absolutelu untrue". He does not say "Blessed of YOUR Father" which would argue for them being His spiritual brothers. Rather is blessed of "My FAther"Adam was a created man from the foundation of the world. The creation was to be enjoyed by Adam and his descendents.These sheep nations are to be restored back to the state of the created Adam before the fall of Adam. The ones ruling over them are the sons of God who are the ones with the "organic" and spiritual life of God to be God's sons.This is a little involved and requires more time and space. When Saul (Paul) persecuted the church, Jesus said, "Why do you persecute ME" Paul got the revelation that the church of Christ consisted of all His members as the corporate Christ. They were and are collectively Jesus Christ. So Jesus said that to persecute the church was to persecute HIM. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" In Matthew 25 we can see that to persecute the Lord's brothers down to the least of them is along the same principle. What they did or did not do to the people of Christ was what they did to Christ. So He says as they did or did not do to THESE the least of His brothers, they did to Him.This is therefore not the reward or punishment to the brothers. It is the reward or punishment to how the ignorant treated the brothers.This unbelief is probably based on ignorance of who Jesus Christ was rather than on rejection of who He was. What they did they had no idea that it was being done or not done to Jesus. So the teaching argues for their ignorance of Jesus rather than their familiarity with Him. I agree that it references the end times. That is the end of the church age. What is to follow this judgment is not the eternal age but the 1,000 year millennial kingdom.Read Revelation 20. Then read the first verses of Revelation 21.
Before the age of eternity there is the 1,000 year millennial kingdom. And this judgment conducted from the throne of Christ's glory in the holy land is at the beginning of that period.The last judgment of all the dead is in Revelation 20. And that is at least 1,000 years latter.Your eschatology is crude and more simplistic then what the Bible teaches. In the teaching the ones who represent the Lord's brothers down to the least of them may include resurrected believers, But the sheep and the goats are just those nations living on the earth at the time of His second coming.qs
Jay, how can you honestly state that Matthew 25 does not refer to the end times?? [/qs]I never said that exactly. But whatever you misunderstood me to say let me make it clear.At the close of the church age, at the end of the great tribulation will take place Christ's judgment of the nations that are left alive to witness His second coming. In that sense it certainly is a passage about the end times.But, the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world for the saved sheep is exactly that kingdom of 1,000 years spoken of in Revelation 20. And that is followed by the last judgment of the great white throne of all the dead. And that is also the time in which the age of eternity is brought in. See Revelation 21 and 22.You need to read carefully Revelation 20, 21 and 22. So Matthew 25:31-46 is part of the end times. But no so much the "end" that it is not followed by a millennial kingdom and a last judgment at the great white throne.No one said that the Bible is always simple. That's your erroneous opinion. Your eschatology is simplistic, crude, and elementary.You cannot even tell that all of mankind are NOT the servants of the Lord Jesus.You seem to be trying to make a Humanistic view of the Gospels. In such a view the EKKLESIA does not exist. And you probably teach about the brotherhood of man as all being servants of Jesus.This is way off. Are you a Universalist or a Unitarian ? I'll return probably to re-reply to this latter. It should not be ignored. I do not evade difficulties. But I did speak to this before. And we are doing quite a bit of repetition.Good morning. The sun is coming up now where I am. Been up with you since 3:00 something AM.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I do not consider refering to other passages as necessarily "bouncing all around". Below you refer to Matthew 10. I have no objection to that and do not accuse you of "bouncing all around."On a case by case basis I examine the merits of your reference.The crux of the disagreement is really basically that you maintain the Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 are precisely equivalent. And on that basis you reject the transfiguration on the mount as have anything to do at all with Christ's promise in Matthew 16:27.We disagree on that point. Below you refer to Matthew chapter 10. You have been speaking mainly of Matthew 24 and First Thesselonians 4:17. Some reference to Matthew 25 you have made. I do not react by accusing you of jumping around. I am happy to consider your scriptures on the basis of their relevancy to the issue.I in turn have brought in some passages which you have probably never considered before. I think verse 23 is a strong point in your favor. However, at present I think if Jesus did not have His second coming in the first century the problem is most likely not on the side of Jesus. The problem is on the side of the reluctant disciples who though being told to preach to all the cities of Israel and everywhere else, failed to do so.So while I agree that verse 23 may argue for a first century second coming of Jesus, the blame for it not occuring is more likely on the shoulders of the gospel preaching disciples.Paul said that he labored more abundantly than all the other apostles (yet it was the grace of God within him, he said). His comment suggests that he was more given to the great commission to spread the gospel.If verse 23 was a promise that Jesus would have His second coming in a few months or years, then if it did not happen, the disciples must have not adaquately held up their end of the arrangement.He had also told them to preach in Judea, and Samaria, and in all the earth. They did not go out on their own. God had to force them to spread by allowing fierce persecution to drive them out of Jerusalem.Let me ask you a question now. And don't say it is not relevant. You have been quite a stickler on the words of Jesus and their fulfillment. So do you believe that as He said, He would rise from the dead?Do you believe in a resurrected and living Jesus Christ today?Please do not recuse yourself or reply that it is not relevant or otherwise offer some excuse for dodging the question.We are talking about the validity of the words of Jesus Christ here. Are you selective in that regard? Or do you put the same amount of emphasis on His teaching about His death and resurrection ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think it refers to His second coming.So where does that leave us:1.) He came and we don't know about it.2.) He lied.3.) He was mistaken.4.) He actually never said it.5.) He changed His mind.6.) It is yet to be fulfilled.7.) The praying disciples asked Him to give them more time, and He did.8.) Jesus Himself was humanly limited and the Father had not revealed to Him that many more Isrealite cities would be built in the future.I think these are the only explanations I can suggest at the moment.Given the resume and track record of God in His dealings with man in the Old Testament, I am persuaded that whatever the explanation it should not be that the Son of God was lying.It is probably something to do with some conditions for His return not adaquately being matured yet.He has to come back FOR something. He is discribed as the Bridegroom. This Bridegroom is coming back for a mature woman and not a teenage girl. (The church is discribed as His bride and wife).Something in the maturity of His people must yet to be developed to entice Him to come back. This is a matter of spiritual warfare. And though there may have been a set back, we are assured of the eventual victory of Christ over the gospel opposing forces.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There is a relationship between the readiness of the people of God and the fulfillment of prophecy. From the standpoint of a skeptical unbeliever like yourself, God should just be a machine. And lifelessly, prophecy should just fall out Nostradamus style with no regard to the commanded cooperation of His people.The Apostle Peter wrote to the believers "Expecting and HASTENING the coming of the day of God ..." ( 2 Peter 3:12).The people of God not only are in expectation of the fulfillment of God's prophecy, they also have a part in cooperation to HASTEN it. This should mean that they may DELAY it also. And if you read through the Bible carefully you can see instances of God waiting for at least a remnant of His people to be in cooperation with His plan, who HASTENED the fulfullment of some promise.So Matthew 10:23 is no insurmountable problem to me. Though I am eager to give it more study. I certainly am not more impressed with the crocodile tears of some unbeliever hell bent on securing rationals to dismiss the Gospel. If that is the case then I do not regard Bible prophecy in the same way as the predicitions of Jean Dixon or Nostradamus, mechanical, dead, machinelike, with no regard to other things God has said revealing HOW His people must cooperate.To give you an example return now to Matthew 16 which you like so much. Consider these words which you have probably completely overlooked as you salivate over your supposed errors in the Bible.After the transfiguration on the mountain Jesus commanded the three disciples not to make the vision known until after He had risen from the dead. [b]"And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is raised from the dead." (v.9). In this passage the disciples were occupied with technical details of prophesy. Why has not Elijah the prophet not preceeded the kingdom of God as the Old Testament predicted. Jesus turns them rather to spiritual cooperation.John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah and as the virtual Elijah. And the reaction to John the Baptist was totally innapropriate, especially from the prophesy studying scribes. They challenged him. They rejected him. And they did no receive his forerunning ministry as coming from God.Thier reaction exposed them. God however cannot be stopped. He may be delayed. Man's unbelief may cause Him a little trouble and delay. But He will secure a remnant of harmonious followers nonetheless to bring in His purpose in full.So the second coming of Christ I do not regard as a lifeless, machine like event that has absolutely nothing to do with the cooperation and readiness of His people. I am not disappointed in the anomally of Matthew 10:23. Having read the Bible carefully from Genesis to Revelation, having contemplated the ways of God, Matthew 10:23 is by no means an insurmountable problem to me. I see no untruth spoken by Christ. There may be something there that I don't know enough about.I am not going to toss away the New Testament because of the apparent difficulty of Matthew 10:23. We are presently praying for those villages and towns in Israel. The gospel is being preached today in Israel and though I am not physically there, I am supportive of those native Israelite Christians who are.I can see the wickedness of the attitude of scofferes to count God's merciful long-suffering as God's failure. Peter said concerning the Lord's seeming delay - For the sake of God's merciful "long-suffering", not intending that ANY should perish, but that all "advance to repentence" He prolongs to the time of His judgment to fall. I see exactly what you mean. I am willing to study the passage more. But if you are waiting for some ton of bricks of disappointment to drop on me so that I toss my New Testament into the garbage, that's not going to happen.I am particularly thankful that the Gospel writers did not attempt to exclude that passage. I am thankful for thier impressive faithfulness to include difficult sayings of Jesus.This candidness of the writers to include potentially embarressing and difficult sayings of Jesus goes to convince me more of the Gospel's authenticity. In Matthew Jesus also said that the gates of Hades (death) would not prevail against His church which He builds. So we cannot lose.Though His second coming has been prolonged for the sake of God's longsuffering that more would advance to repentence, the church of Christ, like an anvil, has worn out many hammers for 2,000 years.So little Heretic, you join the other hammers and do your best. As a disciple of Jesus, I look to the other disciples to see what their attitude was. I don't see the Apostle Peter dejected, depressed, down-hearted about the matter. Rather he is quite encouraging as he writes about his own expected demise: I think I'll take my attitude from Peter rather than from you. He witnessed the transfiguration. He was one going to the villages to preach the Gospel of Christ. He is the one whom Jesus apparently informed to prepare to die. And he is the one who left us with totally encouraging reminders and helps to carry on after his death.So I sense God working through him. As for the scoffers and mockers Peter speaks of in his epistles, they very much remind me of Christ's preeminent instructions about the end of the age.That is we should not be lead astray by false prophets, false Christ's and false teachers. I count your kind of exposition as false expounding of the Gospel.Compare: Jesus - "And Jesus answered and said to them, See that no one leads you astray. " (Matt. 24:4)The Apostle Peter - "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) You last days mockers seem to be right on time. That is those trying to convince Christians that He is not trustworthy and will not come again.This is very hard for me to accept because I sense that He is with me already - "Behold I am with you always even to the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20) The One who lives within me is more persuasive then the scoffers and skeptical unbelievers. Could it be that some aspects of the message which are personally difficult to you jade your view to account them as not authentic ? You did not see me saying that Jesus probably did not say what was recorded in Matt. 10:23).I don't select the sayings as authentic based on a subjective filter, "What I like I take as authentic. What I don't like is embellishment or unreliable."This is a problem with many New Testament readers. They are too subjective, choosing what they want to be turned off by. From this response it seem you regard fear as the only motive to believe the Gospels. You don't want to be "so scared".There is certainly the splendour of a Wonderful Person Christ. No one can compete with Him in beauty and in truth. No once can compare to Him in wisdom. Some of us love Him just for Himself. We find Jesus a believable Person. I eventually found that the whole NT either stands together or falls together. The same mouth that spoke about His coming before all the villages of Israel would be visited also spoke that He would be killed and on the third day arise.Those early disciples gave their lives for something. They were transformed from a band hiding out for fear of themselves being executed to spreading the gospel everywhere.I think that they understood that if Jesus kept His word about rising from the dead He would also keep it about coming in glory someday. There is no hint in the Acts or the Epistles that because He had not yet come it was all over.I don't think your case is strong enough to prove "absudities" and "errors" in the Gospels.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What I emphasis is that nothing is needed whatsoever of people's part. Its predected to happen and it suppose to happen.It is essentially like occult fortune telling. I do not regard God's prophecy in the same way. The evidence for a basis of that understanding immediately follows the transfiguration in Matthew 16:10-13.So you as one of the persecutors are now turning around and scolding them that the Lord did not come. That's neat.Maybe He delayed at their request so that people like you might be saved. Perhaps they had relatives and loved ones whom they were burdened would not be lost.I will not repeat the matter endlessly. Peter does not seemed to be devastated about Matthew 10:23. I don't think I should be.You see, I am will to admit that there are some unknowns in the Bible. That is good because you displayed a hefty amount of misunderstanding on some passages. The difference with me in you may be that if I turn out to be wrong I will have lost nothing. It is still the best possible life I could have lived.If I come to the end of my brief life on earth and see that Jesus Christ was not real I will have no regrets. If I had a hundred lives to live I would not like to waste one of them not believing in the God of the Bible.As it stands I am assured that the truth is in Jesus Christ. But it is the most fulfilling life I could have chosen to live, believing that the Spirit of the resurrected Son of God lives in me transforming me and building me up into His family.If you have something better to live for, what is it ? Do you intend to be non-comittal about it for the rest of your life? Something wrong with needing the Bible to be true ?
I also need water to quench my thirst. I die without it.
Does that make water an illusion?What do you have that is superior to Jesus Christ ? The phrase "afterlife" is nowhere in the Bible. Resurrection is there.And unlike you I do not only expect life on the other side of the grave to be fulfilling. As I said, living and walking with the Son of God is the best possible life I could have lived.If the Bible turns out to be wrong and I had a chance to do it all over again I would say "Let me have that Jesus Christ matter again. Only this time sooner in life so I have more time to enjoy that matter." What do you have that is superior to the Son of God ? The Christ working in my life is my best evidence. I know that I did not and could not bring the changes within myself that the Spirit of Jesus has.Outside of me, objectively, the evidence is also very convincing. I would like you to go through the entire chapter of Matthew 24, 25 and specify which sayings you hold as authentic of Jesus and which you do not - verse by verse.What we're likely to find is that you conspiracy theory requires more a leap of faith then to just take the words as of Christ. What specific passage are you refering to? Probably you don't have too strong a case. Since it seems not to have discouraged the apostles, perhaps there is something more I don't know. Peter and John in thier writings don't even mention it. And they surely do not leave us with the impression that Matthew 10:23 invalidates the ministry of Christ including the second coming. One down (very questionionably) and 99 to go. Yep, we're back to the same problem. How many years constitutes "near"?What gives you the authority to dictate 2,000 or more years is not "near"? This has been refuted. I will not repeat the discussion.I think for your argument Matthew 10:23 may be a better example. Peter refered to the event as I have indicated. And Peter refered to them being eyewitnesses to the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when they were with Him in the holy mountian. (2 Peter 1:12-18).Peter associates strongly, the transfiguraion with the power and coming of Christ. His whole tone is contrary to yours. And I take his word over yours.And if all you have now is to repeat previous concepts I think we have run the course. Some of your misconcepts about Matthew 25 could be further examined perhaps. But I have no more to say on your Matthew 16:27,28 that I have not already made as clear as possible. "All the tribes of the land" meaning the Jewish tribes living in the Holy Land to which Christ will descend.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.

Excuse me if I come off grumpy these days. I may get back to our other discussion.I think that the (plural) keys to the were the "keys" of his two gospel messages. One key allowed the Jews to entire into the church life at Pentacost. And the other key he used to open the way for the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius to enter into the church life.He had a key for the Jews and a key for the Gentiles - the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.What do you think ? (No big discussion understood).

If you have been following this dicussion what is your take on Matthew 10:23 ?

I understand your point. No comment right now.

I may go back and pick up a few points not spoken to adaquately.To my reference Luke 17:22 a poster replied: I don't think so. I think "one of the days of the Son of Man" refers to His victorious and supernatural coming crushing the enemies of God. Let's look at context: Clearly, "the Son of Man ... in His day" is the meaning of "one of the days of the Son of Man".Because some, like the Pharisees, will want the kingdom to come outwardly, but neglect the living King Jesus in their midst, they are likely to prematurely go out after other people or signs. Jesus is warning His disciples that though they may long to see the second coming of Christ they will not see it simply because they have such a longing. "This generation" will be a rejecting generation. And this rejection will both preceed Christ's victorious descent and cause the disciples to long for such a vindication before God is pleased to bring it in.As for the disciples longing again to have Jesus with them, He had taught them that it was expedient for them that He go away to send the Holy Spirit to indwell them (John 16:7).The indwelling presence of Jesus was more vital and powerful then His outward being among them. And this indwelling had to be tested. "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit ." (1 Cor. 15:45)
And it was expedient that the Christ among them would become the Christ within them to be their life. 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.

That has happened to me. An hour's labor lost in a second. First of all "tribes of the land" is an admissable translation of the Greek. The Recovery Version renders it that way. "Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the land will mourn over Him. Yes, amen."The Emphasized Bible also translates Rev. 1:7

​

- "Lo! He cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, such also as pierced him; and all the tribes of the land shall smite themselves for him, Yea! Amen." Israel is not mentioned in the passage. But what is mentioned is a reference to Zechariah 12:10 where tribes of the Holy Land would make perfect sense according to Zechariah's prophecy: That the Holy Spirit would have John write "all the tribes of the land" seems consistent with the prophecy showing the repentence of Jewish families local to Jerusalem. Quote the passage properly please. The only important question is whether Peter and James and John, witnesses to the preview of "the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:16), , ie, "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" eyewitnessed what they saw before tasting death.They did. In the intervening six to eight days, who died is not important to me. Who died after the event seen is also not important to me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That God would promise some of His saints that they would see His salvation before death is not new. And if we examine a similar promise to the aged Simeon in the Gospel of Luke. Simeon, by faith, counted the seeing of that baby boy the witnessesing of the salvation and glory of God to Israel.Evidently, Peter in (2 Peter 1:16-18) counted the transfiguration in a similar way of Christ keeping His promise in Matthew 16:28. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Revelation 1:17 speaks of Christ coming on the clouds. This should be the visible descent of Christ at the end of the great tribulation.The Son of Man coming in His kingdom in Matthew 17:1 was a kind of minature of the kingdom. It was a preview.And there is also a question or two which you have not answered me, in turn. Quote me please, where I said that your paraphrase is exactly how it should read. If you want to paraphrase, that's up to you. Don't accuse me of saying your paraphrase is exactly the way it should read.Can you quote any paraphraased English language New Testament where "transfiguration" is substituted for "Son of Man coming in His kingdom"?Living Bible?
J.B. Phillips ?
Good News For Modern Man ? You are not being honest now. Stating that the transfiguration is the interpretation of the phrase "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" is not saying the words should be changed in verse 28. This is stealth debating. I don't regard it as honest.
You have dropped down a notch in my estimation as a serious Bible student.Tricky. Clever. Nothing more. You don't need to play tricks like this to argue your point.All you need to do is say that you do not believe that the event in Matthew 17 is the interpretation of the words in Matthew 16:28.And to that, which you have repeatedly argue, I respond once more that I disagree. And I think Peter is on my side, Because in his epistle he says they were eyewitnesses to coming and power of our Lord Jesus Christ when they were with him in the holy mountian.At the very least, Peter is pointing to that precise experience as a he had with James and John, as a foretaste, an appetizer of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I interpreted the transfiguration as a part of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. I said the relationship to the second coming was something like the relationship between the country of the US and the state in that country of California.The the scope of "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" includes the second coming and the preview, the minature of it on the mount of transfiguration. Read it again. "16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, .... BUT ... we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. " (my emphasis) Not cleverly devised myths about His power and COMING .... BUT .... eyewitness testimony.In contrast to cleverly devised myths of human origin they have eyewitness testimony which took place on the holy mountian TO "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"It is not only what they heard. It was what their eyes saw. Christ, dazzling with the divine splendour. This was a specimen of His second coming. This was a preview of what is to come.And again, your argument is not so much with me. It should be with Matthew, Mark, Luke. They deliberately followed the words of Jesus concerning the promise of eyewitnesses WITH the transfiguration.What do you think was in thier minds to arrange the matters in that sequence? Why does Luke specifically point out that it was about eight days "AFTER THESE WORDS" that they eyewitnessed the transfiguration ?Since neither one of us is going to convince the other to change his mind apparently, I will jump down to see if you have anything new on the matter. Good for you. Set up a YouTube file so every one can hear you laughing, why don't you ? Laugh harder.I think it is time for me to move on to another topic. The only other thing you can do for me is, as I requested, explain what it is you have which is more valuable than the Son of God. I'd like to know what you think I am missing by putting my hope in the Christ and the kingdom of God.Maybe that was in the post that you lost. If so you don't have to re-write a long post. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Copied by permission from Christian Think Tank, of Glenn Miller

The article took the "issue" head on. As I have understood the passage, some standing there did not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Peter, James and John were their names.That is the main thing. I am not hunting to find out who died. You are really twisting the promise as a warped garuantee that some will DIE. As Christians our priorities are different from yours. You argue, "But nobody DIED before the transfiguration in the next chapter. So it CANNOT be the fulfillment of the promise of 16:28."I do not think it is not the fulfillment in preview, in minature of the promise of 16:28 because no one is mentioned to have DIED. Maybe it was not intended for you. Others may be helped to read it. I do not off hand reject a pasted quotation to support your view on general principle. I would examine the opinion on its merits. If you are refering to Revelation 1:17 I have directly answered it. And I do not understand why you seem to feel you have some kind of strong irrefutable point so that you keep asking again and again.I have to run an errand now. Let me finish addressing this last post before you add more.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is right that I have repeated many times what you apparently cannot understand. Thankyou for admitting that I told you over and over again. The Coming of the Son of Man includes the Transfiguration and the Second Coming.What I did NOT tell you was that the translation of verse 27 should be CHANGED to read "transfiguration".The trick was to make it a appear that I am changing the translation of Matthew 16:27 to actually READ "transfiguration" where it says "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".If I meant that the translation should be changed then I would have argued that. This is a matter of interpretation and not translation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.